Long-term outcome of renal transplantation from octogenarian donors: A multicenter controlled study.

To assess whether biopsy-guided selection of kidneys from very old brain-dead donors enables more successful transplantations, the authors of this multicenter, observational study compared graft survival between 37 recipients of 1 or 2 histologically evaluated kidneys from donors older than 80 years and 198 reference-recipients of non-histologically evaluated single grafts from donors aged 60 years and younger (transplantation period: 2006-2013 at 3 Italian centers). During a median (interquartile range) of 25 (13-42) months, 2 recipients (5.4%) and 10 reference-recipients (5.1%) required dialysis (crude and donor age- and sex-adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.55 [0.34-7.12], P = .576 and 1.41 [0.10-19.54], P = .798, respectively). Shared frailty analyses confirmed similar outcomes in a 1:2 propensity score study comparing recipients with 74 reference-recipients matched by center, year, donor, and recipient sex and age. Serum creatinine was similar across groups during 84-month follow-up. Recipients had remarkably shorter waiting times than did reference-recipients and matched reference-recipients (7.5 [4.0-19.5] vs 36 [19-56] and 40 [24-56] months, respectively, P < .0001 for both comparisons). Mean (± SD) kidney donor risk index was 2.57 ± 0.32 in recipients vs 1.09 ± 0.24 and 1.14 ± 0.24 in reference-recipients and matched reference-recipients (P < .0001 for both comparisons). Adverse events were similar across groups. Biopsy-guided allocation of kidneys from octogenarian donors permits further expansion of the donor organ pool and faster access to a kidney transplant, without increasing the risk of premature graft failure.

Optimizing utilization of kidneys from deceased donors over 60 years: five-year outcomes after implementation of a combined clinical and histological allocation algorithm.

This 5 year observational multicentre study conducted in the Nord Italian Transplant programme area evaluated outcomes in patients receiving kidneys from donors over 60 years allocated according to a combined clinical and histological algorithm. Low-risk donors 60-69 years without risk factors were allocated to single kidney transplant (LR-SKT) based on clinical criteria. Biopsy was performed in donors over 70 years or 60-69 years with risk factors, allocated to Single (HR-SKT) or Dual kidney transplant (HR-DKT) according to the severity of histological damage. Forty HR-DKTs, 41 HR-SKTs and 234 LR-SKTs were evaluated. Baseline differences generally reflected stratification and allocation criteria. Patient and graft (death censored) survival were 90% and 92% for HR-DKT, 85% and 89% for HR-SKT, 88% and 87% for LR-SKT. The algorithm appeared user-friendly in daily practice and was safe and efficient, as demonstrated by satisfactory outcomes in all groups at 5 years. Clinical criteria performed well in low-risk donors. The excellent outcomes observed in DKTs call for fine-tuning of cut-off scores for allocation to DKT or SKT in high-risk patients.

Long-Term Outcomes of Kidney Transplants from Older/Marginal Donors: A Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: To safely expand the donor pool, we introduced a strategy of biopsy-guided selection and allocation to single or dual transplantation of kidneys from donors >60 years old or with hypertension, diabetes, and/or proteinuria (older/marginal donors). Here, we evaluated the long-term performance of this approach in everyday clinical practice. METHODS: In this single-center cohort study, we compared outcomes of 98 patients who received one or two biopsy-evaluated grafts from older/marginal donors ("recipients") and 198 patients who received nonhistologically assessed single graft from ideal donors ("reference-recipients") from October 2004 to December 2015 at the Bergamo Transplant Center (Italy). RESULTS: Older/marginal donors and their recipients were 27.9 and 19.3 years older than ideal donors and their reference-recipients, respectively. KDPI/KDRI and donor serum creatinine were higher and cold ischemia time longer in the recipient group. During a median follow-up of 51.9 (interquartile range 23.1-88.6) months, 11.2% of recipients died, 7.1% lost their graft, and 16.3% had biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) versus 3.5, 7.6, and 17.7%, respectively, of reference-recipients. Overall death-censored graft failure (rate ratio 0.78 [95% CI 0.33-2.08]), 5-year death-censored graft survival (94.3% [87.8-100.0] vs. 94.2% [90.5-98.0]), BPAR incidence (rate ratio 0.87 [0.49-1.62]), and yearly measured glomerular filtration rate decline (1.18 ± 3.27 vs. 0.68 ± 2.42 mL/min/1.73 m2, p = 0.37) were similar between recipients and reference-recipients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Biopsy-guided selection and allocation of kidneys from older/marginal donors can safely increase transplant activity in clinical practice without affecting long-term outcomes. This may help manage the growing gap between organ demand and supply without affecting long-term recipient and graft outcomes.

Diffuse Micro-Nodules on Peritoneal Surfaces at Donor Organ Procurement: Highlights on the Diagnostic Challenge and Transplant Management.

BACKGROUND Guidelines have been designed to stratify the risk of cancer transmission in donors with a history of or ongoing malignancy, although this evaluation is not always straightforward when unexpected and rare lesions are found. CASE REPORT Here, we present a case of a 41-year-old African female donor who died from a cerebral hemorrhage. Her medical history was unavailable. At procurement, multiple diffuse grayish small nodules were noticed along the peritoneal cavity, some of which were sent to the on-call pathologist for urgent frozen section evaluation. Histology showed a multinodular proliferation of uniform bland-appearing spindle cells, with no evidence of necrosis, nor nuclear atypia or mitoses. The overall picture was consistent with the diagnosis of disseminated peritoneal leiomyomatosis, with overlapping morphology with uterine leiomyoma. Given the rarity of the lesion and the potential for recurrence or malignant degeneration, only the liver and heart were allocated to recipients with life-threatening conditions. The decision was taken in a forcedly limited time and took into account the benefit of transplantation and the risk of disease transmission. CONCLUSIONS This case highlights challenges that transplant teams often have to deal with, as lesions that are difficult to diagnose during donor assessment are usually not covered in guidelines. The acceptance and usage of organs in such cases has to be decided in a team-based fashion, with the collaboration of all the transplant professionals involved to optimally assess the transmission risk, carefully balancing the benefits of transplantation for the recipients and the need to guarantee a reasonable degree of safety.

Preimplantation Histological Score Associates with 6-Month GFR in Recipients of Perfused, Older Kidney Grafts: Results from a Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Biopsy-guided selection of older kidneys safely expands the organ pool, and pretransplant perfusion improves the preservation of these fragile organs. Herein, we studied morphofunctional variables associated with graft outcomes in perfused, histologically evaluated older kidneys. METHODS: This single-center prospective cohort pilot study evaluated the relationships between preimplantation histologic scores and renal perfusion parameters during hypothermic, pulsatile, machine perfusion (MP) and assessed whether these morphofunctional parameters associated with GFR (iohexol plasma clearance) at 6 months after transplantation in 20 consecutive consenting recipients of a biopsy-guided single or dual kidney transplant from >60-year-old deceased donors. RESULTS: The donor and recipient age was 70.4 ± 6.5 and 63.6 ± 7.9 years (p = 0.005), respectively. The kidney donor profile index (KDPI) was 93.3 ± 8.4% (>80% in 19 cases), histologic score 4.4 ± 1.4, and median (IQR) cold ischemia time 19.8 (17.8-22.8 h; >24 h in 5 cases). The 6-month GFR was 41.2 (34.9-55.7) mL/min. Vascular resistances positively correlated with global histologic score (p = 0.018) at MP start and then decreased from 0.88 ± 0.43 to 0.36 ± 0.13 mm Hg/mL/min (p < 0.001) in parallel with a three-fold renal flow increase from 24.0 ± 14.7 to 74.7 ± 31.8 mL/min (p < 0.001). Consistently, vascular resistance reductions positively correlated with global histologic score (p = 0.009, r = -0.429). Unlike KDPI or vascular resistances, histologic score was independently associated with 6-month GFR (beta standardized coefficient: -0.894, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: MP safely improves graft perfusion, particularly in kidneys with severe histologic changes that would not be considered for transplantation because of high KDPI. The preimplantation histologic score associates with the functional recovery of older kidneys even in the context of a standardized program of pulsatile perfusion.

The 3-T Model of Informed Consent for Nonstandard Risk Donors: A Proposal for Transplant Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: The risk of disease transmission from nonstandard risk donors (NSRDs) is low, and outcomes are similar or better relative to transplants performed with standard criteria donors. However, NSRDs have posed new ethical challenges to the informed consent (IC) process. Based on the shared decision-making model, coinciding with the 3 main timings of the IC process ([1] pretransplant assessments and waiting list registration, [2] time on the waiting list, and [3] time of the organ offer), we put forward a model (3-T Model) to summarize the knowledge on IC for NSRDs and to deliver conceptual and practical support to transplant providers on this emergent issue. METHODS: We searched PubMed and analyzed data from our area to provide evidence and ethical arguments to promote standardization of the timing of patient information, degree of patient participation, and disclosure of donor risk factors throughout the 3 stages of the time continuum leading to the potential acceptance of NSRDs. RESULTS: Each of the 3 timings carries special ethical significance and entails well-defined duties for transplant providers relative to patient involvement and information of the benefits and risks associated with NSRDs. Based on our framework, experience, and interpretation of the literature, we put forward a list of recommendations to combine standardization (ie, timing, content, and degree of patient participation) and individualization of IC. CONCLUSIONS: The 3-T Model may enable the prevention of physicians' arbitrariness and the promotion of patient-centered care. Future studies will assess the effectiveness of the 3-T Model in transplant clinical practice.

[Waiting time on dialysis for active access to renal transplantation: a multicenter cross-sectional study in Lombardy].

BACKGROUND: The amount of time spent in dialysis waiting for a renal transplantation significantly affects its outcome. Hence, the timely planning of patients' transplant evaluation is crucial. According to data from the Nord Italia Transplant program (NITp), the average waiting time between the beginning of dialysis and the admission to the regional transplant waiting list in Lombardy is 20.2 months. METHODS: A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted in order to identify the causes of these delays and find solutions. Two questionnaires were administered to the directors of 47 Nephrology Units and to 106 patients undergoing dialysis in Lombardy respectively, during their first visit for admission to the transplant waiting list. RESULTS: The comparative analysis of the results revealed that both patients (52%) and directors (75%) consider the time required for registering to the waiting list too long. Patients judge information about the transplant to be insufficient, especially regarding the pre-emptive option (63% of patients declare that they had not been informed about this opportunity). Patients report a significantly longer time for the completion of pre-transplantation tests (more than 1 year in 23% of the cases) compared to that indicated by the directors. CONCLUSIONS: The study confirmed the necessity of providing better and more timely information to patients regarding the different kidney transplantation options and highlighted the importance of creating target-oriented and dedicated pathways in all hospitals.

Incidence of cancer after kidney transplant: results from the North Italy transplant program.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing kidney transplantation demonstrate a higher risk of developing cancer as the result of immunosuppressive treatment and concurrent infections. METHODS: The incidence of cancer in a cohort of patients who underwent kidney transplantation between 1990 and 2000, and who survived the acute phase (10 days), was analyzed as part of the North Italy Transplant program. RESULTS: A total of 3,521 patients underwent transplantation during a 10-year period in 10 of 13 participating centers; the length of follow-up after kidney transplant was 67.7+/-36.0 months. During the follow-up, 172 patients developed cancer (39 with Kaposi sarcoma, 38 with lymphoproliferative diseases, and 95 with carcinomas [17 kidney, 11 non-basal cell carcinoma of the skin, 10 colorectal, 8 breast, 7 gastric, 7 lung, 6 bladder, and 3 mesothelioma]). The average time to cancer development after transplant was 40.1+/-33.4 months (range 0-134 months). Twenty-four patients developed cancer within 6 months from the transplant (10 with carcinomas, 7 with Kaposi sarcoma, and 7 with lymphoproliferative diseases). Three patients demonstrated a second primary cancer. The average cancer incidence was 4.9%. The incidence of cancer was 0.01 per year. Independent determinants of cancer development were age, gender, and immunosuppressive protocol including induction. Ten-year mortality was significantly higher in patients with cancer (33.1%) than among patients without cancer (5.3%). The relative risk of death in subjects with cancer was 5.5 (confidence interval 4.1-7.4). CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary data underline the importance of long-term surveillance of transplant recipients, choice of immunosuppressive treatment, and careful donor selection.

Renal transplantation. Strategies to prevent organ rejection--the role of an inter-regional reference center.

This paper summarizes the role of the Inter-Regional Reference Center (RC) of the North Italy Transplant program (NITp), in coordinating a donor procurement and organ transplantation network, with a special focus on the strategies to minimize immunological risk and complications after transplantation. In the NITp, patients enrolled on the renal transplantation (RT) waiting list are typed for HLA-A,B,DRB1 antigens with a genomic method. They are periodically screened for the presence of lymphocytotoxic antibodies in their serum by the RC and their suitability to receive the transplant is checked periodically. Cadaver kidney allocation is ruled by a computerized algorithm, named NITK3, established in 1997, which aims at ensuring quality, equity, transparency and traceability during all the phases of the allocation decision-making process. NITK3 has been set up by the NITp Working Group on the basis of biological, medical and administrative criteria and it is periodically reviewed after the analysis of transplant results. In this paper, we show the results of a preliminary analysis of RTs performed from 1998 to 2002 in nine out of sixteen centers of the NITp area, which demonstrates the general quality of the NITp program in terms of patients and graft survival and the special attention to the patients at higher immunological risk.