2-Step-Scores with optional nephropathology for the prediction of adverse outcomes for brain-dead donor kidneys in Eurotransplant.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: The decision for acceptance or discard of the increasingly rare and marginal brain-dead donor kidneys in Eurotransplant (ET) countries has to be made without solid evidence. Thus, we developed and validated flexible clinicopathological scores called 2-Step Scores for the prognosis of delayed graft function (DGF) and one-year death-censored transplant loss (1y-tl) reflecting the current practice of six ET countries including Croatia and Belgium. METHODS: The training set was n=620 for DGF and n=711 for 1y-tl, with validation sets n=158 and n=162. In step 1, stepwise logistic regression models including only clinical predictors were used to estimate the risks. In step 2, risk estimates were updated for statistically relevant intermediate risk percentiles with nephropathology. RESULTS: Step 1 revealed an increased risk of DGF with increased cold ischaemia time, donor and recipient BMI, dialysis vintage, number of HLA-DR mismatches or recipient CMV IgG positivity. On the training and validation set, c-statistics were 0.672 and 0.704, respectively. At a range between 18% and 36%, accuracy of DGF-prognostication improved with nephropathology including number of glomeruli and Banff cv (updated overall c statistics of 0.696 and 0.701, respectively).Risk of 1y-tl increased in recipients with cold ischaemia time, sum of HLA-A. -B, -DR mismatches and donor age. On training and validation sets, c-statistics were 0.700 and 0.769, respectively. Accuracy of 1y-tl prediction improved (c-statistics = 0.706 and 0.765) with Banff ct. Overall, calibration was good on the training, but moderate on the validation set; discrimination was at least as good as established scores when applied to the validation set. CONCLUSION: Our flexible 2-Step Scores with optional inclusion of time-consuming and often unavailable nephropathology should yield good results for clinical practice in ET, and may be superior to established scores. Our scores are adaptable to donation after cardiac death and perfusion pump use.

Design, cohort profile and comparison of the KTD-Innov study: a prospective multidimensional biomarker validation study in kidney allograft rejection.

There is an unmet need for robust and clinically validated biomarkers of kidney allograft rejection. Here we present the KTD-Innov study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03582436), an unselected deeply phenotyped cohort of kidney transplant recipients with a holistic approach to validate the clinical utility of precision diagnostic biomarkers. In 2018-2019, we prospectively enrolled consecutive adult patients who received a kidney allograft at seven French centers and followed them for a year. We performed multimodal phenotyping at follow-up visits, by collecting clinical, biological, immunological, and histological parameters, and analyzing a panel of 147 blood, urinary and kidney tissue biomarkers. The primary outcome was allograft rejection, assessed at each visit according to the international Banff 2019 classification. We evaluated the representativeness of participants by comparing them with patients from French, European, and American transplant programs transplanted during the same period. A total of 733 kidney transplant recipients (64.1% male and 35.9% female) were included during the study. The median follow-up after transplantation was 12.3 months (interquartile range, 11.9-13.1 months). The cumulative incidence of rejection was 9.7% at one year post-transplant. We developed a distributed and secured data repository in compliance with the general data protection regulation. We established a multimodal biomarker biobank of 16,736 samples, including 9331 blood, 4425 urinary and 2980 kidney tissue samples, managed and secured in a collaborative network involving 7 clinical centers, 4 analytical platforms and 2 industrial partners. Patients' characteristics, immune profiles and treatments closely resembled those of 41,238 French, European and American kidney transplant recipients. The KTD-Innov study is a unique holistic and multidimensional biomarker validation cohort of kidney transplant recipients representative of the real-world transplant population. Future findings from this cohort are likely to be robust and generalizable.

Time-Varying Determinants of Graft Failure in Pediatric Kidney Transplantation in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the time-varying determinants of kidney graft failure in children. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of primary pediatric kidney transplant recipients (younger than 18 years) from the Eurotransplant registry (1990-2020). Piece-wise exponential additive mixed models were applied to analyze time-varying recipient, donor, and transplant risk factors. Primary outcome was death-censored graft failure. RESULTS: We report on 4528 kidney transplantations, of which 68% with deceased and 32% with living donor. One thousand six hundred and thirty-eight recipients experienced graft failure, and 168 died with a functioning graft. Between 2011 and 2020, the 5-year graft failure risk was 10% for deceased donor and 4% for living donor kidney transplant recipients. Risk of graft failure decreased five-fold from 1990 to 2020. The association between living donor transplantation and the lower risk of graft failure was strongest in the first month post-transplant (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.46 to 0.73) and remained statistically significant until 12 years post-transplant. Risk factors for graft failure in the first 2 years were deceased donor younger than 12 years or older than 46 years, potentially recurrent kidney disease, and panel-reactive antibody >0%. Other determinants of graft failure included dialysis before transplantation (until 5 years post-transplant), human leukocyte antigen mismatch 2-4 (0-15 years post-transplant), human leukocyte antigen mismatch 5-6 (2-12 years post-transplant), and hemodialysis (8-14 years post-transplant). Recipients older than 11 years at transplantation had a higher risk of graft failure 1-8 years post-transplant compared with other age groups, whereas young recipients had a lower risk throughout follow-up. Analysis of the combined effect of post-transplant time and recipient age showed a higher rate of graft failure during the first 5 years post-transplant in adolescents compared with young transplant recipients. In contrast to deceased donor younger than 12 years, deceased donor older than 46 years was consistently associated with a higher graft failure risk. CONCLUSIONS: We report a long-term inverse association between living donor kidney transplantation and the risk of graft failure. The determinants of graft failure varied with time. There was a significant cumulative effect of adolescence and time post-transplant. The ideal donor age window was dependent on time post-transplant.

Rescue Allocation Modes in Eurotransplant Kidney Transplantation: Recipient Oriented Extended Allocation Versus Competitive Rescue Allocation-A Retrospective Multicenter Outcome Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Whenever the kidney standard allocation (SA) algorithms according to the Eurotransplant (ET) Kidney Allocation System or the Eurotransplant Senior Program fail, rescue allocation (RA) is initiated. There are 2 procedurally different modes of RA: recipient oriented extended allocation (REAL) and competitive rescue allocation (CRA). The objective of this study was to evaluate the association of patient survival and graft failure with RA mode and whether or not it varied across the different ET countries. METHODS: The ET database was retrospectively analyzed for donor and recipient clinical and demographic characteristics in association with graft outcomes of deceased donor renal transplantation (DDRT) across all ET countries and centers from 2014 to 2021 using Cox proportional hazards methods. RESULTS: Seventeen thousand six hundred seventy-nine renal transplantations were included (SA 15 658 [89%], REAL 860 [4.9%], and CRA 1161 [6.6%]). In CRA, donors were older, cold ischemia times were longer, and HLA matches were worse in comparison with REAL and especially SA. Multivariable analyses showed comparable graft and recipient survival between SA and REAL; however, CRA was associated with shorter graft survival. Germany performed 76% of all DDRTs after REAL and CRA and the latter mode reduced waiting times by up to 2.9 y. CONCLUSIONS: REAL and CRA are used differently in the ET countries according to national donor rates. Both RA schemes optimize graft utilization, lead to acceptable outcomes, and help to stabilize national DDRT programs, especially in Germany.

Immunized Patients Face Reduced Access to Transplantation in the Eurotransplant Kidney Allocation System.

BACKGROUND: The presence of donor-specific HLA antibodies before transplantation is associated with poor transplantation outcomes. Unacceptable antigens can be assigned for Eurotransplant kidney transplant candidates to prevent kidney offers against which the candidate has developed clinically relevant HLA antibodies. This retrospective cohort study aimed to assess to what degree unacceptable antigens affect access to transplantation in the Eurotransplant Kidney Allocation System (ETKAS). METHODS: Candidates who underwent kidney-only transplantation between 2016 and 2020 were included (n = 19 240). Cox regression was used to quantify the relationship between the relative transplantation rate and virtual panel-reactive antibodies (vPRAs), which is the percentage of the donor pool with unacceptable antigens. Models used accrued dialysis time as the timescale; were stratified by country and blood group of patient and were adjusted for nontransplantable status, patient age, sex, history of kidney transplantations, and prevalence of 0 HLA-DR-mismatched donors. RESULTS: Transplantation rates were 23% lower for vPRA 0.1% to 50%, 51% lower for vPRA 75% to 85%, and decreased rapidly for vPRA of >85%. Prior studies showed significantly lower ETKAS transplantation rates only for highly sensitized patients (vPRA of >85%). The inverse relationship between transplantation rate and vPRA is independent of Eurotransplant country, listing time, and 0 HLA-DR-mismatched donor availability. Results were similar when quantifying the relationship between vPRA and attainment of a sufficiently high rank for an ETKAS offer, suggesting lower transplantation rates for immunized patients are due to current ETKAS allocation. CONCLUSIONS: Immunized patients face lower transplantation rates across Eurotransplant. The current ETKAS allocation mechanism inadequately compensates immunized patients for reduced access to transplantation.

Successful transplantation of four kidney grafts from two small pediatric donors with anuric acute renal failure into adult recipients.

BACKGROUND: Kidneys from infants with anuric acute kidney injury (AKI) only rarely get accepted for transplantation despite encouraging data that such kidneys can have very good long-term outcome. METHODS: We report the transplantation of four kidney grafts from two pediatric donors (3 and 4 years) with anuric acute kidney injury as single kidneys into four adult recipients. RESULTS: All grafts gained function within 14 days posttransplantation, only one recipient needed dialysis after transplantation. None of the recipients suffered from surgical complications. One month after transplantation, all recipients were free of dialysis. Estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) 3 months after transplantation were 37, 40, 50, and 83 mL/min/1.73 m2 . eGFR increased further through month 6, reaching 45, 50, 58, and 89 mL/min/1.73 m2 . CONCLUSION: These cases highlight the feasibility of successful transplantation of single pediatric kidney grafts into adult recipients despite anuric AKI of the donor.

Regional Differences in Waiting Times for Kidney Transplantation in Germany.

BACKGROUND: In order to achieve short ischemia times between organ donation and transplantation, regional organ allocation has been assigned priority in the development of allocation rules for kidney transplantation. It is unclear whether this leads to differences in regional waiting times in Germany. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study over a 24-month observation period was conducted, including all patients who received a kidney-only graft allocated via the standard Eurotransplant Kidney Allocation System (ETKAS) (n = 1487) or the Eurotransplant Senior Program (ESP) (n = 566). Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to investigate differences in waiting times across the regions (ETKAS) or subregions (ESP) as defined by the German Organ Procurement Organization (DSO). Associations between the number of regionally procured kidneys (n = 1444) and regional waiting times were investigated. RESULTS: In ETKAS, the median waiting time was 8.9 years (interquartile range [IQR] 6.7-10.6); in ESP, it was 3.9 (2.4 -5.3) years. Compared with the reference region with the shortest waiting time, waiting times in other regions were 0.6 to 1.7 years longer in ETKAS and 1.3 to 4.4 years longer in ESP. The ratio of the number of patients on the waiting list for a particular region to the number of organs donated in that region was associated with the waiting time in ETKAS (R2 = 0.70). In ESP, this association was markedly less pronounced (R2 = 0.45). CONCLUSION: In Germany, waiting times depend strongly on the region where a patient is listed for kidney transplantation, especially in ESP. These findings call the current allocation algorithms into question and imply a need for suitable modification.

Kidney Transplantation Outcome Predictions (KTOP): A Risk Prediction Tool for Kidney Transplants from Brain-dead Deceased Donors Based on a Large European Cohort.

BACKGROUND: European kidney donation shortages mandate efficient organ allocation by optimizing the prediction of success for individual recipients. OBJECTIVE: To develop the first European online risk tool for kidney transplant outcomes on the basis of recipient-only and recipient plus donor characteristics. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We used individual recipient and donor risk factors and three outcomes (death, death with functioning graft [DWFG], and graft loss) for 32 958 transplants within the Eurotransplant kidney allocation system and the Eurotransplant senior program between January 2006 and May 2018 in eight European countries to develop and validate a risk tool. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Cox proportional-hazards models were used to analyze the association of risk factors with overall patient mortality, and proportional subdistribution hazard regression models for their association with graft loss and DWFG. Prediction models were developed with recipient-only and recipient-donor risk factors. Sensitivity analyses based on time-specific area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with leave-one-country-out validation were performed and calibration plots were generated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The 10-yr cumulative incidence rate was 37% for mortality, 12% for DWFG, and 41% for graft loss. In recipient-donor models the leading risk factors for mortality were recipient diabetes (hazard ratio [HR] 10.73), retransplantation (HR 3.08 per transplant), and recipient age (HR 1.08). Effects were similar for DWFG. For graft loss, diabetes (subdistributional HR [SHR] 1.32), increased donor age (SHR 1.02), and prolonged cold ischemia time (SHR 1.02) had increased SHRs. All p values were <0.001. CONCLUSIONS: Previously identified risk factors for outcomes following kidney transplants allow for outcome prediction with 10-yr AUC values of up to 0.81. PATIENT SUMMARY: Using European data, we estimated individual risks to predict the success of kidney transplants and support physicians in decision-making. An online tool is now available (https://riskcalc.org/ktop/) for predicting kidney transplant outcomes both before and after a donor has been identified.

Impact of Sensitization on Waiting Time Prior to Kidney Transplantation in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Assignment of unacceptable HLA mismatches (UAMs) prevents transplantation of incompatible grafts but potentially prolongs waiting time. Whether this is true in the Eurotransplant Kidney Allocation System (ETKAS) and the Eurotransplant Senior Program in Germany is highly debated and relevant for UAM policies. METHODS: Donor pool restriction due to UAM was expressed as percent virtual panel-reactive antibodies (vPRAs). Kaplan-Meier estimates and multivariable Cox regression models were used to analyze the impact of vPRA levels on waiting time and transplant probability during a period of 2 y in all patients eligible for a kidney graft unter standard circumstances in Germany on February 1, 2019 (n = 6533). Utility of the mismatch probability score to compensate for sensitization in ETKAS was also investigated. RESULTS: In ETKAS, donor pool restriction resulted in significant prolongation of waiting time and reduction in transplant probability only in patients with vPRA levels above 85%. This was most evident in patients with vPRA levels above 95%, whereas patients in the acceptable mismatch program had significantly shorter waiting times and higher chances for transplantation than nonsensitized patients. In the Eurotransplant Senior Program, vPRA levels above 50% resulted in significantly longer waiting times and markedly reduced the chance for transplantation. Compensation for sensitization by the mismatch probability score was insufficient. CONCLUSIONS: Donor pool restriction had no significant impact on waiting time in most sensitized patients. However, despite the existence of the acceptable mismatch program, the majority of highly sensitized patients is currently disadvantaged and would benefit from better compensation mechanisms.

Kidney Transplantation After Rescue Allocation-the Eurotransplant Experience: A Retrospective Multicenter Outcome Analysis.

BACKGROUND: At Eurotransplant (ET), kidneys are transferred to "rescue allocation" (RA), whenever the standard allocation (SA) algorithms Eurotransplant Kidney Allocation System (ETKAS) and Eurotransplant Senior Program (ESP) fail. We analyzed the outcome of RA. METHODS: Retrospective patient clinical and demographic characteristics association analyses were performed with graft outcomes for 2422 recipients of a deceased donor renal transplantation (DDRT) after RA versus 25 481 after SA from 71 centers across all ET countries from 2006 to 2018. RESULTS: Numbers of DDRTs after RA increased over the time, especially in Germany. RA played a minor role in ESP versus ETKAS (2.7% versus 10.4%). RA recipients and donors were older compared with SA recipients and donors, cold ischemia times were longer, waiting times were shorter, and the incidence of primary nonfunction was comparable. Among ETKAS recipients, HLA matching was more favorable in SA (mean 3.7 versus 2.5). In multivariate modeling, the incidence of graft loss in ETKAS recipients was reduced in RA compared with SA (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [0.70-0.91], P < 0.001), whereas other outcomes (mortality, death with functioning graft (DwFG)) were not significantly different. None of the 3 outcomes were significantly different when comparing RA with SA within the ESP program. CONCLUSIONS: Facing increased waiting times and mortality on dialysis due to donor shortage, this study reveals encouragingly positive DDRT outcomes following RA. This supports the extension of RA to more patients and as an alternative tool to enable transplantation in patients in countries with prohibitively long waiting times or at risk of deterioration.

Does kidney transplantation with a standard or expanded criteria donor improve patient survival? Results from a Belgian cohort.

BACKGROUND: Changes in recipient and donor factors have reopened the question of survival benefits of kidney transplantation versus dialysis. METHODS: We analysed survival among 3808 adult Belgian patients waitlisted for a first deceased donor kidney transplant from 2000 to 2012. The primary outcome was mortality during the median waiting time plus 3 years of follow-up after transplantation or with continued dialysis. Outcomes were analysed separately for standard criteria donor (SCD) and expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidney transplants. We adjusted survival analyses for recipient age (20-44, 45-64 and ≥65 years), sex and diabetes as the primary renal disease. RESULTS: Among patients ≥65 years of age, only SCD transplantation provided a significant survival benefit compared with dialysis, with a mortality of 16.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 13.2-19.9] with SCD transplantation, 20.5% (95% CI 16.1-24.6) with ECD transplantation and 24.6% (95% CI 19.4-29.5) with continued dialysis. Relative mortality risk was increased in the first months after transplantation compared with dialysis, with equivalent risk levels reached earlier with SCD than ECD transplantation in all age groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that older patients might gain a survival benefit with SCD transplantation versus dialysis, but any survival benefit with ECD transplantation versus dialysis may be small.

The Impact of Hepatectomy Time of the Liver Graft on Post-transplant Outcome: A Eurotransplant Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: Assessing the effect of donor hepatectomy time on outcome after transplantation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: When blood supply in a deceased organ donor stops, ischemic injury starts. Livers are cooled to reduce cellular metabolism and minimize ischemic injury. This cooling is slow and livers are lukewarm during hepatectomy, potentially affecting outcome. METHODS: We used the Eurotransplant Registry to investigate the relationship between donor hepatectomy time and post-transplant outcome in 12,974 recipients of deceased-donor livers (January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2013). Cox regression analyses for patient and graft survival (censored and uncensored for death with a functioning graft) were corrected for donor, preservation, and recipient variables. Donor hepatectomy time was defined as time between start of aortic cold flush and placement of the liver in the ice-bowl. RESULTS: Median donor hepatectomy time was 41 minutes [interquartile range (IQR) 32 to 52]. Livers donated after circulatory death had longer hepatectomy times than those from brain-dead donors [50 minutes (35 to 68) vs 40 minutes (32 to 51), P < 0.001]. Donor hepatectomy time was independently associated with graft loss [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.03 for every 10-minute increase, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.02-1.05; P < 0.001]. The magnitude of this effect was comparable to the effect of each hour of additional cold ischemia time (adjusted HR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.05; P < 0.001). Donor hepatectomy time had a similar effect on death-censored graft survival and patient survival. Livers donated after circulatory death and those with a higher donor risk index were more susceptible to the effect of donor hepatectomy time on death-censored graft survival. CONCLUSION: Donor hepatectomy time impairs liver transplant outcome. Keeping this time short together with efficient cooling during hepatectomy might improve outcome.

The Impact of Implantation Time During Liver Transplantation on Outcome: A Eurotransplant Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The liver graft quickly rewarms during transplantation when the vascular anastomoses are being performed, potentially impacting on outcomes. METHODS: We investigated the relationship between implantation time and outcome in 5223 recipients of deceased-donor livers transplanted in Eurotransplant (2004-2013). Cox regression analyses were corrected for donor, preservation, and recipient variables. Transplant loss represents all-cause graft failure. RESULTS: Median implantation time was 41 minutes (interquartile range, 34-51). Implantation time independently associated with transplant loss (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.04 for every 10-minute increase; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.07; P = 0.007). The magnitude of the implantation time effect was comparable to the effect of each additional hour of cold ischemia (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.05; P < 0.001). The effect was most pronounced early posttransplant with no evidence of a significant effect beyond 3 months. A similar detrimental effect of implantation time was seen for graft and patient survivals. The increased risk for transplant loss in livers donated after circulatory determination of death could be attributed to donor warm ischemia time. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation time associates with inferior liver transplant outcome in a continuous way. These findings need confirmation and further study of confounding factors is needed so steps toward improving outcomes can be made.

Kidney donation and transplantation in Eurotransplant 2006-2007: minimizing discard rates by using a rescue allocation policy.

CONTEXT: All organ exchange organizations are challenged to maximize the utilization rate of all donors. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the benefit of a rescue allocation policy and to study the impact of donor factors on the risk of kidney discard. DESIGN AND SETTING: All 4057 donors with kidneys offered for allocation to Eurotransplant between 2006 and 2007 were included. Allocation was patient-oriented, based on a point-score system including recipient and donor factors. If an organ offer was rejected 5 times for medical reasons, allocation was switched to rescue allocation (ie, the organ was then offered in a center-oriented way). A logistic regression model was built to test whether donor factors were predictors of rescue allocation or kidney discard. RESULTS: Rescue allocation was used for 665 donors (16.4%); within this group, transplant rate was 54.3%, resulting in a donor discard rate of 304 donors (7.5% of total study group). The multivariate model showed that rescue allocation was used significantly more for kidneys from child donors and donors with a high creatinine level. Moreover, testing positive for hepatitis B surface antigen or antibody to hepatitis C virus was associated with an increased probability of rescue allocation. Kidney discard was significantly associated with donation after cardiac death, donor age, serum creatinine level, history of diabetes, and history of hepatitis. CONCLUSIONS: Rescue allocation is effective in lowering donor discard rates. Even with rescue allocation, several donor factors were significantly associated with a higher discard rate. Use of liberal donor criteria and a rescue allocation policy can reduce kidney discards and thus shorten the waiting list for kidney transplantation.