Kidney Allograft Monitoring by Combining Donor-Derived Cell-Free DNA and Molecular Gene Expression: A Clinical Management Perspective.

Donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) may safely assess kidney allograft rejection. Molecular Microscope (MMDx®) gene expression may offer increased precision to histology. This single-center retrospective study monitored kidney transplant recipients for rejection at specified time intervals by utilizing creatinine (SCr), proteinuria, donor-specific antibodies (DSAs), and dd-cfDNA. A clinically indicated biopsy sample was sent for histopathology and MMDx®. Patients were categorized into rejection (Rej) and non-rejection (NRej) groups, and further grouped according to antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) subtypes. Rej and NRej groups included 52 and 37 biopsies, respectively. Median follow-up duration was 506 days. DSAs were positive in 53% and 22% of patients in both groups, respectively (p = 0.01). Among these groups, pre- and post-intervention median SCr, proteinuria, and dd-cfDNA at 1 month, 2 months, and at the last follow-up revealed significant difference for dd-cfDNA (all p = 0.01), however, no difference was found for SCr and proteinuria (p > 0.05). The AUC was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.69-0.91), with an optimal dd-cfDNA criterion of 2.2%. Compared to histology, MMDx® was more likely to diagnose ABMR (79% vs. 100%) with either C4d positivity or negativity and/or DSA positivity or negativity. Hence, a pre- and post-intervention allograft monitoring protocol in combination with dd-cfDNA, MMDx®, and histology has aided in early diagnosis and timely individualized intervention.

Terlipressin in combination with albumin as a therapy for hepatorenal syndrome in patients aged 65 years or older.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Clinical data for older patients with advanced liver disease are limited. This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of terlipressin in patients aged ≥65 years with hepatorenal syndrome using data from 3 Phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled studies (OT-0401, REVERSE, CONFIRM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The pooled population of patients aged ≥65 years (terlipressin, n = 54; placebo, n = 36) was evaluated for hepatorenal syndrome reversal-defined as a serum creatinine level ≤1.5 mg/dL (≤132.6 µmol/L) while receiving terlipressin or placebo, without renal replacement therapy, liver transplantation, or death-and the incidence of renal replacement therapy (RRT). Safety analyses included an assessment of adverse events. RESULTS: Hepatorenal syndrome reversal was almost 2-times higher in terlipressin-treated patients compared with patients who received placebo (31.5% vs 16.7%; P = 0.143). Among surviving patients, the need for RRT was significantly reduced in the terlipressin group, with an almost 3-times lower incidence of RRT versus the placebo group (Day 90: 25.0% vs 70.6%; P = 0.005). Among 23 liver-transplant-listed patients, significantly fewer patients in the terlipressin versus placebo group needed RRT by Days 30 and 60 (P = 0.027 each). Fewer patients in the terlipressin group needed RRT post-transplant (P = 0.011). More terlipressin-treated patients who were listed for and received a liver transplant were alive and RRT-free by Day 90. No new safety signals were revealed in the older subpopulation compared with previously published data. CONCLUSIONS: Terlipressin therapy may lead to clinical improvements in highly vulnerable patients aged ≥65 years with hepatorenal syndrome. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBERS: OT-0401, NCT00089570; REVERSE, NCT01143246; CONFIRM, NCT02770716.

Antibody Therapeutics as Interfering Agents in Flow Cytometry Crossmatch for Organ Transplantation.

Donor-recipient matching is a highly individualized and complex component of solid organ transplantation. Flowcytometry crossmatching (FC-XM) is an integral step in the matching process that is used to detect pre-formed deleterious anti-donor immunoglobulin. Despite high sensitivity in detecting cell-bound immunoglobulin, FC-XM is not able to determine the source or function of immunoglobulins detected. Monoclonal antibody therapeutic agents used in a clinic can interfere with the interpretation of FC-XM. We combined data from the prospectively maintained Antibody Society database and Human Protein Atlas with a comprehensive literature review of PubMed to summarize known FC-XM-interfering antibody therapeutics and identify potential interferers. We identified eight unique FC-XM-interfering antibody therapeutics. Rituximab (anti-CD20) was the most-cited agent. Daratumuab (anti-CD38) was the newest reported agent. We identified 43 unreported antibody therapeutics that may interfere with FC-XM. As antibody therapeutic agents become more common, identifying and mitigating FC-XM interference will likely become an increased focus for transplant centers.

A case series of perioperative anaphylaxis to cefazolin during kidney transplant and review of literature.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative anaphylaxis is a life threatening and multiorgan system hypersensitivity reaction that frequently leads to cessation of operations. Despite the incidence of Cefazolin allergy being on the rise, the cases of anaphylaxis to Cefazolin during surgeries and its management are seldom reported. CASE PRESENTATION: We present two patients with no known beta-lactam allergy and end stage kidney disease who received perioperative intravenous Cefazolin for planned deceased kidney transplant surgery at our academic medical center. Both patients developed anaphylaxes approximately three minutes following the administration of the antibiotic and experienced severe, refractory hypotension that required the use of vasopressors. The severity of the anaphylactic reactions resulted in the cessation of the transplant operation and multiple days of intensive care unit admission. CONCLUSION: Peri-or intraoperative anaphylaxis to Cefazolin is on the rise and its consequences in transplant candidates are even more dire given the pre-existing end organ failure, financial burden for health care system, potential loss of donor organs, and emotional burden for recipients and their families. These are the first two cases of reported Cefazolin-induced anaphylaxis that actually resulted in aborting the kidney transplant operation. In addition, cases of previously reported Type 1 hypersensitivity to Cefazolin as prophylaxis for operations were reviewed and the allergy workups were discussed.

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.

C-peptide levels do not correlate with pancreas allograft failure: Multicenter retrospective analysis and discussion of the new OPT definition of pancreas allograft failure.

The OPTN Pancreas Transplantation Committee performed a multicenter retrospective study to determine if undetectable serum C-peptide levels correspond to center-reported pancreas graft failures. C-peptide data from seven participating centers (n = 415 graft failures for transplants performed from 2002 to 2012) were analyzed pretransplant, at graft failure, and at return to insulin. One hundred forty-nine C-peptide values were submitted at pretransplant, 94 at return to insulin, and 233 at graft failure. There were 77 transplants with two available values (at pretransplant and at graft failure). For recipients in the study with pretransplant C-peptide <0.75 ng/mL who had a posttransplant C-peptide value available (n = 61), graft failure was declared at varying levels of C-peptide. High C-peptide values at graft failure were not explained by nonfasting testing or by individual center bias. Transplant centers declare pancreas graft failure at varying levels of C-peptide and do not consistently report C-peptide data. Until February 28, 2018, OPTN did not require reporting of posttransplant C-peptide levels and it appears that C-peptide levels are not consistently used for evaluating graft function. C-peptide levels should not be used as the sole criterion for the definition of pancreas graft failure.

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.

Deceased donor organ procurement injuries in the United States.

AIM: To determine the incidence of surgical injury during deceased donor organ procurements. METHODS: Organ damage was classified into three tiers, from 1-3, with the latter rendering the organ non-transplantable. For 12 consecutive months starting in January of 2014, 36 of 58 organ procurement organization's (OPO)'s prospectively submitted quality data regarding organ damage (as reported by the transplanting surgeon and confirmed by the OPO medical director) seen on the procured organ. RESULTS: These 36 OPOs recovered 5401 of the nations's 8504 deceased donors for calendar year 2014. A total of 19043 organs procured were prospectively analyzed. Of this total, 59 organs sustained damage making them non-transplantable (0 intestines; 4 pancreata; 5 lungs; 6 livers; 43 kidneys). The class 3 damage was spread over 22 (of 36) reporting OPO's. CONCLUSION: While damage to the procured organ is rare with organ loss being approximately 0.3% of procured organs, loss of potential transplantable organs does occur during procurement.

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.

Trends and outcomes in right vs. left living donor nephrectomy: an analysis of the OPTN/UNOS database of donor and recipient outcomes--should we be doing more right-sided nephrectomies?

BACKGROUND: Discussion continues about right vs. left donor nephrectomy (LDN). Left side is preferred due to longer renal vein while right side has been associated with renal vein thrombosis and shorter vessels. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of UNOS database for adult living donor transplants between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2009. RESULTS: We identified 58 599 living donor transplants, of which 86.1% were LDN. There were no significant differences between the recipients or donors demographics. There were higher rates of delayed graft function in right donor nephrectomy (RDN) recipients with a hazard risk of 1.38 (95% CI 1.24-1.53; p < 0.0001). Primary failure rates were similar. In the RDN group, graft thrombosis as cause of graft failure was statistically higher with a hazard ratio of 1.48 (95% CI 1.18-1.86, p = 0.0004), and graft survival was significantly inferior (p = 0.006 log-rank test). For living donors outcomes, the conversion from laparoscopic to open was higher in the RDN group with an odds ratio of 2.02 (95% CI 1.61-2.52; p < 0.00001). There was no significant difference in vascular complications or re-operation required due to bleeding. Re-operations and re-admissions were higher in the LDN group. CONCLUSION: There are statistical differences between left and right kidney donor nephrectomies on recipient outcomes, but the difference is extremely small. The choice and laterality should be based on center and surgeon preference and experience.

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.

Impact of duration of diabetes on outcome following pancreas transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: The impact of duration of T1DM on outcomes following simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation (SPK), pancreas after kidney transplantation (PAK), and pancreas transplantation alone (PTA) is currently unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 451 pancreas transplants performed at a single institution between January 2003 and April 2013 (SPK n = 238, PAK, n = 97, and PTA, n = 116) were divided into three groups based on cumulative years of T1DM (0-20 years, 21-30 years, and >30 years). Early (7-day) and late (90-day) pancreas allograft loss, patient and pancreas allograft survivals were analyzed. RESULTS: While, PAK was more common in recipients with >30 years of T1DM (29%, p < 0.0047), PTA was more common in recipients with 0-20 years of T1DM (41%, p < 0.0011). In all transplant types, recipients age was significantly higher the longer the duration of diabetes. Although longer duration of T1DM correlated with a higher rate of major amputations in PAK recipients (p < 0.0032), no difference was observed in SPK or PTA. While early pancreas graft loss was 2-4% in SPK and PAK with shorter or longer T1DM (p = n.s.), it reached to 10% in PTA with T1DM > 30 years (p < 0.0097). Longer duration of T1DM affected late pancreas graft loss in PAK patients (8%, p < 0.0349). Patient and death-censored graft survival rates were similar in all types of pancreas transplantation extracted by accumulation of years of T1DM prior to transplant. CONCLUSIONS: Longstanding T1DM does not seem to negatively impact recipient outcomes following all types of pancreas transplantation.

Late pancreas retransplantation.

Pancreas retransplantation, excluding immediate retransplantation for graft thrombosis, is a technically treacherous operation with the added challenges of adhesions from the prior transplant and difficulties identifying usable recipient vessels. The goal of this study was to review our single-center experience with late pancreas retransplantation. Charts for all pancreas transplant recipients between 01/2003 and 04/2013 were reviewed for demographics, graft and patient survival, length of stay (LOS), readmissions, and technical complications. Of 473 pancreas transplants, there were 20 late pancreas retransplants compared to 441 first transplants. There were no significant differences in donor or recipient demographics. There was no significant difference in graft or patient survival. The mean and median lengths of stay were 22 and nine d, respectively (range 5-175 d), and 11 recipients required readmission within the first three months post-transplant. Five patients were reexplored in the early postoperative period for an enteric leak at the site of the primary allograft (n = 1), complications of percutaneous gastrostomy tube placement (n = 1), hemorrhage (n = 1), and negative laparotomy for hyperglycemia (n = 2). Pancreas retransplantation is technically challenging but can be safely performed with graft and recipient survival comparable to primary transplants.

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.

Analysis of anti-HLA antibodies in sensitized kidney transplant candidates subjected to desensitization with intravenous immunoglobulin and rituximab.

BACKGROUND: Preexisting donor-specific antibodies against human leukocyte antigens are major risk factors for acute antibody-mediated and chronic rejection of kidney transplant grafts. Immunomodulation (desensitization) protocols may reduce antibody concentration and improve the success of transplant. We investigated the effect of desensitization with intravenous immunoglobulin and rituximab on the antibody profile in highly sensitized kidney transplant candidates. METHODS: In 31 transplant candidates (calculated panel-reactive antibody [cPRA], 34%-99%), desensitization included intravenous immunoglobulin on days 0 and 30 and a single dose of rituximab on day 15. Anti-human leukocyte antigen antibodies were analyzed before and after desensitization. RESULTS: Reduction of cPRA from 25% to 50% was noted for anti-class I (5 patients, within 20-60 days) and anti-class II (3 patients, within 10-20 days) antibodies. After initial reduction of cPRA, the cPRA increased within 120 days. In 24 patients, decrease in mean fluorescence intensity of antibodies by more than 50% was noted at follow-up, but there was no reduction of cPRA. Rebound occurred in 65% patients for anti-class I antibodies at 350 days and anti-class II antibodies at 101 to 200 days. Probability of rebound effect was higher in patients with mean fluorescence intensity of more than 10,700 before desensitization, anti-class II antibodies, and history of previous transplant. CONCLUSIONS: The desensitization protocol had limited efficacy in highly sensitized kidney transplant candidate because of the short period with antibody reduction and high frequency of rebound effect.

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.

Vascular catastrophes following pancreas transplantation: an evolution in strategy at a single center.

INTRODUCTION: Complications of pancreas transplantation involving the arterial anastomosis are potentially life threatening. In this report, we review our experience with such vascular catastrophes. METHODS: Pancreas transplants performed between January 2003 and December 2009 were reviewed. All cases of pseudoaneurysm (PA) or arterioenteric fistula (AEF) were included. RESULTS: Of 346 pancreas transplants, 10 vascular catastrophes in nine recipients were identified. There were five PAs, one involving the pancreas allograft, one involving the donor iliac artery Y-graft stump following allograft pancreatectomy, two involving the kidney allograft, and one involving the bifurcation of the Y-graft. The latter was treated with coil embolization, but subsequently developed into an AEF. There were five AEFs including the recipient mentioned above. Four had a failed allograft and three had discontinued immunosuppression. The final case had a clamp injury to the proximal common iliac artery that fistulized to the donor duodenum. The management, course and outcome of all nine recipients are described in detail. CONCLUSION: Vascular catastrophes such as PA and AEF are potentially life-threatening complications of pancreas transplantation. Immediate treatment at the time of bleeding is essential and covered stenting of the involved artery may provide immediate vascular control in these situations.

Pancreas transplantation after bariatric surgery.

Obese transplant candidates are at increased risk for perioperative and postoperative complications. In many transplant programs, morbid obesity is considered to be an exclusion criterion for transplantation. The only potential option that would grant these patients access to transplant is weight loss. Non-operative weight loss strategies such as behavioral modifications, exercise, diet, or medication have only very limited success in achieving long-term weight loss. In contrast, bariatric surgery was shown to achieve not only more excessive weight loss, but more importantly, this weight loss can be sustained for longer periods of time. Therefore, bariatric surgery presents an attractive option for weight loss for morbidly obese transplant candidates. We report our experience with four patients who underwent bariatric surgery prior to successful pancreas transplantation. Even though gastric bypass and laparoscopic adjustable gastric band present as equivalent alternatives for weight reduction, we believe that in the population of morbidly obese diabetic patients who are possible candidates for pancreas transplantation, laparoscopic adjustable gastric band placement is the more suitable procedure.