The Relationships Between Cold Ischemia Time, Kidney Transplant Length of Stay, and Transplant-related Costs.

BACKGROUND: Recent changes in policies guiding allocation of transplant kidneys are predicted to increase sharing between distant geographic regions. The potential exists for an increase in cold ischemia time (CIT) with resulting increases in delayed graft function (DGF) and transplant-related costs (TRC). We sought to explore the impact of CIT on metrics that may influence TRC. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2014, 81 945 adult solitary deceased donor kidney transplants were performed in the United States; 477 (0.6%) at our institution. Regression models were constructed to describe the relationship between CIT on DGF and length of stay (LOS). Using hospital accounting data, we created regression models to evaluate the effect of DGF on LOS and TRC. RESULTS: In multivariable models, longer CIT was associated with an increased rate of DGF (odds ratio [OR], 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-1.44) and increased LOS (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05). Recipients at our institution who developed DGF had longer LOS (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.50-1.95), suggesting that the effect is partially mediated by DGF. After adjusting for LOS, neither CIT nor DGF were independently associated with increased TRC. However, an increased LOS resulted in an increase in TRC by US $3422 (95% CI, US $3180 to US $3664) per additional day, indicating that the effect of CIT on TRC is partially mediated through LOS. CONCLUSIONS: The prolongation of CIT is associated with an increase in DGF rates and LOS, resulting in increased TRC. This study raises the need to balance increased access of traditionally underserved populations to kidney transplant with the inadvertent increase in TRC.

Long-term Outcomes for Living Pancreas Donors in the Modern Era.

BACKGROUND: Living donor segmental pancreas transplants (LDSPTx) have been performed selectively to offer a preemptive transplant option for simultaneous pancreas-kidney recipients and to perform a single operation decreasing the cost of pancreas after kidney transplant. For solitary pancreas transplants, this option historically provided a better immunologic match. Although short-term donor outcomes have been documented, there are no long-term studies. METHODS: We studied postdonation outcomes in 46 segmental pancreas living donors. Surgical complications, risk factors (RF) for development of diabetes mellitus (DM) and quality of life were studied. A risk stratification model (RSM) for DM was created using predonation and postdonation RFs. Recipient outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Between January 1, 1994 and May 1, 2013, 46 LDSPTx were performed. Intraoperatively, 5 (11%) donors received transfusion. Overall, 9 (20%) donors underwent splenectomy. Postoperative complications included: 6 (13%) peripancreatic fluid collections and 2 (4%) pancreatitis episodes. Postdonation, DM requiring oral hypoglycemics was diagnosed in 7 (15%) donors and insulin-dependent DM in 5 (11%) donors. RSM with three predonation RFs (oral glucose tolerance test, basal insulin, fasting plasma glucose) and 1 postdonation RF, greater than 15% increase in body mass index from preoperative (Δ body mass index >15), predicted 12 (100%) donors that developed postdonation DM. Quality of life was not significantly affected by donation. Mean graft survival was 9.5 (±4.4) years from donors without and 9.6 (±5.4) years from donors with postdonation DM. CONCLUSIONS: LDSPTx can be performed with good recipient outcomes. The donation is associated with donor morbidity including impaired glucose control. Donor morbidity can be minimized by using RSM and predonation counseling on life style modifications postdonation.

Tolerance--is it worth it?

We are entering an exciting time in the study of immunologic tolerance. Several cellular and molecular strategies have been developed that show promise in nonhuman transplant models and these approaches are just now appearing in clinical trials. Tolerance strategies that prevent immune rejection and obviate the need for immunosuppressive medications (with inherent risk of cancer, infection, and organ toxicity) would improve both graft and patient survival. Each tolerance protocol brings its own set of associated risks. As the results of these trials become available, we must continue to evaluate their successes and failures. The balance of these outcomes will help us answer the question: "Tolerance-Is it worth it?"