Vasopressin for Post-kidney Transplant Hypotension.

Introduction: Hypotension after deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) is a risk factor for delayed graft function (DGF) and poor graft survival (GS). We hypothesize that vasopressin use in hypotensive DDKT recipients (DDKTRs) to increase blood pressure (BP) reduces DGF rates and is safe without increasing mortality. Methods: Group with vasopressin "study group" (n = 45) was defined as DDKTRs between 2012 and 2017 who required vasopressin for hypotension systolic BP (SBP) <120 mm Hg or diastolic BP (DBP) <60 mm Hg. DDKTRs with no-vasopressin "comparison group" (n = 90) were propensity score-matched DDKTRs between 2012 and 2017 without vasopressin use. Primary outcomes were GS, creatinine and allograft biopsy rate at 1 year, DGF rate, and death during transplant hospitalization. Results: Vasopressin group had lower mean maximum and minimum SBP and DBP in the operating room (OR). Median vasopressin start time post-DDKT was 2 hours (interquartile range [IQR] 1-6), and duration of use was 42 hours (IQR 24-63). DGF, creatinine at 1 year, and allograft biopsy rates were comparable. No deaths occurred during transplant hospitalization. Multivariable analysis did not find an effect of vasopressin use on GS. Conclusion: Treatment of hypotensive DDKTRs with vasopressin is safe and facilitated similar graft function and survival with that of nonhypotensive patients. In the absence of a randomized control trial, our study supports the safety of vasopressin therapy to prevent the adverse effects of hypotension.

Nondirected Living Kidney Donation and Recipient Outcomes in the United States: A 20-Year Review.

Introduction: Nondirected donation (NDD) of the kidneys is a growing practice where donors who do not have any genetic or emotional relationship are selected to donate to a wide variety of recipients with a range of selection criteria and decisions which are left up to individual transplant centers. Methods: We review all adult living kidney donor-recipient (DR) pairs and outcomes from NDDs who were recorded in United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database as code 10 (anonymous) from October 1997 to September 2017 for demographics and outcomes. Results: A total of 2174 DR pairs were identified. The number of NDDs increased from 18 in 2000 to 256 in 2016. Survival analysis showed higher death-censored-graft survival (DC-GS) when recipient was 20 years or more older than donor followed by recipient-donor within 20 years of age and lowest when donor was 20 years or more older than recipient (P = 0.0114). Conclusion: Overall, the number of NDDs has increased significantly in the 20-year review period. Transplants from NDDs have excellent long-term outcomes. Better matching of controllable DR factors, such as age and body mass index (BMI), could further improve GS. Further research is needed to incorporate these DR factors into paired kidney donation programs potentially enhancing the utility and beneficence of this invaluable donation.

A National Survey of Practice Patterns for Accepting Living Kidney Donors With Prior COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: A critical question facing transplant programs is whether, when, and how to safely accept living kidney donors (LKDs) who have recovered from COVID-19 infection. The purpose of the study is to understand current practices related to accepting these LKDs. METHODS: We surveyed US transplant programs from 3 September through 3 November 2020. Center level and participant level responses were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 174 respondents from 115 unique centers responded, representing 59% of US LKD programs and 72.4% of 2019 and 72.5% of 2020 LKD volume (Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network-OPTN 2021). In all, 48.6% of responding centers had received inquiries from such LKDs, whereas 44.3% were currently evaluating. A total of 98 donors were in the evaluation phase, whereas 27.8% centers had approved 42 such donors to proceed with donation. A total of 50.8% of participants preferred to wait >3 months, and 91% would wait at least 1 month from onset of infection to LD surgery. The most common reason to exclude LDs was evidence of COVID-19-related AKI (59.8%) even if resolved, followed by COVID-19-related pneumonia (28.7%) and hospitalization (21.3%). The most common concern in accepting such donors was kidney health postdonation (59.2%), followed by risk of transmission to the recipient (55.7%), donor perioperative pulmonary risk (41.4%), and donor pulmonary risk in the future (29.9%). CONCLUSION: Practice patterns for acceptance of COVID-19-recovered LKDs showed considerable variability. Ongoing research and consensus building are needed to guide optimal practices to ensure safety of accepting such donors. Long-term close follow-up of such donors is warranted.

Early Fatal Cutaneous Lower Extremity Angiosarcoma Associated with Deep Venous Thrombosis in a Renal Transplant Recipient.

Angiosarcomas are extremely rare malignant tumors of vascular origin. We describe a 63-year-old recipient after a kidney transplant who had an angiosarcoma in the lower extremity that presented after new-onset deep venous thrombosis and was not associated with any fistula. There was rapid progression to metastasis and death. We reviewed the literature of this rare malignant tumor in kidney transplant patients.

Re-transplants compared to primary kidney transplants recipients: a mate kidney paired analysis of the OPTN/UNOS database.

Outcomes of kidney re-transplant recipients (RTR) were compared to primary recipients (FTR) from paired donor kidneys. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) database was used to identify deceased donors (n = 6266) who donated one kidney to an RTR and the mate kidney to an FTR between January 2000 to December 2010. As compared to FTR, RTR were younger (45 vs. 52 yr, p < 0.001) and had higher proportion of plasma reactive antibody >80 (25% vs 7%, p < 0.001). There were higher 0 mismatches in RTR (19% vs. 16%, p < 0.001). There were more pre-emptive transplants in RTR (24% vs. 21%, p = 0.002). Delayed graft function (28% vs. 25%, p = 0.007) was higher in RTR. Patient survival was similar in FTR and RTR groups at one, three, and five yr (95.7%, 90.2%, and 82.5% vs. 95.2%, 89.8% and 82.7%). Allograft survival rates were higher in FTR group compared to RTR group at one, three, and five yr (91.1%, 82.4%, and 70.9% vs. 87.8%, 77.4%, and 66.1% p < 0.001). Death-censored allograft survival rates were higher in FTR group at one, three, and five yr (91.3%, 82.7% and 71.4% vs. 88%, 77.7% and 66.5% p < 0.001). In today's era of modern immunosuppression, graft survival in RTR has improved but remains inferior to FTR when controlling for donor factors.

Pre-transplant angiotensin receptor II type 1 antibodies and risk of post-transplant focal segmental glomerulosclerosis recurrence.

Post-kidney transplant recurrence of focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) is a major problem. AT1R is expressed on podocyte; its expression is elevated in the proteinuric state. Using an ELISA, we tested pre-transplant sera of 28 patients with history of idiopathic FSGS for anti-AT1R levels and serum soluble urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) as a biomarker for risk of recurrence of FSGS. Sera from 11 patients with polycystic kidney disease (PKD) were used as controls. Twelve patients had biopsy proven post-transplant FSGS recurrence at 1.5 months. No difference was found in the pre-transplant suPAR levels of FSGS patients (5993 ± 2292 pg/mL) vs. PKD (7334 ± 4538 pg/mL) (p = 0.23). Serum suPAR levels in patients with FSGS recurrence (5786 ± 1899 pg/mL) vs. no FSGS recurrence (6149 ± 2598 pg/mL) (p = 0.69) were not different. Anti-AT1R levels in patients with FSGS were 12.66 ± 11.85 U/mL vs. 8.69 ± 6.52 U/mL in PKD (p = 0.32); however, a difference was found in patients with and without FSGS recurrence 20.41 ± 14.36 U/mL 6.84 ± 4.181 U/mL, respectively (p < 0.01). Area under curve for suPAR and anti-AT1R to predict post-transplant FSGS recurrence was 0.51 and 0.84, respectively. Pre-transplant anti-AT1R levels appear to be a helpful biomarker in identifying patients at high risk of post-transplant FSGS recurrence.

Correlation between CT-based measured renal volumes and nuclear-renography-based split renal function in living kidney donors. Clinical diagnostic utility and practice patterns.

INTRODUCTION: Living donor evaluation involves imaging to determine the choice of kidney for nephrectomy. Our aim was to study the diagnostic accuracy and correlation between CT-based volume measurements and split renal function (SRF) as measured by nuclear renography in potential living donors and its impact on kidney selection decision. METHODS: We analyzed 190 CT-based volume measurements in healthy donors, of which 65 donors had a radionuclide study performed to determine SRF. RESULTS: There were no differences in demographics, anthropometric measurements, total volumes, eGFR, creatinine clearances between those who required a nuclear scan and those who did not. There was a significant correlation between CT-volume-measurement-based SRF and nuclear-scan-based SRF (Pearson coefficient r 0.59; p < 0.001). Furthermore, selective nuclear-based SRF allowed careful selection of donor nephrectomy, leaving the donor with the higher functioning kidney in most cases. There was also a significantly higher number of right-sided nephrectomies selected after nuclear-based SRF studies. CONCLUSION: CT-based volume measurements in living donor imaging have sufficient correlation with nuclear-based SRF. Selective use of nuclear-scan-based SRF allows careful selection for donor nephrectomy.

Early findings of prospective anti-HLA donor specific antibodies monitoring study in pancreas transplantation: Indiana University Health Experience.

The significance of donor-specific antibodies (DSA) is not well known in the setting of pancreas transplantation. Since December 2009, we prospectively followed pancreas transplant patients with single-antigen-luminex-bead testing at one, two, three, six, and then every six months for the first two yr. Thirty-five of the 92 patients that underwent pancreas transplantation (13 pancreas-alone [PTA], 20 with a kidney [SPK], and two after a kidney [PAK]) agreed to participate in study. Median age at transplant was 45 yr and follow-up was 23 months. Majority were Caucasian (n = 33) and male (n = 18). Rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin induction was used. Median HLA-mismatch was 4.2 ± 1.1. Eight patients (7SPK, 1PAK) developed post-transplant DSA at median follow-up of 76 d (26-119), 1 SPK had pre-formed DSA. Seven patients had both class I and class II DSA, one with class I and one with class II only. Mean peak class I DSA-MFI was 3529 (±1456); class II DSA-MFI was 5734 (±3204) whereas cumulative DSA MFI (CI + CII) was 9264 (±4233). No difference was observed in the patient and donor demographics among patients with and without DSA. One patient in non-DSA group developed acute cellular rejection of pancreas. From our data it appears that post-transplant DSA in pancreas allograft recipients may not impact the early-pancreatic allograft outcomes. The utility of prospective DSA monitoring in pancreatic transplant patients needs further evaluation and long-term follow-up.

The strength of donor-specific antibody is a more reliable predictor of antibody-mediated rejection than flow cytometry crossmatch analysis in desensitized kidney recipients.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of donor-specific antibodies (DSA) and flow cytometry crossmatch (FCCM) as tools for predicting antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) in desensitized kidney recipients. Sera from 44 patients with DSA at the time of transplant were reviewed. Strength of DSA was determined by single antigen Luminex bead assay and expressed as mean fluorescence intensity (MFI). T- and B-cell FCCM results were expressed as mean channel shift (MCS). AMR was diagnosed by C4d deposition on biopsy. Incidence of early AMR was 31%. Significant differences in the number of DSAs (p = 0.0002), cumulative median MFI in DSA class I (p = 0.0004), and total (class I + class II) DSA (p < 0.0001) were found in patients with and without AMR. No significant difference was seen in MCS of T and B FCCM (p = 0.095 and p = 0.307, respectively). The three-yr graft survival in desensitized patients with DSA having total MFI < 9500 was 100% compared to 76% with those having total MFI > 9500 (p = 0.022). Desensitized kidney transplant recipients having higher levels of class I and total DSA MFI are at high risk for AMR and poor graft survival. Recipient DSA MFI appears to be a more reliable predictor of AMR than MCS of FCCM.

Early steroid withdrawal in repeat kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Kidney re-transplantation (KRT) candidates are considered at high risk for graft failure. Most of these patients are kept on a chronic steroid maintenance (CSM) regimen. The safety of early steroid withdrawal (ESW) remains unanswered in KRT. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This study was aimed at comparing the outcomes of ESW and CSM in KRT. Retrospective analysis of 113 KRT patients (ESW, n=59; CSM, n=54) was performed. All patients received rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin/steroid induction and were maintained on mycophenolate/tacrolimus (±steroids). RESULTS: One- and 5-year patient survival for the ESW and the CSM group were not significantly different (98 versus 96% and 91 versus 88%, respectively; P=0.991). No significant difference was seen in the graft survival for both groups at 1 and 5 years (98 versus 93% and 80 versus 74%, respectively; P=0.779). Mean 1- and 5-year estimated GFR was not statistically different between the groups (P=0.773 and 0.790, respectively). The incidence of acute rejection at 1 year was 17 and 22% in ESW and CSM patients, respectively (P=0.635). Compared with the ESW group, patients in the CSM group were more likely to be hyperlipidemic (P=0.044), osteoporotic (P=0.010), post-transplant diabetics (P=0.051) and required more medications to control BP (P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: ESW seems to be a reasonable approach in KRT recipients because the short and intermediate patient survival, graft survival, and graft function is comparable to CSM immunosuppression.