Risk aversion in the use of complex kidneys in paired exchange programs: Opportunities for even more transplants?

This retrospective review of the largest United States kidney exchange reports characteristics, utilization, and recipient outcomes of kidneys with simple compared to complex anatomy and extrapolates reluctance to accept these kidneys. Of 3105 transplants performed, only 12.8% were right kidneys and 23.1% had multiple renal arteries. 59.3% of centers used fewer right kidneys than expected and 12.1% transplanted zero right kidneys or kidneys with more than 1 artery. Five centers transplanted a third of these kidneys (35.8% of right kidneys and 36.7% of kidneys with multiple renal arteries). 22.5% and 25.5% of centers currently will not entertain a match offer for a left or right kidney with more than one artery, respectively. There were no significant differences in all-cause graft failure or death-censored graft loss for kidneys with multiple arteries, and a very small increased risk of graft failure for right kidneys versus left of limited clinical relevance for most recipients. Kidneys with complex anatomy can be used with excellent outcomes at many centers. Variation in use (lack of demand) for these kidneys reduces the number of transplants, so systems to facilitate use could increase demand. We cannot know how many donors are turned away because perceived demand is limited.

Motivations and outcomes of compatible living donor-recipient pairs in paired exchange.

Increasing numbers of compatible pairs are choosing to enter paired exchange programs, but motivations, outcomes, and system-level effects of participation are not well described. Using a linkage of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and National Kidney Registry, we compared outcomes of traditional (originally incompatible) recipients to originally compatible recipients using the Kaplan-Meier method. We identified 154 compatible pairs. Most pairs sought to improve HLA matching. Compared to the original donor, actual donors were younger (39 vs. 50 years, p < .001), less often female (52% vs. 68%, p < .01), higher BMI (27 vs. 25 kg/m², p = .03), less frequently blood type O (36% vs. 80%, p < .001), and had higher eGFR (99 vs. 94 ml/min/1.73 m², p = .02), with a better LKDPI (median 7 vs. 22, p < .001). We observed no differences in graft failure or mortality. Compatible pairs made 280 additional transplants possible, many in highly sensitized recipients with long wait times. Compatible pair recipients derived several benefits from paired exchange, including better donor quality. Living donor pairs should receive counseling regarding all options available, including kidney paired donation. As more compatible pairs choose to enter exchange programs, consideration should be given to optimizing compatible pair and hard-to-transplant recipient outcomes.

The benefit to waitlist patients in a national paired kidney exchange program: Exploring characteristics of chain end living donor transplants.

Nondirected kidney donors can initiate living donor chains that end to patients on the waitlist. We compared 749 National Kidney Registry (NKR) waitlist chain end transplants to other transplants from the NKR and the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients between February 2008 and September 2020. Compared to other NKR recipients, chain end recipients were more often older (53 vs. 52 years), black (32% vs. 15%), publicly insured (71% vs. 46%), and spent longer on dialysis (3.0 vs. 1.0 years). Similar differences were noted between chain end recipients and non-NKR living donor recipients. Black patients received chain end kidneys at a rate approaching that of deceased donor kidneys (32% vs. 34%). Chain end donors were older (52 vs. 44 years) with slightly lower glomerular filtration rates (93 vs. 98 ml/min/1.73 m2 ) than other NKR donors. Chain end recipients had elevated risk of graft failure and mortality compared to control living donor recipients (both p < .01) but lower graft failure (p = .03) and mortality (p < .001) compared to deceased donor recipients. Sharing nondirected donors among a multicenter network may improve the diversity of waitlist patients who benefit from living donation.

Ensuring the need is met: A 50-year simulation study of the National Kidney Registry's family voucher program.

The National Kidney Registry (NKR) Advanced Donation Program enables living donors the opportunity to donate altruistically, or in advance of a potential recipient's transplant, and to receive a voucher that can be redeemed for a future transplant facilitated by the NKR. Family vouchers allow a donor to identify multiple individuals within their immediate family, with the first person in that group in need of a transplant being prioritized to receive a kidney. An increase in vouchers introduces concerns that demand for future voucher redemptions could exceed the supply of available donors and kidneys. A Monte Carlo simulation model was constructed to estimate the annual number of voucher redemptions relative to the number of kidneys available over a 50-year time horizon under several projected scenarios for growth of the program. In all simulated scenarios, the number of available kidneys exceeded voucher redemptions every year. While not able to account for all real-life scenarios, this simulation study found that the NKR should be able to satisfy the likely redemption of increasing numbers of vouchers under a range of possible scenarios over a 50-year time horizon. This modeling exercise suggests that a donor family's future needs can be satisfied through the voucher program.

Early graft losses in paired kidney exchange: Experience from 10 years of the National Kidney Registry.

Cooperative kidney paired donation (KPD) networks account for an increasing proportion of all living donor kidney transplants in the United States. There are sparse data on the rate of primary nonfunction (PNF) losses and their consequences within KPD networks. We studied National Kidney Registry (NKR) transplants (February 14, 2009 to December 31, 2017) and quantified PNF, graft loss within 30 days of transplantation, and graft losses in the first-year posttransplant and assessed potential risk factors. Of 2364 transplants, there were 38 grafts (1.6%) lost within the first year, 13 (0.5%) with PNF. When compared to functioning grafts, there were no clinically significant differences in blood type compatibility, degree of HLA mismatch, number of veins/arteries, cold ischemia, and travel times. Of 13 PNF cases, 2 were due to early venous thrombosis, 2 to arterial thrombosis, and 2 to failure of desensitization and development of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR). Given the low rate of PNF, the NKR created a policy to allocate chain-end kidneys to recipients with PNF following event review and attributable to surgical issues of donor nephrectomy. It is expected that demonstration of low incidence of poor early graft outcomes and the presence of a "safety net" would further encourage program participation in national KPD.

Patient and Kidney Allograft Survival with National Kidney Paired Donation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In the United States, kidney paired donation networks have facilitated an increasing proportion of kidney transplants annually, but transplant outcome differences beyond 5 years between paired donation and other living donor kidney transplant recipients have not been well described. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Using registry-linked data, we compared National Kidney Registry (n=2363) recipients to control kidney transplant recipients (n=54,497) (February 2008 to December 2017). We estimated the risk of death-censored graft failure and mortality using inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox regression. The parsimonious model adjusted for recipient factors (age, sex, black, race, body mass index ≥30 kg/m2, diabetes, previous transplant, preemptive transplant, public insurance, hepatitis C, eGFR, antibody depleting induction therapy, year of transplant), donor factors (age, sex, Hispanic ethnicity, body mass index ≥30 kg/m2), and transplant factors (zero HLA mismatch). RESULTS: National Kidney Registry recipients were more likely to be women, black, older, on public insurance, have panel reactive antibodies >80%, spend longer on dialysis, and be previous transplant recipients. National Kidney Registry recipients were followed for a median 3.7 years (interquartile range, 2.1-5.6; maximum 10.9 years). National Kidney Registry recipients had similar graft failure (5% versus 6%; log-rank P=0.2) and mortality (9% versus 10%; log-rank P=0.4) incidence compared with controls during follow-up. After adjustment for donor, recipient, and transplant factors, there no detectable difference in graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.77 to 1.18; P=0.6) or mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.70 to 1.07; P=0.2) between National Kidney Registry and control recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Even after transplanting patients with greater risk factors for worse post-transplant outcomes, nationalized paired donation results in equivalent outcomes when compared with control living donor kidney transplant recipients.

Dramatic secular changes in prognosis for kidney transplant candidates in the United States.

Over recent decades, numerous clinical advances and policy changes have affected outcomes for candidates of kidney transplantation in the United States. We examined the national Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients for adult (18+) solitary kidney transplant candidates placed on the waiting list for primary listing from 2001 to 2015. We evaluated rates of mortality, transplantation, and waitlist removal. Among 340 115 candidates there were significant declines in mortality (52 deaths/1000 patient years in 2001-04 vs 38 deaths/1000 patient years in 2012-15) and transplant rates (304 transplants/1000 patient years in 2001-04 vs 212 transplants/1000 patient years in 2012-15) and increases in waitlist removals (15 removals/1000 patient years in 2001-04 vs 25/1000 patient years in 2012-15) within the first year after listing. At 5 years an estimated 37% of candidates listed in 2012-15 were alive without transplant as compared to 22% in 2001-04. Declines in mortality over time were significantly more pronounced among African Americans, candidates with longer dialysis duration, and those with diabetes (P < .001). Cumulatively, results indicate dramatic changes in prognoses for adult kidney transplant candidates, likely impacted by selection criteria, donor availability, regulatory oversight, and clinical care. These trends are important considerations for prospective policy development and research, clinical and patient decision-making, and evaluating the impact on access to care.

A Contemporary Analysis of Outcomes and Modifiable Risk Factors of Ethnic Disparities in Kidney Transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to provide a contemporary analysis of longitudinal kidney transplant outcomes and to evaluate potential causes of ethnic disparities among African American (AA) and Caucasian American (CA) patients undergoing kidney transplantation at our institution. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 1400 patients were identified who underwent kidney transplantation from 2003 to 2013 from a large, academic institution in Cleveland, OH. Relevant recipient and donor demographic and clinical covariates were obtained from an institutional transplant database. Simple descriptive statistics and comparative survival analyses were performed to assess overall survival and graft survival. RESULTS: The final cohort was comprised of 341 AA and 1059 CA patients. AAs were less likely to receive a living donor transplant (27.6% vs. 57.2%, p < 0.001) compared to CAs. Overall patient survival did not significantly differ between the two groups even when stratified by ethnicity. However, AAs had a significantly lower rate of graft survival (p < 0.001). On stratified analysis, there was no difference in the rate of graft survival among AAs and CAs who received living donor grafts. On univariate analysis, AAs demonstrated higher rates of immunosuppression non-compliance and chronic rejection (both p < 0.05). On multivariate analysis, AA recipient ethnicity (HR 1.56, p = 0.047), recipient history of diabetes (HR 1.67, p < 0.001), and AA donor ethnicity (HR 1.56, p = 0.047) were significantly associated with graft failure. CONCLUSION: AAs undergoing deceased donor renal transplantation demonstrated lower graft survival compared to CAs. Conversely, this disparity did not exist among AAs undergoing living donor transplantation. AAs had higher rates of deceased donor transplantation, immunosuppression non-compliance, chronic rejection, and diabetes. Opportunities exist to use patient education, alternative immunosuppression regimens, and living transplantation to close the ethnic disparity in renal allograft survival.

The first 9 years of kidney paired donation through the National Kidney Registry: Characteristics of donors and recipients compared with National Live Donor Transplant Registries.

The practice of kidney paired donation (KPD) is expanding annually, offering the opportunity for live donor kidney transplant to more patients. We sought to identify if voluntary KPD networks such as the National Kidney Registry (NKR) were selecting or attracting a narrower group of donors or recipients compared with national registries. For this purpose, we merged data from the NKR database with the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) database, from February 14, 2008, to February 14, 2017, encompassing the first 9 years of the NKR. Compared with all United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) live donor transplant patients (49 610), all UNOS living unrelated transplant patients (23 319), and all other KPD transplant patients (4236), the demographic and clinical characteristics of NKR transplant patients (2037) appear similar to contemporary national trends. In particular, among the NKR patients, there were a significantly (P < .001) greater number of retransplants (25.6% vs 11.5%), hyperimmunized recipients (22.7% vs 4.3% were cPRA >80%), female recipients (45.9% vs 37.6%), black recipients (18.2% vs 13%), and those on public insurance (49.7% vs 41.8%) compared with controls. These results support the need for greater sharing and larger pool sizes, perhaps enhanced by the entry of compatible pairs and even chains initiated by deceased donors, to unlock more opportunities for those harder-to-match pairs.

Residential Area Life Expectancy: Association With Outcomes and Processes of Care for Patients With ESRD in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The effects of underlying noncodified risks are unclear on the prognosis of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). We aimed to evaluate the association of residential area life expectancy with outcomes and processes of care for patients with ESRD in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with incident ESRD between 2006 and 2013 recorded in the US Renal Data System (n=606,046). PREDICTOR: The primary exposure was life expectancy in the patient's residential county estimated by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. OUTCOMES: Death, placement on the kidney transplant wait list, living and deceased donor kidney transplantation, and posttransplantation graft loss. RESULTS: Median life expectancies of patients' residences were 75.6 (males) and 80.4 years (females). Compared to the highest life expectancy quintile and adjusted for demographic factors, disease cause, and multiple comorbid conditions, the lowest quintile had adjusted HRs for mortality of 1.20 (95% CI, 1.18-1.22); placement onto the waiting list, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.67-0.70); living donor transplantation, 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.56); posttransplantation graft loss, 1.35 (95% CI, 1.27-1.43); and posttransplantation mortality, 1.29 (95% CI, 1.19-1.39). Patients living in areas with lower life expectancy were less likely to be informed about transplantation, be under the care of a nephrologist, or receive an arteriovenous fistula as the initial dialysis access. Results remained consistent with additional adjustment for zip code-level median income, population size, and urban-rural locality. LIMITATIONS: Potential residual confounding and attribution of effects to individuals based on residential area-level data. CONCLUSIONS: Residential area life expectancy, a proxy for socioeconomic, environmental, genetic, and behavioral factors, was independently associated with mortality and process-of-care measures for patients with ESRD. These results emphasize the underlying effect on health outcomes of the environment in which patients live, independent of patient-level factors. These findings may have implications for provider assessments.

Shipping living donor kidneys and transplant recipient outcomes.

Kidney paired donation (KPD) is an important tool to facilitate living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). Concerns remain over prolonged cold ischemia times (CIT) associated with shipping kidneys long distances through KPD. We examined the association between CIT and delayed graft function (DGF), allograft survival, and patient survival for 1267 shipped and 205 nonshipped/internal KPD LDKTs facilitated by the National Kidney Registry in the United States from 2008 to 2015, compared to 4800 unrelated, nonshipped, non-KPD LDKTs. Shipped KPD recipients had a median CIT of 9.3 hours (range = 0.25-23.9 hours), compared to 1.0 hour for internal KPD transplants and 0.93 hours for non-KPD LDKTs. Each hour of CIT was associated with a 5% increased odds of DGF (adjusted odds ratio: 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.09, P < .01). However, there was not a significant association between CIT and all-cause graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.98-1.04, P = .4), death-censored graft failure ( [aHR]: 1.02, 95% CI, 0.98-1.06, P = .4), or mortality (aHR 1.00, 95% CI, 0.96-1.04, P > .9). This study of KPD-facilitated LDKTs found no evidence that long CIT is a concern for reduced graft or patient survival. Studies with longer follow-up are needed to refine our understanding of the safety of shipping donor kidneys through KPD.

Ex-vivo partial nephrectomy after living donor nephrectomy: Surgical technique for expanding kidney donor pool.

Renal transplantation has profound improvements in mortality, morbidity, and overall quality of life compared to renal replacement therapy. This report aims to illustrate the use of ex-vivo partial nephrectomy in a patient with a renal angiomyolipoma prior to living donor transplantation. The surgical outcomes of the donor nephrectomy and recipient transplantation are reported with 2 years of follow-up. Both the donor and recipient are healthy and without any significant comorbidities. In conclusion, urologic techniques such as partial nephrectomy can be used to expand the living donor pool in carefully selected and well informed transplant recipients. Our experience demonstrated a safe and positive outcome for both the recipient and donor, and is consistent with other reported outcomes in the literature.

Evaluation of Flagging Criteria of United States Kidney Transplant Center Performance: How to Best Define Outliers?

BACKGROUND: Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients report cards of US organ transplant center performance are publicly available and used for quality oversight. Low center performance (LP) evaluations are associated with changes in practice including reduced transplant rates and increased waitlist removals. In 2014, Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients implemented new Bayesian methodology to evaluate performance which was not adopted by Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). In May 2016, CMS altered their performance criteria, reducing the likelihood of LP evaluations. METHODS: Our aims were to evaluate incidence, survival rates, and volume of LP centers with Bayesian, historical (old-CMS) and new-CMS criteria using 6 consecutive program-specific reports (PSR), January 2013 to July 2015 among adult kidney transplant centers. RESULTS: Bayesian, old-CMS and new-CMS criteria identified 13.4%, 8.3%, and 6.1% LP PSRs, respectively. Over the 3-year period, 31.9% (Bayesian), 23.4% (old-CMS), and 19.8% (new-CMS) of centers had 1 or more LP evaluation. For small centers (<83 transplants/PSR), there were 4-fold additional LP evaluations (52 vs 13 PSRs) for 1-year mortality with Bayesian versus new-CMS criteria. For large centers (>183 transplants/PSR), there were 3-fold additional LP evaluations for 1-year mortality with Bayesian versus new-CMS criteria with median differences in observed and expected patient survival of -1.6% and -2.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of kidney transplant centers are identified as low performing with relatively small survival differences compared with expected. Bayesian criteria have significantly higher flagging rates and new-CMS criteria modestly reduce flagging. Critical appraisal of performance criteria is needed to assess whether quality oversight is meeting intended goals and whether further modifications could reduce risk aversion, more efficiently allocate resources, and increase transplant opportunities.