Normothermic and hypothermic machine perfusion preservation versus static cold storage for deceased donor kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation is the optimal treatment for kidney failure. Donation, transport and transplant of kidney grafts leads to significant ischaemia reperfusion injury. Static cold storage (SCS), whereby the kidney is stored on ice after removal from the donor until the time of implantation, represents the simplest preservation method. However, technology is now available to perfuse or "pump" the kidney during the transport phase ("continuous") or at the recipient centre ("end-ischaemic"). This can be done at a variety of temperatures and using different perfusates. The effectiveness of these treatments manifests as improved kidney function post-transplant. OBJECTIVES: To compare machine perfusion (MP) technologies (hypothermic machine perfusion (HMP) and (sub) normothermic machine perfusion (NMP)) with each other and with standard SCS. SEARCH METHODS: We contacted the information specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies until 15 June 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing machine perfusion techniques with each other or versus SCS for deceased donor kidney transplantation were eligible for inclusion. All donor types were included (donor after circulatory death (DCD) and brainstem death (DBD), standard and extended/expanded criteria donors). Both paired and unpaired studies were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The results of the literature search were screened, and a standard data extraction form was used to collect data. Both of these steps were performed by two independent authors. Dichotomous outcome results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Survival analyses (time-to-event) were performed with the generic inverse variance meta-analysis of hazard ratios (HR). Continuous scales of measurement were expressed as a mean difference (MD). Random effects models were used for data analysis. The primary outcome was the incidence of delayed graft function (DGF). Secondary outcomes included graft survival, incidence of primary non-function (PNF), DGF duration, economic implications, graft function, patient survival and incidence of acute rejection. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-two studies (4007 participants) were included. The risk of bias was generally low across all studies and bias domains. The majority of the evidence compared non-oxygenated HMP with standard SCS (19 studies). The use of non-oxygenated HMP reduces the rate of DGF compared to SCS (16 studies, 3078 participants: RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.88; P < 0.0001; I2 = 31%; high certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis revealed that continuous (from donor hospital to implanting centre) HMP reduces DGF (high certainty evidence). In contrast, this benefit over SCS was not seen when non-oxygenated HMP was not performed continuously (low certainty evidence). Non-oxygenated HMP reduces DGF in both DCD and DBD settings in studies performed in the 'modern era' and when cold ischaemia times (CIT) were short. The number of perfusions required to prevent one episode of DGF was 7.69 and 12.5 in DCD and DBD grafts, respectively. Continuous non-oxygenated HMP versus SCS also improves one-year graft survival (3 studies, 1056 participants: HR 0.46, 0.29 to 0.75; P = 0.002; I2 = 0%; high certainty evidence). Assessing graft survival at maximal follow-up confirmed a benefit of continuous non-oxygenated HMP over SCS (4 studies, 1124 participants (follow-up 1 to 10 years): HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77; P = 0.0005; I2 = 0%; high certainty evidence). This effect was not seen in studies where HMP was not continuous. The effect of non-oxygenated HMP on our other outcomes (PNF, incidence of acute rejection, patient survival, hospital stay, long-term graft function, duration of DGF) remains uncertain. Studies performing economic analyses suggest that HMP is either cost-saving (USA and European settings) or cost-effective (Brazil). One study investigated continuous oxygenated HMP versus non-oxygenated HMP (low risk of bias in all domains); the simple addition of oxygen during continuous HMP leads to additional benefits over non-oxygenated HMP in DCD donors (> 50 years), including further improvements in graft survival, improved one-year kidney function, and reduced acute rejection. One large, high-quality study investigated end-ischaemic oxygenated HMP versus SCS and found end-ischaemic oxygenated HMP (median machine perfusion time 4.6 hours) demonstrated no benefit compared to SCS. The impact of longer periods of end-ischaemic HMP is unknown. One study investigated NMP versus SCS (low risk of bias in all domains). One hour of end ischaemic NMP did not improve DGF compared with SCS alone. An indirect comparison revealed that continuous non-oxygenated HMP (the most studied intervention) was associated with improved graft survival compared with end-ischaemic NMP (indirect HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.92; P = 0.03). No studies investigated normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) or included any donors undergoing NRP. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Continuous non-oxygenated HMP is superior to SCS in deceased donor kidney transplantation, reducing DGF, improving graft survival and proving cost-effective. This is true for both DBD and DCD kidneys, both short and long CITs, and remains true in the modern era (studies performed after 2008). In DCD donors (> 50 years), the simple addition of oxygen to continuous HMP further improves graft survival, kidney function and acute rejection rate compared to non-oxygenated HMP. Timing of HMP is important, and benefits have not been demonstrated with short periods (median 4.6 hours) of end-ischaemic HMP. End-ischaemic NMP (one hour) does not confer meaningful benefits over SCS alone and is inferior to continuous HMP in an indirect comparison of graft survival. Further studies assessing NMP for viability assessment and therapeutic delivery are warranted and in progress.

Routine intraoperative ureteric stenting for kidney transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Major urological complications (MUCs) after kidney transplantation contribute to patient morbidity and compromise graft function. The majority arise from vesicoureteric anastomosis and present early after transplantation. Ureteric stents have been successfully used to treat such complications. A number of centres have adopted a policy of universal prophylactic stenting at the time of graft implantation to reduce the incidence of urine leaks and ureteric stenosis. Stents are associated with specific complications, and some centres advocate a policy of only stenting selected anastomoses. This is an update of our review, first published in 2005 and last updated in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To examine the benefits and harms of routine ureteric stenting to prevent MUCs in kidney transplant recipients. SEARCH METHODS: We contacted the Information Specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register (up to 19 June 2024) using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: Our meta-analysis included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs designed to examine the impact of using stents for kidney transplant recipients. We aimed to include studies regardless of the type of graft, the technique of ureteric implantation, or the patient group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve studies (1960 patients) were identified. One study was deemed to be at low risk of bias across all domains. The remaining 11 studies were of low or medium quality, with a high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Universal prophylactic ureteric stenting versus control probably reduces major urological complications (11 studies: 1834 participants: RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.55; P < 0.0001; I2 = 16%; moderate certainty evidence; number needed to treat (17)); this benefit was confirmed in the only study deemed to be at low risk of bias across all domains. This benefit was also seen for the individual components of urine leak and ureteric obstruction. Universal prophylactic ureteric stent insertion reduces the risk of MUC in the subgroup of studies with short duration (≤ 14 days) of stenting (2 studies, 480 participants: RR 0.39, 95% CI CI 0.21 to 0.72; P = 0.003; I2 = 0%) and where stenting was continued for > 14 days (8 studies, 124 participants: RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.61; P = 0.004; I2 = 29%). It is uncertain whether stenting has an impact on the development of urinary tract infection (UTI) (10 studies, 1726 participants: RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.80; P = 0.07; I² = 60%; very low certainty evidence due to risk of bias, heterogeneity and imprecision). Subgroup analysis showed that the risk of UTI did not increase if short-duration stenting was used (9 days) and that there was no impact on UTI risk when the prophylactic antibiotic regime co-trimoxazole 480 mg/day was used. Stents appear generally well tolerated, although studies using longer stents (≥ 20 cm) for longer periods (> 6 weeks) had more problems with encrustation and migration. There was no evidence that the presence of a stent resulted in recurrent or severe haematuria (8 studies, 1546 participants: RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.00; P = 0.79; I2 = 33%). The impact of stents on graft and patient survival and other stent-related complications remains unclear as these outcomes were either poorly reported or not reported at all. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Routine prophylactic stenting probably reduces the incidence of MUCs, even when the duration of stenting is short (≤ 14 days). Further high-quality studies are required to assess optimal stent duration. Studies comparing selective stenting and universal prophylactic stenting, whilst difficult to design and analyse, would address the unresolved quality of life and economic issues.

Donor Blood Tests do Not Predict Pancreas Graft Survival After Simultaneous Pancreas Kidney Transplantation; a National Cohort Study.

Simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplantation improves quality of life and limits progression of diabetic complications. There is reluctance to accept pancreata from donors with abnormal blood tests, due to concern of inferior outcomes. We investigated whether donor amylase and liver blood tests (markers of visceral ischaemic injury) predict pancreas graft outcome using the UK Transplant Registry (2016-2021). 857 SPK recipients were included (619 following brainstem death, 238 following circulatory death). Peak donor amylase ranged from 8 to 3300 U/L (median = 70), and this had no impact on pancreas graft survival when adjusting for multiple confounders (aHR = 0.944, 95% CI = 0.754-1.81). Peak alanine transaminases also did not influence pancreas graft survival in multivariable models (aHR = 0.967, 95% CI = 0.848-1.102). Restricted cubic splines were used to assess associations between donor blood tests and pancreas graft survival without assuming linear relationships; these confirmed neither amylase, nor transaminases, significantly impact pancreas transplant outcome. This is the largest, most statistically robust study evaluating donor blood tests and transplant outcome. Provided other factors are acceptable, pancreata from donors with mild or moderately raised amylase and transaminases can be accepted with confidence. The use of pancreas grafts from such donors is therefore a safe, immediate, and simple approach to expand the donor pool to reach increasing demands.

Does Time to Asystole in Donors After Circulatory Death Impact Recipient Outcome in Liver Transplantation?

BACKGROUND: The agonal phase can vary following treatment withdrawal in donor after circulatory death (DCD). There is little evidence to support when procurement teams should stand down in relation to donor time to death (TTD). We assessed what impact TTD had on outcomes following DCD liver transplantation. METHODS: Data were extracted from the UK Transplant Registry on DCD liver transplant recipients from 2006 to 2021. TTD was the time from withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment to asystole, and functional warm ischemia time was the time from donor systolic blood pressure and/or oxygen saturation falling below 50 mm Hg and 70%, respectively, to aortic perfusion. The primary endpoint was 1-y graft survival. Potential predictors were fitted into Cox proportional hazards models. Adjusted restricted cubic spline models were generated to further delineate the relationship between TTD and outcome. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred fifty-eight recipients of a DCD liver graft were included. Median TTD in the entire cohort was 13 min (interquartile range, 9-17 min). Restricted cubic splines revealed that the risk of graft loss was significantly greater when TTD ≤14 min. After 14 min, there was no impact on graft loss. Prolonged hepatectomy time was significantly associated with graft loss (hazard ratio, 1.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.83; P = 0.003); however, functional warm ischemia time had no impact (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-2.27; P > 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: A very short TTD was associated with increased risk of graft loss, possibly because of such donors being more unstable and/or experiencing brain stem death as well as circulatory death. Expanding the stand down times may increase the utilization of donor livers without significantly impairing graft outcome.

Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open nephrectomy for live kidney donors.

BACKGROUND: Waiting lists for kidney transplantation continue to grow. Live kidney donation significantly reduces waiting times and improves long-term outcomes for recipients. Major disincentives to potential kidney donors are the pain and morbidity associated with surgery. This is an update of a review published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of open donor nephrectomy (ODN), laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN), hand-assisted LDN (HALDN) and robotic donor nephrectomy (RDN) as appropriate surgical techniques for live kidney donors. SEARCH METHODS: We contacted the Information Specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 31 March 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDN with ODN, HALDN, or RDN were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility, assessed study quality, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information where necessary. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies randomising 1280 live kidney donors to ODN, LDN, HALDN, or RDN were included. All studies were assessed as having a low or unclear risk of bias for selection bias. Five studies had a high risk of bias for blinding. Seven studies randomised 815 live kidney donors to LDN or ODN. LDN was associated with reduced analgesia use (high certainty evidence) and shorter hospital stay, a longer procedure and longer warm ischaemia time (moderate certainty evidence). There were no overall differences in blood loss, perioperative complications, or need for operations (low or very low certainty evidence). Three studies randomised 270 live kidney donors to LDN or HALDN. There were no differences between HALDN and LDN for analgesia requirement, hospital stay (high certainty evidence), duration of procedure (moderate certainty evidence), blood loss, perioperative complications, or reoperations (low certainty evidence). The evidence for warm ischaemia time was very uncertain due to high heterogeneity. One study randomised 50 live kidney donors to retroperitoneal ODN or HALDN and reported less pain and analgesia requirements with ODN. It found decreased blood loss and duration of the procedure with HALDN. No differences were found in perioperative complications, reoperations, hospital stay, or primary warm ischaemia time. One study randomised 45 live kidney donors to LDN or RDN and reported a longer warm ischaemia time with RDN but no differences in analgesia requirement, duration of procedure, blood loss, perioperative complications, reoperations, or hospital stay. One study randomised 100 live kidney donors to two variations of LDN and reported no differences in hospital stay, duration of procedure, conversion rates, primary warm ischaemia times, or complications (not meta-analysed). The conversion rates to ODN were 6/587 (1.02%) in LDN, 1/160 (0.63%) in HALDN, and 0/15 in RDN. Graft outcomes were rarely or selectively reported across the studies. There were no differences between LDN and ODN for early graft loss, delayed graft function, acute rejection, ureteric complications, kidney function or one-year graft loss. In a meta-regression analysis between LDN and ODN, moderate certainty evidence on procedure duration changed significantly in favour of LDN over time (yearly reduction = 7.12 min, 95% CI 2.56 to 11.67; P = 0.0022). Differences in very low certainty evidence on perioperative complications also changed significantly in favour of LDN over time (yearly change in LnRR = 0.107, 95% CI 0.022 to 0.192; P = 0.014). Various different combinations of techniques were used in each study, resulting in heterogeneity among the results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: LDN is associated with less pain compared to ODN and has comparable pain to HALDN and RDN. HALDN is comparable to LDN in all outcomes except warm ischaemia time, which may be associated with a reduction. One study reported kidneys obtained during RDN had greater warm ischaemia times. Complications and occurrences of perioperative events needing further intervention were equivalent between all methods.

The impact of time to death in donors after circulatory death on recipient outcome in simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation.

The time to arrest donors after circulatory death is unpredictable and can vary. This leads to variable periods of warm ischemic damage prior to pancreas transplantation. There is little evidence supporting procurement team stand-down times based on donor time to death (TTD). We examined what impact TTD had on pancreas graft outcomes following donors after circulatory death (DCD) simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation. Data were extracted from the UK transplant registry from 2014 to 2022. Predictors of graft loss were evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards model. Adjusted restricted cubic spline models were generated to further delineate the relationship between TTD and outcome. Three-hundred-and-seventy-five DCD simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplant recipients were included. Increasing TTD was not associated with graft survival (adjusted hazard ratio HR 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.68-1.41, P = .901). Increasing asystolic time worsened graft survival (adjusted hazard ratio 2.51, 95% confidence interval 1.16-5.43, P = .020). Restricted cubic spline modeling revealed a nonlinear relationship between asystolic time and graft survival and no relationship between TTD and graft survival. We found no evidence that TTD impacts pancreas graft survival after DCD simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation; however, increasing asystolic time was a significant predictor of graft loss. Procurement teams should attempt to minimize asystolic time to optimize pancreas graft survival rather than focus on the duration of TTD.

Multi-Centre UK Analysis of Simultaneous Pancreas and Kidney (SPK) Transplant in Recipients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

90% of the UK diabetic population are classified as T2DM. This study aims to compare outcomes after SPK transplant between recipients with T1DM or T2DM. Data on all UK SPK transplants from 2003-2019 were obtained from the NHSBT Registry (n = 2,236). Current SPK transplant selection criteria for T2DM requires insulin treatment and recipient BMI < 30 kg/m2. After exclusions (re-transplants/ambiguous type of diabetes) we had a cohort of n = 2,154. Graft (GS) and patient (PS) survival analyses were conducted using Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox-regression models. Complications were compared using chi-squared analyses. 95.6% of SPK transplants were performed in recipients with T1DM (n = 2,060). Univariate analysis showed comparable outcomes for pancreas GS at 1 year (p = 0.120), 3 years (p = 0.237), and 10 years (p = 0.196) and kidney GS at 1 year (p = 0.438), 3 years (p = 0.548), and 10 years (p = 0.947). PS was comparable at 1 year (p = 0.886) and 3 years (p = 0.237) and at 10 years (p = 0.161). Multi-variate analysis showed comparable outcomes in pancreas GS (p = 0.564, HR 1.221, 95% CI 0.619, 2.406) and PS(p = 0.556, HR 1.280, 95% CI 0.563, 2.911). Comparable rates of common complications were demonstrated. This is the largest series outside of the US evaluating outcomes after SPK transplants and shows similar outcomes between T1DM and T2DM recipients. It is hoped dissemination of this data will lead to increased referral rates and assessment of T2DM patients who could benefit from SPK transplantation.