Association of Candidate Removals From the Kidney Transplant Waiting List and Center Performance Oversight.

Approximately 59 000 kidney transplant candidates have been removed from the waiting list since 2000 for reasons other than transplantation, death, or transfers. Prior studies indicate that low-performance (LP) center evaluations by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) are associated with reductions in transplant volume. There is limited information to determine whether performance oversight impacts waitlist management. We used national SRTR data to evaluate outcomes of 315 796 candidates on the kidney transplant waiting list (2007-2014). Compared to centers without LP, rates of waitlist removal (WLR) were higher at centers with LP evaluations (44.6/1000 follow-up years, 95% confidence interval [CI] 44.0, 45.1 versus 68.0/1000 follow-up years, 95% CI 66.6, 69.4), respectively, which was consistent after risk adjustment (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] = 1.59, 95% CI 1.55, 1.63). Candidate mortality following waitlist removal was lower at LP centers (AHR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.87, 0.94). Analyses limited to LP centers indicated a significant increase in WLR (+28.6 removals/1000 follow-up years, p < 0.001), a decrease in transplant rates (-11.9/1000 follow-up years, p < 0.001) and a decrease in mortality after removal (-67.5 deaths/1000 follow-up years, p < 0.001) following LP evaluation. There is a significant association between LP evaluations and transplant center processes of care for waitlisted candidates. Further understanding is needed to determine the impact of performance oversight on transplant center quality of care and patient outcomes.

Critical Factors Associated With Missing Follow-Up Data for Living Kidney Donors in the United States.

Follow-up care for living kidney donors is an important responsibility of the transplant community. Prior reports indicate incomplete donor follow-up information, which may reflect both donor and transplant center factors. New UNOS regulations require reporting of donor follow-up information by centers for 2 years. We utilized national SRTR data to evaluate donor and center-level factors associated with completed follow-up for donors 2008-2012 (n = 30 026) using multivariable hierarchical logistic models. We compared center follow-up compliance based on current UNOS standards using adjusted and unadjusted models. Complete follow-up at 6, 12, and 24 months was 67%, 60%, and 50% for clinical and 51%, 40%, and 30% for laboratory data, respectively, but have improved over time. Donor risk factors for missing laboratory data included younger age 18-34 (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.03, 1.58-2.60), black race (AOR = 1.17, 1.05-1.30), lack of insurance (AOR = 1.25, 1.15-1.36), lower educational attainment (AOR = 1.19, 1.06-1.34), >500 miles to center (AOR = 1.78, 1.60-1.98), and centers performing >40 living donor transplants/year (AOR = 2.20, 1.21-3.98). Risk-adjustment moderately shifted classification of center compliance with UNOS standards. There is substantial missing donor follow-up with marked variation by donor characteristics and centers. Although follow-up has improved over time, targeted efforts are needed for donors with selected characteristics and at centers with higher living donor volume. Adding adjustment for donor factors to policies regulating follow-up may function to provide more balanced evaluation of center efforts.

Effect of dialysis initiation for preemptively listed candidates in the revised kidney allocation policy.

The new allocation policy for deceased donor kidneys in the United States is expected to begin in late 2014. As part of this policy, prioritization to the highest quality deceased donor kidneys is dependent on candidate's estimated posttransplant survival (EPTS) score. In particular, candidates with low (≤20%) EPTS (indicating better estimated survival) will have greater access to donor offers. We evaluated the effect of dialysis initiation on preemptively listed candidates' EPTS score. Using current estimates, approximately 10% (n = 19,406) of candidates placed on the waiting list between 2008 and 2013 were listed preemptively and would have qualified for top 20% status. These patients were more likely younger, female, Caucasian and nondiabetic compared to other candidates. Among nondiabetic preemptively listed candidates, dialysis initiation decreases EPTS score (indicating better estimated survival and higher allocation priority) for approximately 5 months. In contrast, diabetic patients' EPTS score significantly increases (approximately 6%) immediately upon dialysis initiation. Our results reveal a counterintuitive aberration in the EPTS formula, which is important for decision making regarding organ selection and timing of dialysis initiation in the new allocation system. Revision of the EPTS formula should be considered to address these findings and further understanding of the impact of the new allocation system on candidates' prognosis is important.

Risk factors for retransplant kidney recipients: relisting and outcomes from patients' primary transplant.

As of November 2013, 14.5% of the waitlist for a donor kidney comprised patients awaiting a retransplant. We performed a retrospective cohort study of 11,698 adult solitary kidney recipients using national Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data transplanted between 2002 and 2011. The aim was to investigate whether outcomes from patients' initial transplants are significant risk factors for patients' repeat transplants or for likelihood of relisting after a failed primary transplant. Retransplant recipients were more likely to be treated for acute rejection [adjusted odds ratio (AOR), 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.26 (1.07-1.48), p = 0.0053] or hospitalized (AOR = 1.19, 95% CI 1.08-1.31, p = 0.0005) within a year of retransplantation if these outcomes were experienced within a year of primary transplant. Delayed graft function following primary transplants was associated with 35% increased likelihood of recurrence (AOR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.18-1.54, p < 0.0001). An increase in 1-year GFR after primary transplant was associated with GFR 1 year postretransplant (ß = 6.82, p < 0.0001), and retransplant graft failure was inversely associated with 1-year primary transplant GFR (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.71-0.76 per 10 mL/min/1.73 m(2) ). A decreased likelihood for relisting was associated with hospitalization and higher GFR following primary transplantation. The increasing numbers of individuals requiring retransplants highlights the importance of incorporating prior transplant outcomes data to better inform relisting decisions and prognosticating retransplant outcomes.

Prominent impact of community risk factors on kidney transplant candidate processes and outcomes.

Numerous factors impact patients' health beyond traditional clinical characteristics. We evaluated the association of risk factors in kidney transplant patients' communities with outcomes prior to transplantation. The primary exposure variable was a community risk score (range 0-40) derived from multiple databases and defined by factors including prevalence of comorbidities, access and quality of healthcare, self-reported physical and mental health and socioeconomic status for each U.S. county. We merged data with the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) and utilized risk-adjusted models to evaluate effects of community risk for adult candidates listed 2004-2010 (n = 209 198). Patients in highest risk communities were associated with increased mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] = 1.22, 1.16-1.28), decreased likelihood of living donor transplantation (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.90, 0.85-0.94), increased waitlist removal for health deterioration (AHR = 1.36, 1.22-1.51), decreased likelihood of preemptive listing (AOR = 0.85, 0.81-0.88), increased likelihood of inactive listing (AOR = 1.49, 1.43-1.55) and increased likelihood of listing for expanded criteria donor kidneys (AHR = 1.19, 1.15-1.24). Associations persisted with adjustment for rural-urban location; furthermore the independent effects of rural-urban location were largely eliminated with adjustment for community risk. Average community risk varied widely by region and transplant center (median = 21, range 5-37). Community risks are powerful factors associated with processes of care and outcomes for transplant candidates and may be important considerations for developing effective interventions and measuring quality of care of transplant centers.

The prognostic value of kidney transplant center report cards.

SRTR report cards provide the basis for quality measurement of US transplant centers. There is limited data evaluating the prognostic value of report cards, informing whether they are predictive of prospective patient outcomes. Using national SRTR data, we simulated report cards and calculated standardized mortality ratios (SMR) for kidney transplant centers over five distinct eras. We ranked centers based on SMR and evaluated outcomes for patients transplanted the year following reports. Recipients transplanted at the 50th, 100th and 200th ranked centers had 18% (AHR = 1.18, 1.13-1.22), 38% (AHR = 1.38, 1.28-1.49) and 91% (AHR = 1.91, 1.64-2.21) increased hazard for 1-year mortality relative to recipients at the top-ranked center. Risks were attenuated but remained significant for long-term outcomes. Patients transplanted at centers meeting low-performance criteria in the prior period had 40% (AHR = 1.40, 1.22-1.68) elevated hazard for 1-year mortality in the prospective period. Centers' SMR from the report card was highly predictive (c-statistics > 0.77) for prospective center SMRs and there was significant correlation between centers' SMR from the report card period and the year following (ρ = 0.57, p < 0.001). Although results do not mitigate potential biases of report cards for measuring quality, they do indicate strong prognostic value for future outcomes. Findings also highlight that outcomes are associated with center ranking across a continuum rather than solely at performance margins.

The impact of deceased donor kidney risk significantly varies by recipient characteristics.

As of May 2012, over 92 000 patients were awaiting a solitary kidney transplant in the United States and new waitlist registrations have been rising for over a decade. The decreasing availability of donor organs makes it imperative that organ allocation be as efficient and effective as possible. We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult recipients in the United States (n=109 392) using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data. The primary aim was to evaluate the interaction of donor risk with recipient characteristics on posttransplant outcomes. Donor quality (based on kidney donor risk index [KDRI]) had significant interactions by race, primary diagnosis and age. The hazard of KDRI on overall graft loss in non-African Americans was 2.16 (95%CI 2.08-2.25) versus 1.85 (95%CI 1.75-1.95) in African Americans (p<0.0001), 2.16 (95%CI 2.08-2.24) in nondiabetics versus 1.84 (95%CI 1.74-1.94) in diabetics (p<0.0001), and 2.22 (95%CI 2.13-2.32) in recipients<60 years versus 1.83 (95%CI 1.74-1.92) in recipients≥60 (p<0.0001). The relative hazard for diabetics at KDRI=0.5 was 1.49 but at KDRI=2.0 the hazard was significantly attenuated to 1.17; among African Americans the respective risks were 1.50 and 1.17 and among recipients 60 and over, it was between 1.64 and 1.22. These findings are critical considerations for informed decision-making for transplant candidates.

The association of center performance evaluations and kidney transplant volume in the United States.

Report cards evaluating transplant center performance have received significant attention in recent years corresponding with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issue of the 2007 Conditions of Participation. Our primary aim was to evaluate the association of report card evaluations with transplant center volume. We utilized data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) along with six consecutive program-specific reports from January 2007 to July 2009 for adult kidney transplant centers. Among 203 centers, 46 (23%) were low performing (LP) with statistically significantly lower than expected 1-year graft or patient survival at least once during the study period. Among LP centers, there was a mean decline in transplant volume of 22.4 cases compared to a mean increase of 7.8 transplants among other centers (p = 0.001). Changes in volume between LP and other centers were significant for living, standard and expanded criteria deceased donor (ECD) transplants. LPs had a reduction in use of donors with extended cold ischemia time (p = 0.04) and private pay recipients (p = 0.03). Centers without low performance evaluations were more likely to increase the proportion of overall transplants that were ECDs relative to other centers (p = 0.04). Findings indicate a significant association between reduced kidney transplant volume and low performance report card evaluations.

Nomograms for predicting graft function and survival in living donor kidney transplantation based on the UNOS Registry.

PURPOSE: We developed nomograms that predict transplant renal function at 1 year (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation [estimated glomerular filtration rate]) and 5-year graft survival after living donor kidney transplantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data for living donor renal transplants were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing registry for 2000 to 2003. Nomograms were designed using linear or Cox regression models to predict 1-year estimated glomerular filtration rate and 5-year graft survival based on pretransplant information including demographic factors, immunosuppressive therapy, immunological factors and organ procurement technique. A third nomogram was constructed to predict 5-year graft survival using additional information available by 6 months after transplantation. These data included delayed graft function, any treated rejection episodes and the 6-month estimated glomerular filtration rate. The nomograms were internally validated using 10-fold cross-validation. RESULTS: The renal function nomogram had an r-square value of 0.13. It worked best when predicting estimated glomerular filtration rate values between 50 and 70 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2). The 5-year graft survival nomograms had a concordance index of 0.71 for the pretransplant nomogram and 0.78 for the 6-month posttransplant nomogram. Calibration was adequate for all nomograms. CONCLUSIONS: Nomograms based on data from the United Network for Organ Sharing registry have been validated to predict the 1-year estimated glomerular filtration rate and 5-year graft survival. These nomograms may facilitate individualized patient care in living donor kidney transplantation.

Graft outcomes of living donor renal transplantations in elderly recipients.

BACKGROUND: Despite the ever-lengthening renal transplant waiting lists, without more donors, living donors serve as a treatment option for patients on dialysis. In the past, patients of advanced age were not considered to be candidates for living donor renal transplantation. Therefore, this study sought to analyze whether older age affects the outcome of living donor renal transplantation. METHODS: A total of 527 primary living donor renal transplantations were performed between January 1, 1995 and January 1, 2006. The subjects were divided into 2 subgroups based on patient age at the time of transplantation. The elder group included all recipients at least 60 years vs the control group of younger patients. RESULTS: Significant differences were observed in readmission rate (elder group, 44%; young group, 31.33%; P = .031) and patient survival rate (P < .001). No significant difference was noted in graft survival rate (P = .201), acute rejection rate (elder group, 10.6%; young group, 13.3%; P = .7), serum creatinine level, or length of stay (elder group, 8.51 days; young group, 6.31 days; P = .083). CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that elder patients may benefit from living donor renal transplantation.

Renal outcome 25 years after donor nephrectomy.

PURPOSE: The extended outcome after kidney donation has been a particular concern ever since the recognition of hyperfiltration injury. Few published reports have examined donor renal outcome after 20 years or greater. Kidney transplantation has been performed at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation since 1963, at which there is extensive experience with live donor transplantation. We assess the impact of donor nephrectomy on renal function, urinary protein excretion and development of hypertension postoperatively to examine whether renal deterioration occurs with followup after 20 years or greater. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 1963 to 1975, 180 live donor nephrectomies were performed at the Cleveland Clinic. We attempted to contact all patients to request participation in our study. Those 70 patients who agreed to participate in the study were mailed a package containing a 24-hour urine container (for assessment of creatinine, and total protein and albumin), a vial for blood collection (for assessment of serum creatinine) and a medical questionnaire. All specimens were returned to and processed by the Cleveland Clinic medical laboratories. Blood pressure was taken and recorded by a local physician. A 24-hour creatinine clearance and the Cockcroft-Gault formula were used to estimate renal function, and values were compared with an age adjusted glomerular filtration rate for a solitary kidney. RESULTS: Mean patient followup was 25 years. The 24-hour urinary creatinine clearance decreased to 72% of the value before donation. For the entire study cohort serum creatinine and systolic blood pressure after donation were significantly increased compared with values before, although still in the normal range. The overall incidence of hypertension was comparable to that expected in the age matched general population. There was no gender or age difference (younger or older than 50 years) for 24-hour urinary creatinine clearance, or change in serum creatinine before or after donation. Urinary protein and albumin excretion after donation was significantly higher in males compared with females. There were 13 (19%) subjects who had a 24-hour urinary protein excretion that was greater than 0.15 gm./24 hours, 5 (7%) of whom had greater than 0.8. No gender difference was noted in blood pressure, and there were no significant changes in diastolic pressure based on gender or age. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, renal function is well preserved with a mean followup of 25 years after donor nephrectomy. Males had significantly higher protein and albumin excretion than females but no other clinically significant differences in renal function, blood pressure or proteinuria were noted between them or at age of donation. Proteinuria increases with marginal significance but appears to be of no clinical consequence in most patients. Patients with mild or borderline proteinuria before donation may represent a subgroup at particular risk for the development of significant proteinuria 20 years or greater after donation. The overall incidence of proteinuria in our study is in the range of previously reported values after donor nephrectomy.

Strategies for transplantation of cadaveric kidneys with congenital fusion anomalies.

PURPOSE: The dire shortage of cadaveric kidneys has led to a gradual expansion of donor criteria in the transplant community. The use of kidneys with anatomical fusion anomalies is uncommon and has not been well defined in the literature. We evaluated the surgical strategies and postoperative outcomes of transplanting cadaveric kidneys with congenital fusion anomalies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three cadaveric kidneys with congenital fusion anomalies were procured and transplanted between May 1994 and November 1999. None of the 3 donors had any significant urological history. All fusion anomalies were identified during the organ procurement process. RESULTS: Anomalies included 1 L-shaped cross-fused ectopic and 2 horseshoe kidneys. All 3 kidneys were procured en bloc. One horseshoe kidney with a narrow isthmus was split and the 2 kidneys were transplanted into separate recipients, while the other horseshoe kidney was transplanted en bloc into a single recipient. The L-shaped kidney was transplanted en bloc into 1 patient. All transplants were successful with a serum creatinine of 1.1 to 1.9 mg/dl. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge we present the initial case of transplantation of an L-shaped kidney. Cadaveric kidneys with congenital fusion anomalies may be transplanted successfully using various individual technical strategies based on the specific renal anatomy. As such, these kidneys may be used to maximize the increasingly inadequate donor pool.

The use of expanded criteria cadaver and live donor kidneys for transplantation.

The use of expanded criteria donors (non-traditional donors) can help lessen the current shortage of kidneys available for transplantation. The use of older donors has accounted for a large measure of the increase in the organ donation rate; however, the most significant factors found to impact on transplant success negatively traditionally have been shown to be extremes of donor age and last-hour urine output. Less significant variables affecting success rates are average systolic blood pressure, terminal serum creatinine, and days of hospitalization. With the appropriate selection of organs from expanded donors, acceptable outcomes can be obtained. When living donors are selected properly, kidneys with anatomic variants without pathologic significance can be used safely. Kidneys with a heightened potential for the development of progressive disease should not be transplanted. Efforts to decrease the cold ischemia time by increasing the use of kidneys from expanded criteria donors may improve the outcome of transplantation further. Advances in surgical techniques, preservation solutions, and methods for predicting eventual long-term renal function in kidneys from expanded donors will be critical in allowing precise selection criteria for kidneys for transplantation, resulting in the optimum use of a scarce and precious resource. Until options such as xenotransplantation become clinically feasible, the challenge will be to identify which donor organs previously considered suboptimal can be used safely to expand the organ donor pool.

Laparoscopic retroperitoneal live donor right nephrectomy for purposes of allotransplantation and autotransplantation.

PURPOSE: We report the technique of and initial experience with retroperitoneal laparoscopic live donor right nephrectomy for purposes of renal allotransplantation and autotransplantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 5 patients underwent retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy of the right kidney for autotransplantation in 4 and living related renal donation in 1. Indications for autotransplantation included a large proximal ureteral tumor, a long distal ureteral stricture and 2 cases of the loin pain hematuria syndrome. In all cases a 3-port retroperitoneal laparoscopic approach and a pelvic muscle splitting Gibson incision for kidney extraction were used. In patients undergoing autotransplantation the same incision was used for subsequent transplantation. RESULTS: All procedures were successfully accomplished without technical or surgical complications. Total mean operating time was 5.8 hours and average laparoscopic donor nephrectomy time was 3.1 hours. Mean renal warm ischemia time, including endoscopic cross clamping of the renal artery to ex vivo cold perfusion, was 4 minutes. Average blood loss for the entire procedure was 400 cc. Radionuclide scan on postoperative day 1 confirmed good blood flow and function in all transplanted kidneys. Mean analgesic requirement was 58 mg. fentanyl. Mean hospital stay was 4 days (range 2 to 8), and convalescence was completed in 3 to 4 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: In the occasional patient requiring renal autotransplantation live donor nephrectomy can be performed laparoscopically with renal extraction and subsequent transplantation through a single standard extraperitoneal Gibson incision, thus, minimizing the overall operative morbidity. Furthermore, these data demonstrate that live donor nephrectomy of the right kidney can be performed safely using a retroperitoneal approach with an adequate length of the right renal vein obtained for allotransplantation or autotransplantation.

A randomized prospective trial of low-dose OKT3 induction therapy to prevent rejection and minimize side effects in recipients of kidney transplants.

BACKGROUND: We attempted to minimize the undesired side effects and maximize the benefit of OKT3 induction therapy in renal transplantation. METHODS: One hundred and one recipients of kidney-only transplants were randomized to three groups. Each received low-dose 2.5-mg OKT3 induction for 7-14 days, but different premedication on days 0, 1, and 2. Group I was given 250 mg i.v. methylprednisolone at 1 and 6 hr, and group II received another 500 mg at 1 hr before initial OKT3. Group III received Atgam 15 mg/kg on day 0 and began OKT3 on day 1. A CD3+ T-cell cut-off of 50/mm3 was used to guide therapy. Maintenance therapy included cyclosporine and steroids for each patient. However, groups I and II were also given mycophenolate mofetil, and group III received azathioprine as a third agent. All rejections were biopsy confirmed and Banff scored. RESULTS: No differences in demographic or transplant characteristics were noted between groups I, II, and III, and mean follow-up was 25.7 (1-38) months. There was no significant difference in actuarial patient (90%, 91%, 94%) or graft survival (83%, 88%, 84%) at 3 years between the respective groups. Mean creatinine values and infectious complications were similar for each group. No patient experienced acute rejection during induction, and eight patients required dose escalation to sustain suppression of CD3 counts. The incidence of acute rejection at 6 and 12 months was significantly (P=0.004) greater in group III (38.2, 44.1%) than in either group I (15.1, 18.1%) or group II (14.7, 17.6%); relative risk 1.988 (95% CI 1.012-3.906). Formation of anti-OKT3 antibody was significantly (P=0.006) greater in group III (26.5%) than in group I (6%) or group II (2.9%). Group I recipients enjoyed significantly (P=0.001) fewer (2.17) OKT3 side effects on days 0, 1, and 2 than group II (3.03) or group III (2.49), and contained the largest number (61%) of recipients who experienced no side effects. Group I also exhibited the most suppressed profile of OKT3-induced release of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (P=0.006), interferon-gamma (P=NS), and interleukin-6 (P=0.01) on days 0 and 1. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose 2.5-mg OKT3 with pretreatment of split-dose steroids on days 0, 1, and 2 provides the most effective method for OKT3 induction, which minimizes side effects for most patients. Subsequent maintenance therapy with cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroids provides effective rejection prophylaxis without increased complications for up to 3 years. Predepletion of T cells before exposure to OKT3 does not prevent cytokine release.

Laparoscopic lymphocelectomy: a multi-institutional analysis.

PURPOSE: Because symptomatic lymphoceles are infrequent, single center studies generally report small numbers of patients. We report a multi-institutional experience with and long-term outcome following laparoscopic lymphocelectomy in 81 patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were obtained from 9 institutions at which at least 5 cases of laparoscopic lymphocelectomy had been performed. Baseline patient demographics, operative time and blood loss, special operative adjunct techniques, postoperative course, convalescence, complications and lymphocele recurrence data were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 56 men and 25 women with a mean age of 41 years were included in the study. Lymphocele formed after renal transplantation in 78 patients (96%) and after pelvic lymph node dissection in 3 (4%). Average operating time was 123 minutes with a mean blood loss of 43 ml. Omentopexy was performed in 11 cases (13.6%). No intraoperative stenting of the transplant ureter was performed. Intraoperative complications consisted of laryngospasm, bladder injury, inferior epigastric artery injury and mild renal capsule hematoma in 1 patient each. Conversion to open surgery was required for repair of bladder injury in 1, repair of preexisting hernia in 1, unusually thickened lymphocele wall in 1 and inaccessible lymphocele location in 4 cases. Mean time to ambulation and resumption of regular diet was 1 day, and mean hospital stay was 1.5 days. Postoperative complications included trocar site hernia in 1 and urinary retention in 2. Convalescence averaged 2.5 weeks. During a mean followup of 27 months 5 patients (6%) had lymphocele recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic lymphocelectomy is safe, minimally invasive and effective. It is an excellent alternative to the conventional open surgical approach.