Duration of Dialysis in Acute Kidney Injury Donors and Transplant Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) kidneys, including those from donors on dialysis, are often underutilized, although there is increasing data available demonstrating good transplant outcomes. To date, data on the duration of donor dialysis and transplant outcomes are limited. STUDY DESIGN: This was a single-center study of deceased donor kidney transplants from 2010 to 2022. The study cohort consisted of recipients of deceased donor kidney transplants from donors with AKI and on dialysis. Three groups were identified based on the predetermined interquartile range of donor dialysis duration: 1 to 2 dialysis days, 3 to 4 dialysis days, and 5 or more dialysis days. RESULTS: During this period, 765 AKI deceased donor transplants were performed, of which 230 were from donors on dialysis. The median dialysis duration was 2 days with a maximum of 13 days. Across the 3 groups, there were no differences in recipient age (p = 0.23) or dialysis vintage (p = 0.70). Donor age (p = 0.86) and kidney donor profile index (p = 0.57) were comparable between the groups. Recipients of deceased donor kidney transplants from donors on dialysis 5 or more days had lower terminal creatinine levels (p = 0.003) and longer cold ischemia times (p = 0.04). Posttransplant, the median length of hospital stay was 3 days for all groups (p = 0.75). There were no differences in delayed graft function occurrence (94.4% vs 86.8% vs 92.1%, p = 0.19), duration of delayed graft function (p = 0.56), or readmissions (p = 0.99). At 1 year posttransplant, the estimated glomerular filtration rate (p = 0.76), patient survival (p = 0.82), or death-censored graft survival (p = 0.28) were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Excellent outcomes have been observed in AKI deceased donor kidney transplants, including those coming from donors on dialysis. In this small cohort, the duration of donor dialysis did not adversely affect outcomes. Cautious expansion of the donor pool, including donors on dialysis, should be considered given the ongoing organ shortage.

Outcomes with transplanting kidneys offered through expedited allocation.

INTRODUCTION: Expedited out-of-sequence deceased donor kidney allocation is a strategy to avoid discards after early placement attempts have been unsuccessful. Our study aimed to assess outcomes and characteristics of these transplanted kidneys. METHODS: KDPI matching was performed between expedited allocation (EA) and standard allocation (SA) deceased donor kidney transplants performed at our center. RESULTS: Between 2018 and 2021, there were 225 EA offers, and 189 (84%) were transplanted. EA recipients were older (p = .007) and had shorter dialysis vintage (p < .0001). EA kidneys were likely to be nationally allocated (p < .001), have AKI (p < .0001) and longer CIT (p < .0001). There were no differences in EA and SA time-zero kidney biopsies (ci, p = .07; ct, p = .89; cv, p = .95; ah, p = .79). EA kidneys had more DGF (p = .0006), but there were no differences in DGF duration (p = .83), hospital length of stay (p = .43), 1- and 2-year eGFR (p = .16, p = .99), patient (p = .34), or death-censored graft (p = .66) survival. CONCLUSION: During this study period, our center transplanted 189 kidneys through EA following local-regional declines. These kidneys often came from AKI donors and had more DGF but had similar outcomes to KDPI-matched SA kidneys. Although it has been suggested that EA has the potential to worsen transplant disparities, transplant center level decisions on organ acceptance contribute to these variations.

Expanding Liver Transplant Opportunities in Older Patients With Nonconventional Grafts.

INTRODUCTION: Broader use of donation after circulatory death (DCD) and nonconventional grafts for liver transplant helps reduce disparities in organ availability. Limited data, however, exists on outcomes specific to nonconventional graft utilization in older patients. As such, this study aimed to investigate outcomes specific to conventional and nonconventional graft utilization in recipients > 70 y of age. METHODS: 1-to-3 matching based on recipient sex, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, and donor type was performed on patients ≥70 and <70 y of age who underwent liver transplant alone at Mayo Clinic Arizona between 2015 and 2020. Primary outcomes were posttransplant patient and liver allograft survival for recipients greater than or less than 70 y of age. Secondary outcomes included grafts utilization patterns, hospital length of stay, need for reoperation, biliary complications and disposition at time of hospital discharge. RESULTS: In this cohort, 36.1% of grafts came from DCD donors, 17.4% were postcross clamp offers, and 20.8% were nationally allocated. Median recipient ages were 59 and 71 y (P < 0.01). Recipients had similar Intensive care unit (P = 0.82) and hospital (P = 0.14) lengths of stay, and there were no differences in patient (P = 0.68) or graft (P = 0.38) survival. When comparing donation after brain death and DCD grafts in those >70 y, there were no differences in patient (P = 0.89) or graft (P = 0.71) survival. CONCLUSIONS: Excellent outcomes can be achieved in older recipients, even with use of nonconventional grafts. Expanded use of nonconventional grafts can help facilitate transplant opportunities in older patients.

The Clinical Utility of Flexion-extension Cervical Spine MRI in 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Our goal is to correlate the findings on flexion and extension radiographs with dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and the clinical history, in a nonrandomly selected cohort of patients with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q). METHODS: All patients with the 22q who had a dynamic MRI from January 2004 to March 2015 were included. We analyzed multiple radiographic measurements on both the dynamic plain films and the MRIs, and correlated these findings with a review of each patient's medical record. RESULTS: Multiple congenital anomalies were identified as noted in previous studies, and 61% of the patients had a failure of fusion of the anterior (n=2, 9%), posterior (n=2, 9%), or anterior and posterior arches (n=10, 43%). Quantitative measurements were impossible to report with certainty because of the upper cervical anomalies, and no cases of instability were identified using a qualitative assessment. We identified spinal cord encroachment (30%) and impingement (18%); however, none of the patients had any signal change in their spinal cord. None of these findings could be definitively correlated with any clinical symptoms. A single patient was diagnosed with a Chiari I malformation, while another had cerebellar ectopia. CONCLUSIONS: Although the upper cervical anomalies are extremely common in 22q, we did not identify cases of instability on dynamic plain radiographs and MRI. Although our findings do not support routine screening with flexion and extension MRI, this study may be required in patients with neurological symptoms and/or findings or abnormalities on dynamic plain radiographs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.