RESUMO
Rationale & Objective: The option for A2/A2B deceased donor kidney transplantation was integrated into the kidney allocation system in 2014 to improve access for B blood group waitlist candidates. Despite excellent reported outcomes, center uptake has remained low across the United States. Here, we examined the effect of implementing an A2/A2B protocol using a cutoff titer of ≤1:8 for IgG and ≤1:16 for IgM on blood group B kidney transplant recipients at a single center. Study Design: Retrospective observational study. Setting & Participants: Blood group B recipients of deceased donor kidney transplants at a single center from January 1, 2019, to December 2022. Exposure: Recipients of deceased donor kidney transplants were analyzed based on donor blood type with comparisons of A2/A2B versus blood group compatible. Outcomes: One-year patient survival, death-censored allograft function, primary nonfunction, delayed graft function, allograft function as measured using serum creatinine levels and estimated glomerular filtration rate at 1 year, biopsy-proven rejection, and need for plasmapheresis. Analytical Approach: Comparison between the A2/A2B and compatible groups were performed using the Fisher test or the χ2 test for categorical variables and the nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables. Results: A total of 104 blood type B patients received a deceased donor kidney transplant at our center during the study period, 49 (47.1%) of whom received an A2/A2B transplant. Waiting time was lower in A2/A2B recipients compared with blood group compatible recipients (57.9 months vs 74.7 months, P = 0.01). A2/A2B recipients were more likely to receive a donor after cardiac death (24.5% vs 1.8%, P < 0.05) and experience delayed graft function (65.3% vs 41.8%). There were no observed differences in the average serum creatinine level or estimated glomerular filtration rate at 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year post kidney transplantation, acute rejection, or primary nonfunction. Limitations: Single-center study. Small cohort size limiting outcome analysis. Conclusions: Implementation of an A2/A2B protocol increased transplant volumes of blood group B waitlisted patients by 83.6% and decreased the waiting time for transplantation by 22.5% with similar transplant outcomes.
Recipient blood type is one of the main determinants of waiting time to receive a deceased donor kidney transplant. Patients with blood type B have some of the longest waiting times for a kidney in the United States. Minorities comprise a large percentage of blood group B waitlist patients, contributing to observed racial differences in kidney transplantation rates. In this study, accepting an A2/A2B incompatible kidney resulted in receiving a kidney transplant almost 18 months earlier compared with receiving a blood group compatible kidney. No differences in outcomes were seen by accepting A2/A2B kidneys.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: An increasing number of older patients are undergoing evaluation for kidney transplantation; however, older patients experience increased rates of complications compared with younger patients, leading to the study of frailty assessments. Although many centers have evaluated the Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP), less is known about the ability of the Short Performance Physical Battery (SPPB) to predict outcomes. METHODS: Frailty assessment by FFP and SPPB was introduced into routine outpatient evaluation for patients aged 55 years and older referred for transplantation. Transplant rate, length of stay, readmission up to 3 months posttransplant, and death were reviewed. Patients were evaluated in an initial cohort followed by a validation cohort by FFP and SPPB. Multivariate analysis correcting for demographic characteristics was applied. RESULTS: Patient cohorts reflected the racial and ethnic diversity of our population, including approximately 40% Hispanic patients. The first cohort of 514 patients demonstrated a significant association between frailty as measured by SPPB and transplantation (odds ratio [OR], 2.27; 95% CI, 1.38-3.83; p = .002). The second cohort of 1408 patients validated the association between frailty measured by SPPB and transplantation (OR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.83-4.48; p < .001). In addition, there was a significant association between nonfrail status measured by SPPB and death (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.62; p = .006). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty assessment is a potentially useful approach for the assessment of transplant candidates. Our real-world study examined the performance of 2 methods of frailty evaluation methods in a diverse population, demonstrating that SPPB but not FFP was predictive of clinical outcomes. Incorporation of frailty assessments into transplant evaluation may improve risk stratification and optimize outcomes for older patients.