Simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation from donation after cardiac death: successful long-term outcomes

OBJECTIVE: The outcomes of simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplantation with donor organs procured from donation after cardiac death (DCD) are compared with transplants performed with donor organs recovered from donation after brain death (DBD). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Concerns exist regarding the utilization of pancreata obtained from DCD donors. While it is known that DCD kidneys will have a higher rate of DGF, long-term functional graft survival data for DCD pancreata have not been reported. METHODS: A retrospective review of all DCD SPK transplants performed at a single center was undertaken. RESULTS: Patient, pancreas, and kidney survival at 5 years were similar between DCD and DBD organs. Pancreas function and outcomes were indistinguishable between the 2 modes of procurement. As expected, the DCD kidneys had an elevated rate of DGF, which had no significant long-term clinical impact. CONCLUSION: SPK transplantation using selected DCD donors is a safe and viable method to expand the organ pool for transplantation.     

Outcomes after simultaneous pancreas–kidney transplantation from donation after circulatory death donors: A UK registry analysis

There are concerns that simultaneous pancreas–kidney (SPK) transplants from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors have a higher risk of graft failure than those from donation after brain death (DBD) donors. A UK registry analysis of SPK transplants between 2005 and 2018 was performed. Pancreas survivals of those receiving organs from DCD or DBD donors were compared. Multivariable analyses were used to adjust for baseline differences between the two groups and to identify factors associated with pancreas graft loss. A total of 2228 SPK transplants were implanted; 403 (18.1%) were from DCD donors. DCD donors were generally younger, slimmer, less likely to have stroke as a cause of death, with lower terminal creatinines and shorter pancreas cold ischemic times than DBD donors. Median (IQR) follow-up was 4.2 (1.6–8.1) years. On univariable analysis, there were no statistically significant differences in 5-year death-censored pancreas graft survival between the two donor types (79.5% versus 80.4%; p = .86). Multivariable analysis showed no statistically significant differences in 5-year pancreas graft loss between transplants from DCD (n = 343) and DBD (n = 1492) donors (hazard ratio 1.26, 95% CI 0.76–1.23; p = .12). The findings from this study support the increased use of SPK transplants from DCD donors.     

Pancreas Transplantation From Donors After Circulatory Death From the United Kingdom

This study reports the comparative short‐term results of pancreas transplantation from donors after circulatory death (DCD) (Maastricht III & IV), and pancreases from brainstem deceased donors (DBD). Between January 2006 and December 2010, 1009 pancreas transplants were performed in the United Kingdom, with 134 grafts from DCD and 875 from DBD. DCD grafts had no premortem pharmacological interventions performed. One‐year pancreas and patient survival was similar between DCD and DBD, with pancreas graft survival significantly better in the DCD cohort if performed as an SPK. Early graft loss due to thrombosis (8% vs. 4%) was mainly responsible for early graft loss in the DCD cohort. These results from donors with broader acceptance criteria in age, body mass index, premortem interventions, etc. suggest that DCD pancreas grafts may have a larger application potential than previously recognized.     

Risk Factors for Graft Survival After Liver Transplantation from Donation After Cardiac Death Donors: An Analysis of OPTN/UNOS Data

Due to increasing use of allografts from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors, we evaluated DCD liver transplants and impact of recipient and donor factors on graft survival. Liver transplants from DCD donors reported to UNOS were analyzed against donation after brain death (DBD) donor liver transplants performed between 1996 and 2003. We defined a recipient cumulative relative risk (RCRR) using significant risk factors identified from a Cox regression analysis: age; medical condition at transplantation; regraft status; dialysis received and serum creatinine. Graft survival from DCD donors (71% at 1 year and 60% at 3 years) were significantly inferior to DBD donors (80% at 1 year and 72% at 3 years, p < 0.001). Low-risk recipients (RCRR < or = 1.5) with low-risk DCD livers (DWIT < 30 min and CIT < 10 h, n = 226) achieved graft survival rates (81% and 67% at 1 and 3 years, respectively) not significantly different from recipients with DBD allografts (80% and 72% at 1 and 3 years, respectively, log-rank p = 0.23). Liver allografts from DCD donors may be used to increase the cadaveric donor pool, with favorable graft survival rates achieved when low-risk grafts are transplanted in a low-risk setting. Whether transplantation of these organs in low-risk recipients provides a survival benefit compared to the waiting list is unknown.     

Outcomes of simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation from brain-dead and controlled circulatory death donors

Background:

Organ scarcity has prompted increased use of organs from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors. An early single‐centre experience of simultaneous pancreas–kidney (SPK) transplantation from controlled DCD donors is described here.

Methods:

Outcomes of SPK transplants from DCD and donation after brain death (DBD) donors between August 2008 and January 2011 were reviewed retrospectively.

Results:

SPK transplants from 20 DCD and 40 DBD donors were carried out. Donor and recipient characteristics were similar for both groups, although pancreas cold ischaemia times were shorter in DCD recipients: median (range) 8·2 (5·9–10·5) versus 9·5 (3·8–12·5) h respectively (P = 0·004). Median time from treatment withdrawal to cold perfusion was 24 (range 16–110) min for DCD donors. There were no episodes of delayed pancreatic graft function in either group; the graft thrombosis rates were both 5 per cent. Similarly, there were no differences in haemoglobin A1c level at 12 months: median (range) 5·4 (4·9–7·7) per cent in DCD group versus 5·4 (4·1–6·2) per cent in DBD group (P = 0·910). Pancreas graft survival rates were not significantly different, with Kaplan–Meier 1‐year survival estimates of 84 and 95 per cent respectively (P = 0·181).

Conclusion:

DCD SPK grafts had comparable short‐term outcomes to DBD grafts, even when procured from selected donors with a prolonged agonal phase. Copyright © 2012 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Comparison of recipient outcomes following transplant from local versus imported pancreas donors

The shortage of deceased donor organs for solid organ transplantation continues to be an ongoing dilemma. One approach to increase the number of pancreas transplants is to share organs between procurement regions. To assess for the effects of organ importation, we reviewed the outcomes of 1014 patients undergoing deceased donor pancreas transplant at a single center. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses of the association of donor, recipient and surgical characteristics with patient outcomes. Organ importation had no effect on graft or recipient survival for recipients of solitary pancreas transplants. Similarly, there was no effect on technical failure rate, graft survival or long-term patient survival for simultaneous kidney-pancreas (SPK) recipients. In contrast, there was a significant and independent increased risk of death in the first year in SPK recipients of imported organs. SPK recipients had longer hospitalizations and increased hospital costs. This increased medical complexity may make these patients more susceptible to short-term complications resulting from the longer preservation times of import transplants. These findings support the continued use of organ sharing to reduce transplant wait times but highlight the importance of strategies to reduce organ preservation times.     

Kidney transplantation from donation after cardiac death donors: lack of impact of delayed graft function on post‐transplant outcomes

Singh RP, Farney AC, Rogers J, Zuckerman J, Reeves‐Daniel A, Hartmann E, Iskandar S, Adams P, Stratta RJ. Kidney transplantation from donation after cardiac death donors: lack of impact of delayed graft function on post‐transplant outcomes.
Clin Transplant 2011: 25: 255–264. © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Abstract: Introduction: Delayed graft function (DGF) is more common in recipients of kidney transplants from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors compared to donation after brain death (DBD) donors. Methods: Single‐center retrospective study to evaluate the impact of DGF on controlled (Maastricht category III) DCD donor kidney transplant outcomes. Results: From 10/01 to 6/08, 578 adult deceased donor kidney transplants were performed including 70 (12%) from DCD and 508 (88%) from DBD donors. Mean follow‐up was 36 months. DCD donor kidney transplants had significantly greater rates of DGF (57% DCD vs. 21% DBD, p < 0.0001)) and acute rejection (29% DCD vs. 16% DBD, p = 0.018) compared to DBD donor kidney transplants, but patient and graft survival rates were similar. DBD donor kidney transplants with DGF (n = 109) had significantly greater rates of death‐censored graft loss (12.5% DCD vs. 31% DBD), primary non‐function (0 DCD vs. 10% DBD) and higher 2 year mean serum creatinine levels (1.4 DCD vs. 2.7 mg/dL DBD) compared to DCD donor kidney transplants with DGF (n = 40, all p < 0.04). On univariate analysis, the presence of acute rejection and older donor age were the only significant risk factors for death‐censored graft loss in DCD donor kidney transplants, whereas DGF was not a risk factor. Conclusion: Despite higher rates of DGF and acute rejection in DCD donor kidney transplants, subsequent outcomes in DCD donor kidney transplants with DGF are better than in DBD donor kidney transplants experiencing DGF, and similar to outcomes in DCD donor kidney transplants without DGF.     

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes with the Use of Kidneys and Livers Donated after Cardiac Death

The shortage of deceased donor kidneys and livers for transplantation has prompted the use of organs from donors deceased after cardiac death (DCD). We used the UNOS database to examine patient and graft survival following transplantation of DCD organs compared to those following grafts from donors deceased after brain death (DBD; for livers, grafts from donors < 60 years old were labeled '< 60 yrs'). Of 44035 deceased donor kidney transplant recipients, 1177 (3%) received a DCD kidney. There was no difference in patient or graft survival at 5 years (DCD vs. DBD: 81.3% vs. 80.8% and 66.9% vs. 66.5%; p = 0.70 and p = 0.52 respectively). Of 24688-deceased donor liver transplant recipients, 345 (1.4%) were from DCD donors and 20289 (82%) were from '< 60 yrs' DBD donors. Three-year patient and graft survival were inferior in the DCD group (DCD vs. '< 60 yrs' DBD: 77% vs. 80% and 65% vs. 75%; p = 0.016 and p < 0.0001 respectively) but were comparable to current alternatives, '>/= 60 yrs' DBD livers (donor age >/= 60) and split livers. DCD livers are a reasonable option when death is imminent. Our study demonstrates good outcomes using DCD kidneys and livers and encourages their use.     

Pediatric liver and kidney transplantation with allografts from DCD donors: A review of UNOS data

INTRODUCTION: Donation after cardiac death (DCD) is recognized as an important source of allografts to bridge the growing disequilibrium between the number of donors and recipients. Current transplant experience with DCD organs has focused on the adult recipient population, however little is known about the pediatric recipient experience. While there is increasing acceptance of these grafts in adults, transplant centers appear reluctant to use these grafts in the pediatric population. METHODS: We reviewed the United Network for Organ Sharing database from 1995-2005 to determine the national experience with pediatric recipients of DCD organs. RESULTS: Among 4026 renal transplants performed in children 18 years and younger, 26 (0.6%) received a renal allograft from a DCD donor. Ten (38.5%) received kidney allografts from pediatric donors (age < or = 18) and 16 (61.5%) from adult donors (age > 18 years). Graft survival at one and five years was 82.5%, 74.3% for kidneys from DCD donors compared to 89.6%, 64.8% from brain dead donors (DBD) (P = 0.7). Among 4991 liver transplants, 19 (0.4%) were from DCD donors. Sixteen patients (84.2%) received livers from pediatric donors and three (15.8%) from adult donors. Graft survival at one and five years was 89.2%, 79.3% for livers from DCD, compared to 75.6%, 65.8% for DBD (P = 0.3). CONCLUSION: The use of DCD donors in the pediatric population is very limited; however graft survival is comparable to DBD grafts. Although pediatric centers may have been reluctant to utilize this donor source, this limited experience demonstrates that the select use of DCD organs can produce acceptable and durable graft survival in the pediatric population.     

Simultaneous cadaver pancreas living-donor kidney transplantation: a new approach for the type 1 diabetic uremic patient

OBJECTIVE: To review the authors' experience with a new approach for type I diabetic uremic patients: simultaneous cadaver-donor pancreas and living-donor kidney transplant (SPLK). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Simultaneous cadaver kidney and pancreas transplantation (SPK) and living-donor kidney transplantation alone followed by a solitary cadaver-donor pancreas transplant (PAK) have been the transplant options for type I diabetic uremic patients. SPK pancreas graft survival has historically exceeded that of solitary pancreas transplantation. Recent improvement in solitary pancreas transplant survival rates has narrowed the advantage seen with SPK. PAK, however, requires sequential transplant operations. In contrast to PAK and SPK, SPLK is a single operation that offers the potential benefits of living kidney donation: shorter waiting time, expansion of the organ donor pool, and improved short-term and long-term renal graft function. METHODS: Between May 1998 and September 1999, the authors performed 30 SPLK procedures, coordinating the cadaver pancreas transplant with simultaneous transplantation of a laparoscopically removed living-donor kidney. Of the 30 SPLKs, 28 (93%) were portally and enterically drained. During the same period, the authors also performed 19 primary SPK and 17 primary PAK transplants. RESULTS: One-year pancreas, kidney, and patient survival rates were 88%, 95%, and 95% for SPLK recipients. One-year pancreas graft survival rates in SPK and PAK recipients were 84% and 71%. Of 30 SPLK transplants, 29 (97%) had immediate renal graft function, whereas 79% of SPK kidneys had immediate function. Reoperative rates, early readmission to the hospital, and initial length of stay were similar between SPLK and SPK recipients. SPLK recipients had a shorter wait time for transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Early pancreas, kidney, and patient survival rates after SPLK are similar to those for SPK. Waiting time was significantly shortened. SPLK recipients had lower rates of delayed renal graft function than SPK recipients. Combining cadaver pancreas transplantation with living-donor kidney transplantation does not harm renal graft outcome. Given the advantages of living-donor kidney transplant, SPLK should be considered for all uremic type I diabetic patients with living donors.     

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.     

Long‐term outcomes of donation after cardiac death liver allografts from a single center

Abstract: Organ shortage continues to be a major challenge in transplantation. Recent experience with controlled non‐heart‐beating or donation after cardiac death (DCD) are encouraging. However, long‐term outcomes of DCD liver allografts are limited. In this study, we present outcomes of 19 DCD liver allografts with follow‐up >4.5 years. During 1998–2001, 19 (4.1%) liver transplants (LT) with DCD allografts were performed at our center. Conventional heart‐beating donors included 234 standard criteria donors (SCD) and 214 extended criteria donors (ECD). We found that DCD allografts had equivalent rates of primary non‐function and biliary complications as compared with SCD and ECD. The overall one‐, two‐, and five‐yr DCD graft and patient survival was 73.7%, 68.4%, and 63.2%, and 89.5%, 89.5%, and 89.5%, respectively. DCD graft survival was similar to graft survival of SCD and ECD in non hepatitis C virus (HCV) recipients (p > 0.370). In contrast, DCD graft survival was significantly reduced in HCV recipients (p = 0.007). In conclusion, DCD liver allografts are durable and have acceptable long‐term outcomes. Further research is required to assess the impact of HCV on DCD allograft survival.     

Liver transplantation for hepatitis C from donation after cardiac death donors: an analysis of OPTN/UNOS data

Donation after cardiac death (DCD) liver transplantation is increasing largely because of a shortage of organs. However, there are almost no data that have specifically assessed the impact of using DCD livers for HCV patients. We retrospectively studied adult primary DCD liver transplantation (630 HCV, 1164 non-HCV) and 54 129 donation after brain death (DBD) liver transplantation between 2002 and 2009 using the UNOS/OPTN database. With donation after brain death (DBD) livers, HCV recipients had significantly inferior graft survival compared to non-HCV recipients (p < 0.0001). Contrary to DBD donors, DCD livers used in HCV patients showed no difference in graft survival compared to non-HCV patients (p = 0.5170). Cox models showed DCD livers and HCV disease had poorer graft survival (HR = 1.80 and 1.28, p < 0.0001, respectively). However, the hazard ratio of DCD and HCV interaction was 0.80 (p = 0.02) and these results suggest that DCD livers on HCV disease do not fare worse than DCD livers on non-HCV disease. The graft survival of recent years (2006-2009) was significantly better than that in former years (2002-2005) (p = 0.0482). In conclusion, DCD liver transplantation for HCV disease showed satisfactory outcomes. DCD liver transplantation can be valuable option for HCV related end-stage liver disease.     

The impact of donor variables on the outcome of orthotopic liver transplantation for hepatitis C

Morphologic characteristics of the graft have been proposed as a major contributor to the long-term outcomes in orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). Our objective was to determine the impact of donor variables, including donor age, donor-recipient HLA match, and type of donation (DCD vs donation after brain death [DBD]), on the outcome of OLT in 192 patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV). Fourteen patients underwent OLT from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors and 188 from DBD donors. Mean donor age, warm ischemia time at recovery, and cold ischemia time were similar between the groups. Overall graft survival rate at 1 year (55% DCD vs 85% DBD) and 5 years (46% DCD vs 78% DBD) was significantly lower in the DCD group (P = .0003). Similarly, patient survival rate at 1 year (62% DCD vs 93% DBD) and 5 years (62% DCD vs 82% DBD) was significantly lower in the DCD group (P = .0295). Incidences of hepatic artery thrombosis, portal vein thrombosis, and primary nonfunction were similar between the DCD and DBD groups. The incidence of liver abscess with ischemic-type biliary stricture was higher in recipients from DCD as compared with DBD (42% vs 2%). A trend toward lower graft survival was noted in recipients from donors older than 60 years of age in the HCV population (P = .07), with statistically lower patient survival (P = .02). Donor- recipient HLA matching did not appear to correlate with OLT outcome in patients with HCV. DCD donors and donors older than 60 years of age significantly impact patient and graft survival. Lower graft and patient survival in recipients from DCD donors does not appear to be related to early disease recurrence.     

Donation after cardiac death as a strategy to increase deceased donor liver availability

OBJECTIVE: This study examines donation after cardiac death (DCD) practices and outcomes in liver transplantation. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Livers procured from DCD donors have recently been used to increase the number of deceased donors and bridge the gap between limited organ supply and the pool of waiting list candidates. Comprehensive evaluation of this practice and its outcomes has not been previously reported. METHODS: A national cohort of all DCD and donation after brain-death (DBD) liver transplants between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2004 was identified in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Time to graft failure (including death) was modeled by Cox regression, adjusted for relevant donor and recipient characteristics. RESULTS: DCD livers were used for 472 (2%) of 24,070 transplants. Annual DCD liver activity increased from 39 in 2000 to 176 in 2004. The adjusted relative risk of DCD graft failure was 85% higher than for DBD grafts (relative risk, 1.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.51-2.26; P < 0.001), corresponding to 3-month, 1-year, and 3-year graft survival rates of 83.0%, 70.1%, and 60.5%, respectively (vs. 89.2%, 83.0%, and 75.0% for DBD recipients). There was no significant association between transplant program DCD liver transplant volume and graft outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The annual number of DCD livers used for transplant has increased rapidly. However, DCD livers are associated with a significantly increased risk of graft failure unrelated to modifiable donor or recipient factors. Appropriate recipients for DCD livers have not been fully characterized and recipient informed consent should be obtained before use of these organs.     

Clinical use of donation after circulatory death pancreas for islet transplantation

Due to a shortage of donation after brain death (DBD) organs, donation after circulatory death (DCD) is increasingly performed. In the field of islet transplantation, there is uncertainty regarding the suitability of DCD pancreas in terms of islet yield and function after islet isolation. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential use of DCD pancreas for islet transplantation. Islet isolation procedures from 126 category 3 DCD and 258 DBD pancreas were performed in a 9-year period. Islet yield after isolation was significantly lower for DCD compared to DBD pancreas (395 515 islet equivalents [IEQ] and 480 017 IEQ, respectively; p = .003). The decrease in IEQ during 2 days of culture was not different between the two groups. Warm ischemia time was not related to DCD islet yield. In vitro insulin secretion after a glucose challenge was similar between DCD and DBD islets. After islet transplantation, DCD islet graft recipients had similar graft function (AUC C-peptide) during mixed meal tolerance tests and Igls score compared to DBD graft recipients. In conclusion, DCD islets can be considered for clinical islet transplantation.     

Kidney donation after circulatory death: current evidence and opportunities for pediatric recipients

Organ donation after circulatory death (DCD) has experienced a revival worldwide over the past 20 years, and is now widely practiced for kidney transplantation. Some previous concerns about these organs such as the high incidence of delayed graft function have been alleviated through evidence from adult studies. There are now a number of large adult cohorts reporting favorable 5-year outcomes for DCD kidney transplants, comparable to kidneys donated after brain death (DBD). This has resulted in a marked increase in the use of DCD kidneys for adult recipients in some countries and an increase in the overall number of kidney transplants. In contrast, the uptake of DCD kidneys for pediatric recipients is still low and concerns still exist over the longer-term outcomes of DCD organs. In view of the data from adult practice and the poor outcomes for children who stay on dialysis, DCD kidney transplantation should be offered as an option for children on the kidney transplant waiting list.     

Liver Transplantation Using Grafts From Donors After Circulatory Death: A Propensity Score–Matched Study From a Single Center

The use of livers from donation after circulatory death (DCD) is increasing, but concerns exist regarding outcomes following use of grafts from “marginal” donors. To compare outcomes in transplants using DCD and donation after brain death (DBD), propensity score matching was performed for 973 patients with chronic liver disease and/or malignancy who underwent primary whole‐liver transplant between 2004 and 2014 at University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust. Primary end points were overall graft and patient survival. Secondary end points included postoperative, biliary and vascular complications. Over 10 years, 234 transplants were carried out using DCD grafts. Of the 187 matched DCDs, 82.9% were classified as marginal per British Transplantation Society guidelines. Kaplan–Meier analysis of graft and patient survival found no significant differences for either outcome between the paired DCD and DBD patients (p = 0.162 and p = 0.519, respectively). Aspartate aminotransferase was significantly higher in DCD recipients until 48 h after transplant (p < 0.001). The incidences of acute kidney injury and ischemic cholangiopathy were greater in DCD recipients (32.6% vs. 15% [p < 0.001] and 9.1% vs. 1.1% [p < 0.001], respectively). With appropriate recipient selection, the use of DCDs, including those deemed marginal, can be safe and can produce outcomes comparable to those seen using DBD grafts in similar recipients.     

Simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation from organ donation after cardiac death

Background: The concept of organ donation after cardiac death (DCD) historically precedes the current practice of organ procurement from heartbeating donors meeting the brainstem death criteria. DCD has not gained widespread interest, however, due partly to initial fears that transplantation of such organs leads to suboptimal outcome. Methods: Available data on long‐term outcomes following simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplant (SPK) from DCD donors were reviewed, and it was found that the long‐term outcome is comparable to SPK from heartbeating donors. Australia’s first SPK from a DCD donor was performed. Results: The patient received a kidney and a pancreas from a young healthy donor after cardiac death, and at the time of writing was well with functioning grafts. Conclusion: SPK from donation after cardiac death is safe and should continue to be available for patients in need.     

More donors or more delayed graft function? A cost‐effectiveness analysis of DCD kidney transplantation

Expansion of the donor pool with expanded criteria donors and donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors is essential. DCD grafts result in increased rates of primary non‐function (PNF) and delayed graft function (DGF). However, long‐term patient and graft survival is similar between donation after brain death (DBD) donors and DCD donors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of the use of DCD donors. A Markov‐based decision analytic model was created to simulate outcomes for two wait list strategies: (i) wait list composed of only DBD organs and (ii) wait list combining DBD and DCD organs. Baseline values and ranges were determined from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) database and literature review. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test model strength and parameter variability. The wait list strategy consisting of DBD donors only provided recipients 5.4 Quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) at $65 000/QALY, whereas a wait list strategy combining DBD + DCD donors provided recipients 6.0 QALYs at a cost of $56 000/QALY. Wait lists with DCD donors provide adequate long‐term survival despite more DGF. This equates to an improvement in quality of life and decreased cost when compared to remaining on dialysis for any period of time.