D. M. Summers

Analysis of factors that affect outcome after transplantation of kidneys donated after cardiac death in the UK: a cohort study

BACKGROUND A third of all kidneys from deceased donors in the UK are donated after cardiac death, but concerns have been raised about the long-term outcome of such transplants. We aimed to establish these outcomes for kidneys donated after controlled cardiac death versus brain death, and to identify the factors that affect graft survival and function. METHODS We used data from the UK transplant registry to select a cohort of deceased kidney donors and the corresponding transplant recipients (aged ≥18 years) for transplantations done between Jan 1, 2000, and Dec 31, 2007. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to assess graft survival, and multivariate analyses were used to identify factors associated with graft survival and with long-term renal function, which was measured from estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). FINDINGS 9134 kidney transplants were done in 23 centres; 8289 kidneys were donated after brain death and 845 after controlled cardiac death. First-time recipients of kidneys from cardiac-death donors (n=739) or brain-death donors (n=6759) showed no difference in graft survival up to 5 years (hazard ratio 1·01, 95% CI 0·83 to 1·19, p=0·97), or in eGFR at 1-5 years after transplantation (at 12 months -0·36 mL/min per 1·73 m(2), 95% CI -2·00 to 1·27, p=0·66). For recipients of kidneys from cardiac-death donors, increasing age of donor and recipient, repeat transplantation, and cold ischaemic time of more than 12 h were associated with worse graft survival; grafts from cardiac-death donors that were poorly matched for HLA had an association with inferior outcome that was not significant, and delayed graft function and warm ischaemic time had no effect on outcome. INTERPRETATION Kidneys from controlled cardiac-death donors provide good graft survival and function up to 5 years in first-time recipients, and are equivalent to kidneys from brain-death donors. Allocation policy for kidneys from cardiac-death donors should reduce cold ischaemic time, avoid large age mismatches between donors and recipients, and restrict use of kidneys poorly matched for HLA in young recipients. FUNDING UK National Health Service Blood and Transplant, and Cambridge National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre.

Effect of donor age and cold storage time on outcome in recipients of kidneys donated after circulatory death in the UK: a cohort study

BACKGROUND Use of kidneys donated after controlled circulatory death has increased the number of transplants undertaken in the UK but there remains reluctance to use kidneys from older circulatory-death donors and concern that kidneys from circulatory-death donors are particularly susceptible to cold ischaemic injury. We aimed to compare the effect of donor age and cold ischaemic time on transplant outcome in kidneys donated after circulatory death versus brain death. METHODS We used the UK transplant registry to select a cohort of first-time recipients (aged ≥ 18 years) of deceased-donor kidneys for transplantations done between Jan 1, 2005, and Nov 1, 2010. We did univariate comparisons of transplants from brain-death donors versus circulatory-death donors with χ tests for categorical data and Wilcoxon tests for non-parametric continuous data. We used Kaplan-Meier curves to show graft survival. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to adjust for donor and recipient factors associated with graft-survival with tests for interaction effects to establish the relative effect of donor age and cold ischaemia on kidneys from circulatory-death and brain-death donors. FINDINGS 6490 deceased-donor kidney transplants were done at 23 centres. 3 year graft survival showed no difference between circulatory-death (n=1768) and brain-death (n=4127) groups (HR 1·14, 95% CI 0·95-1·36, p=0·16). Donor age older than 60 years (compared with <40 years) was associated with an increased risk of graft loss for all deceased-donor kidneys (2·35, 1·85-3·00, p<0·0001) but there was no increased risk of graft loss for circulatory-death donors older than 60 years compared with brain-death donors in the same age group (p=0·30). Prolonged cold ischaemic time (>24 h vs <12 h) was not associated with decreased graft survival for all deceased-donor kidneys but was associated with poorer graft survival for kidneys from circulatory-death donors than for those from brain-death donors (2·36, 1·39-4·02, p for interaction=0·004). INTERPRETATION Kidneys from older circulatory-death donors have equivalent graft survival to kidneys from brain-death donors in the same age group, and are acceptable for transplantation. However, circulatory-death donor kidneys tolerate cold storage less well than do brain-death donor kidneys and this finding should be considered when developing organ allocation policy. FUNDING UK National Health Service Blood and Transplant; Cambridge National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre.

Defining delayed graft function after renal transplantation: simplest is best.

Background Delayed graft function (DGF) after renal transplantation can be diagnosed according to several different definitions, complicating comparison between studies that use DGF as an endpoint. This is a particular problem after transplantation with kidneys from donation after circulatory death (DCD) kidneys, because DGF is common, and its relationship to early graft failure may differ depending on the definition of DGF. Methods The presence of DGF in 213 donation after brain death (DBD) and 312 DCD kidney transplants from October 2005 to August 2011 was determined according to 10 different, but widely used, definitions (based on dialysis requirements, creatinine changes, or both). The relationship of DGF to graft function and graft survival was determined. Results The incidence of DGF varied widely depending on the definition used (DBD; 24%–70%: DCD; 41%–91%). For kidneys from DCD donors, development of DGF was only associated with poorer 1-year estimated glomerular filtration rate for 1 of 10 definitions of DGF, and no definition of DGF was associated with impaired graft survival. Conversely, for DBD kidneys, DGF, as defined in 9 of 10 different ways, was associated with poorer 1-year estimated glomerular filtration rate and inferior graft survival. Importantly, the predictive power for poorer transplant outcome was comparable for all definitions of DGF. Conclusion No definition of DGF is superior. We suggest that the most widely used and most easily calculated definition—the use of dialysis in the first postoperative week—should be universally adopted as the definition of DGF clinically and as a study endpoint.

Kidney donation after circulatory death (DCD): state of the art

The use of kidneys from controlled donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors has the potential to markedly increase kidney transplants performed. However, this potential is not being realized because of concerns that DCD kidneys are inferior to those from donation after brain-death (DBD) donors. The United Kingdom has developed a large and successful controlled DCD kidney transplant program that has allowed for a substantial increase in kidney transplant numbers. Here we describe recent trends in DCD kidney donor activity in the United Kingdom, outline aspects of the donation process, and describe donor selection and allocation of DCD kidneys. Previous UK Transplant Registry analyses have shown that while DCD kidneys are more susceptible to cold ischemic injury and have a higher incidence of delayed graft function, short- and medium-term transplant outcomes are similar in recipients of kidneys from DCD and DBD donors. We present an updated, extended UK registry analysis showing that longer-term transplant outcomes in DCD donor kidneys are also similar to those for DBD donor kidneys, and that transplant outcomes for kidneys from expanded-criteria DCD donors are no less favorable than for expanded-criteria DBD donors. Accordingly, the selection criteria for use of kidneys from DCD donors should be the same as those used for DBD donors. The UK experience suggests that wider international development of DCD kidney transplantation programs will help address the global shortage of deceased donor kidneys for transplantation.

Back to the future: application of contemporary technology to long-standing questions about the clinical relevance of human leukocyte antigen-specific alloantibodies in renal transplantation

Luminex technology allows the accurate identification of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) class I and class II-specific antibodies at levels below the threshold detectable by either conventional complement-dependent lymphocytotoxicity or flow cytometry. The technology enables the analysis of complex antibody profiles in sensitized patients and gives improved definition of acceptable and unacceptable HLA specificities to guide donor kidney allocation. This helps to facilitate virtual cross-matching and avoid inappropriate shipping of kidneys for incompatible patients in distant centers. Luminex allows the cause of a positive cross-match test to be determined in a clinically relevant time scale and, when used in conjunction with lymphocytotoxic and flow cytometric cross-matching, it provides an assessment of the level of immunological risk in patients being considered as potential recipients for a particular donor kidney. Information is now emerging to enable the full clinical potential of Luminex to be realized.

Is the Increase in DCD Organ Donors in the United Kingdom Contributing to a Decline in DBD Donors

Introduction. Organ donation after brain death (DBD) has declined in the United Kingdom, whereas donation after cardiac death (DCD) has increased markedly. We sought to understand the reasons for the decline in DBD and determine whether the increase in DCD was a major factor. Methods. The UK Transplant Registry was analyzed to determine trends in organ donation. Data from the “Potential Donor Audit,” an audit of all patients younger than 76 years who died in noncardiothoracic UK intensive care units, was analyzed to identify trends in clinical demographics and management and to determine whether potential donors (DBD and DCD) were identified and appropriate steps were taken to enable organ donation. Results. There were 7589 (12.8 per million of population [pmp]) deceased organ donors in the United Kingdom from 1999 to 2009. The total number of deceased donors increased by 16% (to 14.9 pmp), but DBD donors decreased from 744 to 612, and the overall increase in donors was due to an 8-fold increase in DCD donors (33 in 1999 to 2000, 288 in 2008 to 2009). Analysis of the Potential Donor Audit over the 5-year period 2004 to 2005 to 2008 to 2009 showed that the number of patients dying in intensive care units who were possibly brain stem dead (comatose, apparently apnoeic with unresponsive pupils) decreased from 1929 in 2004 to 2005 to 1495 in 2008 to 2009 (22.5% reduction). The proportion of potential DBD donors who became donors increased from 45% to 51%. Conclusion. There is no evidence that the increase in DCD donors has contributed directly to the decline in DBD, which reflects a decrease in the number of patients with brain death.

Standardized deceased donor kidney donation rates in the UK reveal marked regional variation and highlight the potential for increasing kidney donation: a prospective cohort study

Background The UK has implemented a national strategy for organ donation that includes a centrally coordinated network of specialist nurses in organ donation embedded in all intensive care units and a national organ retrieval service for deceased organ donors. We aimed to determine whether despite the national approach to donation there is significant regional variation in deceased donor kidney donation rates. Methods The UK prospective audit of deaths in critical care was analysed for a cohort of patients who died in critical care between April 2010 and December 2011. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify the factors associated with kidney donation. The logistic regression model was then used to produce risk-adjusted funnel plots describing the regional variation in donation rates. Results Of the 27 482 patients who died in a critical care setting, 1528 (5.5%) became kidney donors. Factors found to influence donation rates significantly were: type of critical care [e.g. neurointensive vs general intensive care: OR 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34–1.75, P<0.0001], patient ethnicity (e.g. ‘Asian’ vs ‘white’: OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.11–0.26, P<0.0001), age (e.g. age >69 vs age 18–39 yr: OR 0.2, 0.15–0.25, P<0.0001), and cause of death [e.g. ‘other’ (excluding ‘stroke’ and ‘trauma’) vs ‘trauma’: OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.03–0.05, P<0.0001]. Despite correction for these variables, kidney donation rates for the 20 UK kidney donor regions showed marked variation. The overall standardized donation rate ranged from 3.2 to 7.5%. Four regions had donation rates of >2 standard deviations (sd) from the mean (two below and two above). Regional variation was most marked for donation after circulatory death (DCD) kidney donors with 9 of the 20 regions demonstrating donation rates of >2 sd from the mean (5 below and 4 above). Conclusions The marked regional variation in kidney donation rates observed in this cohort after adjustment for factors strongly associated with donation rates suggests that there is considerable scope for further increasing kidney donation rates in the UK, particularly DCD.

Donors With Immune Thrombocytopenia: Do They Pose a Risk to Transplant Recipients?

Transplant‐mediated alloimmune thrombocytopenia (TMAT) from donors with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) can result in significant bleeding complications in the recipient. The risk to a recipient of TMAT if they receive an organ from a donor with ITP is unknown. The outcomes of recipients of organs from deceased donors with ITP recorded in the UK Transplant Registry between 2000 and 2015 were reviewed. Twenty‐one deceased organ donors had a predonation diagnosis of ITP. These donors were significantly more likely to have died from intracranial hemorrhage than were all other deceased organ donors (85% vs. 57%, p < 0.001). Organs from donors with ITP resulted in 49 organ transplants (31 kidney, 14 liver, four heart), with only one case of TMAT, which occurred in a liver transplant recipient and resulted in death from bleeding complications 18 days posttransplantation. The recipient of a kidney from the same organ donor was not affected. Unadjusted 5‐year patient and graft survival was significantly worse for liver transplant recipients from donors with ITP compared with liver transplant recipients from donors without ITP (64% vs. 85%, p = 0.012). Organs from donors with ITP may be considered for transplantation, but livers should be used with caution.

Transplantation of organs from deceased donors with meningitis and encephalitis: a UK registry analysis

Deceased organ donors, where the cause of death is meningitis or encephalitis, are a potential concern because of the risks of transmission of a potentially fatal infection to recipients.

Local Expansion of Donation After Circulatory Death Kidney Transplant Activity Improves Waitlisted Outcomes and Addresses Inequities of Access to Transplantation.

In the United Kingdom, donation after circulatory death (DCD) kidney transplant activity has increased rapidly, but marked regional variation persists. We report how increased DCD kidney transplant activity influenced waitlisted outcomes for a single center. Between 2002–2003 and 2011–2012, 430 (54%) DCD and 361 (46%) donation after brain death (DBD) kidney‐only transplants were performed at the Cambridge Transplant Centre, with a higher proportion of DCD donors fulfilling expanded criteria status (41% DCD vs. 32% DBD; p = 0.01). Compared with U.K. outcomes, for which the proportion of DCD:DBD kidney transplants performed is lower (25%; p < 0.0001), listed patients at our center waited less time for transplantation (645 vs. 1045 days; p < 0.0001), and our center had higher transplantation rates and lower numbers of waiting list deaths. This was most apparent for older patients (aged >65 years; waiting time 730 vs. 1357 days nationally; p < 0.001), who received predominantly DCD kidneys from older donors (mean donor age 64 years), whereas younger recipients received equal proportions of living donor, DBD and DCD kidney transplants. Death‐censored kidney graft survival was nevertheless comparable for younger and older recipients, although transplantation conferred a survival benefit from listing for only younger recipients. Local expansion in DCD kidney transplant activity improves survival outcomes for younger patients and addresses inequity of access to transplantation for older recipients.