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.     

Pulsatile Pump Decreases Risk of Delayed Graft Function in Kidneys Donated After Cardiac Death

Organ storage techniques have been under scrutiny to determine the best preservation method, particularly in donation after cardiac death (DCD) kidneys. Conflicting literature on the benefit of pulsatile perfusion (PP) over cold storage (CS) warrants further investigation. We analyzed the risk of developing delayed graft function (DGF) in recipients of DCD and donation after brain death (DBD) kidneys undergoing PP or CS. We stratified on basis of cold ischemic time (CIT) to determine the interaction of preservation techniques, CIT and DCD kidneys on developing DGF. Of 54 136 recipients, 4923 received DCD kidneys of which 3330 (67%) underwent PP. Of 49 213 DBD recipients, 7531 (15%) underwent PP. DCD had a higher risk of DGF versus DBD (adjusted odds ratio, AOR 3.2; 3.0–3.5). PP kidneys had less DGF (AOR 0.59; 0.56–0.63) compared to CS. Interaction models of method by donor type referenced to PP/DBD revealed CS/DBD kidneys had higher DGF (AOR 1.8; 1.7–1.9), whereas CS/DCD kidneys had the highest risk of DGF (AOR 5.01; 4.43–5.67). Even though suggestive for a benefit of PP on DGF, this retrospective analysis cannot address whether this is an intrinsic effect of PP or is associated with the logistics of PP such as discard of DCD kidneys based on pump parameters.     

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.     

Kidney transplant from uncontrolled donation after circulatory death donors maintained by nECMO has long‐term outcomes comparable to standard criteria donation after brain death

Uncontrolled donation after circulatory death (uDCD) increases organ availability for kidney transplant (KT) with short‐term outcomes similar to those obtained from donation after brain death (DBD) donors. However, heterogeneous results in the long term have been reported. We compared 10‐year outcomes between 237 KT recipients from uDCD donors maintained by normothermic extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (nECMO) and 237 patients undergoing KT from standard criteria DBD donors during the same period at our institution. We further analyzed risk factors for death‐censored graft survival in the uDCD group. Delayed graft function (DGF) was more common in the uDCD group (73.4% vs 46.4%; P < .01), although glomerular filtration rates at the end of follow‐up were similar in the 2 groups. uDCD and DBD groups had similar rates for 10‐year death‐censored graft (82.1% vs 80.4%; P = .623) and recipient survival (86.2% vs 87.6%; P = .454). Donor age >50 years was associated with graft loss in the uDCD group (hazard ratio: 1.91; P = .058), whereas the occurrence of DGF showed no significant effect. uDCD KT under nECMO support resulted in similar graft function and long‐term outcomes compared with KT from standard criteria DBD donors. Increased donor age could negatively affect graft survival after uDCD donation.     

Experience in renal and extrarenal transplantation with donation after cardiac death donors with selective use of extracorporeal support

BACKGROUND: Most reports of donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors are exclusive to kidney transplantation and report high rates of delayed graft function (DGF). STUDY DESIGN: From April 1, 2003, to October 3, 2007, we performed 53 kidney transplantations and 4 simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplantations from DCD donors. All DCD donor kidneys were managed with pulsatile perfusion preservation, and all simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplantation donors were managed with extracorporeal support. RESULTS: Of 53 DCD kidney transplantations, 44 (83%) were from standard criteria donors (SCD) and 9 (17%) from expanded criteria donors (ECD). With a mean followup of 12 months, actual patient and kidney graft survival rates were 94% and 87%, respectively. Patient and graft survival rates were 100% in the 4 simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplantations. Incidence of DGF was 57% (60% without versus 20% with extracorporeal support, p = 0.036). Comparison of the 53 DCD donor kidney transplantations with 316 concurrent donation after brain death (DBD) donor adult kidney transplantations (178 SCD, 138 ECD) revealed no differences in demographics or outcomes, except that the DCD donor group had fewer ECDs (17% DCD versus 44% DBD; p = 0.0002), fewer 0-antigen mismatch kidney transplantations (7.5% DCD versus 19% DBD; p = 0.05), and more kidneys preserved with pulsatile perfusion (100% DCD versus 52% DBD; p < 0.0001). Incidences of DGF (57% DCD versus 19% DBD; p < 0.0001) and acute rejection (19% DCD versus 10% DBD; p = 0.10) were higher in the DCD donor group, which resulted in a longer initial length of stay (mean 11 days DCD versus 8.0 days DBD; p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a high incidence of DGF in the absence of extracorporeal support and greater initial resource use, comparable short-term results can be achieved with DCD and DBD donor kidney transplantations.     

Delayed kidney graft function in simultaneous pancreas‐kidney transplant recipients is associated with early pancreas allograft failure

Delayed graft function (DGF) is a common complication associated with significant untoward effects in kidney‐alone transplantation. The incidence and outcomes following kidney delayed graft function (K‐DGF) among patients undergoing simultaneous pancreas‐kidney (SPK) transplantation are less certain. We analyzed SPK recipients transplanted at our center between January 1994 and December 2017. A total of 632 recipients fulfilled the selection criteria, including 69 (11%) with K‐DGF and 563 without. The incidence of K‐DGF was significantly higher in recipients of organs from older donors and donation after circulatory death (DCD). The presence of K‐DGF was significantly associated with an increased risk of pancreas graft failure during the first 90 days (n = 9, incidence rate [IR] 2.45/100 person‐months), but not with late pancreas failure (n = 32, IR 0.84/100 person‐months), kidney graft failure, or patient death. Although DCD was associated with K‐DGF, it was not associated with either pancreas (hazard ratio [HR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.58‐1.44, P = .69) or kidney (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.66‐1.82, P = .74) graft failure after adjustment for potential confounders. We found K‐DGF to be a significant risk factor for pancreas graft failure but not kidney graft failure, with the major risk period being early (<90 days) posttransplant, and the major donor risk factor being older donor age.     

Donor kidney disease and transplant outcome for kidneys donated after cardiac death

Background:

Although outcomes of kidney transplants following donation after cardiac death (DCD) and donation after brainstem death (DBD) are similar, generally only optimal younger DCD donors are considered. This study examined the impact of pre‐existing donor kidney disease on the outcome of DCD transplants.

Methods:

This retrospective study compared the outcome of all DCD kidney transplants performed during 1996–2006 with contemporaneous kidney transplants from DBD donors. Implantation biopsies were scored for glomerular, tubular, parenchymal and vascular disease (global histology score). There were 104 DCD and 104 DBD kidney transplants.

Results:

Delayed graft function (DGF) occurred more frequently in DCD than DBD kidneys (64·4 versus 28·8 per cent; P < 0·001). Long‐term graft outcome was similar. The only donor factor that influenced outcome was baseline kidney disease, which was similar in both groups, even though DCD donors were younger, with a higher predonation estimated glomerular filtration rate. The global histology score predicted DGF (odds ratio 1·85 per unit; P = 0·006) and graft failure (relative risk 1·55 per unit; P = 0·001), although there was no difference for DCD and DBD kidneys.

Conclusion:

Transplant outcomes for DCD and DBD kidneys are comparable. Baseline donor kidney disease influences DGF and graft survival but the impact is no greater for DCD kidneys. Copyright © 2009 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

The duration of asystolic ischemia determines the risk of graft failure after circulatory‐dead donor kidney transplantation: A Eurotransplant cohort study

Circulatory death donor (DCD) kidney transplantations are steadily increasing. Consensus reports recommend limiting donor warm ischemia time (DWIT) in DCD donation, although an independent effect on graft outcome has not been demonstrated. We investigated death‐censored graft survival in 18 065 recipients of deceased‐donor kidney transplants in the Eurotransplant region: 1059 DCD and 17 006 brain‐dead donor (DBD) kidney recipients. DWIT was defined as time from circulatory arrest until cold flush. DCD donation was an independent risk factor for graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.28, 95% CI 1.10‐1.46), due to an increased risk of primary nonfunction (62/1059 vs 560/17 006; P < .0001). With DWIT in the model, DCD donation was no longer a risk factor, demonstrating that DWIT explains the inferior graft survival of DCD kidneys. Indeed, DCD transplants with short DWIT have graft survival comparable to that of standard‐criteria DBD transplants (P = .59). DWIT also associated with graft failure in DCDs (adjusted HR 1.20 per 10‐minute increase, 95% CI 1.03‐1.42). At 5 years after transplantation, graft failure occurred in 14 of 133 recipients (10.5%) with DWIT <10 minutes, 139 of 555 recipients (25.0%) with DWIT between 10 and 19 minutes, and 117 of 371 recipients (31.5%) with DWIT ≥20 minutes. These findings support the expert opinion–based guidelines to limit DWIT.     

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.     

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.     

Survival benefit of accepting kidneys from older donation after cardiac death donors

Kidneys from older (age ≥50 years) donation after cardiac death (DCD50) donors are less likely to be transplanted due to inferior posttransplant outcomes. However, candidates who decline a DCD50 offer must wait for an uncertain future offer. To characterize the survival benefit of accepting DCD50 kidneys, we used 2010-2018 Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients (SRTR) data to identify 92 081 adult kidney transplantation candidates who were offered a DCD50 kidney that was eventually accepted for transplantation. DCD50 kidneys offered to candidates increased from 590 in 2010 to 1441 in 2018. However, 34.6% of DCD50 kidneys were discarded. Candidates who accepted DCD50 offers had 49% decreased mortality risk (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] _0.460.51_0.55, cumulative mortality at 6-year 23.3% vs 34.0%, P < .001) compared with those who declined the same offer (decliners). Six years after their initial DCD50 offer decline, 43.0% of decliners received a deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT), 6.3% received living donor kidney transplant (LDKT), 22.6% died, 22.0% were removed for other reasons, and 6.0% were still on the waitlist. Comparable survival benefit was observed even with DCD donors age ≥60 (aHR: _0.420.52_0.65, P < .001). Accepting DCD50 kidneys was associated with a substantial survival benefit; providers and patients should consider these benefits when evaluating offers.     

Serum liver‐type fatty acid‐binding protein predicts recovery of graft function after kidney transplantation from donors after cardiac death

Kidneys procured by donation after cardiac death (DCD) may increase the donor pool but are associated with high incidence of delayed graft function (DGF). Urinary liver‐type fatty acid‐binding protein (L‐FABP) level is an early biomarker of renal injury after kidney transplantation (KTx); however, its utility is limited in DGF cases owing to urine sample unavailability. We examined whether serum L‐FABP level predicts functional recovery of transplanted DCD kidneys. Consecutive patients undergoing KTx from living related donors (LD), brain‐dead donors (BD), or DCD were retrospectively enrolled. Serum L‐FABP levels were measured from samples collected before and after KTx. Serum L‐FABP decreased rapidly in patients with immediate function, slowly in DGF patients, and somewhat increased in DGF patients requiring hemodialysis (HD) for >1 wk. Receiver‐operating characteristic curve analysis demonstrated that DGF was predicted with 84% sensitivity (SE) and 86% specificity (SP) at cutoff of 9.0 ng/mL on post‐operative day (POD) 1 and 68% SE and 90% SP at 6.0 on POD 2. DGF >7 d was predicted with 83% SE and 78% SP at 11.0 on POD 1 and 67% SE and 78% SP at 6.5 on POD 2. Serum L‐FABP levels may predict graft recovery and need for HD after DCD KTx.     

Effect of delayed graft function on longer-term outcomes after kidney transplantation from donation after circulatory death donors in the United Kingdom: A national cohort study

Kidneys from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors are utilized variably worldwide, in part due to high rates of delayed graft function (DGF) and putative associations with adverse longer-term outcomes. We aimed to determine whether the presence of DGF and its duration were associated with poor longer-term outcomes after kidney transplantation from DCD donors. Using the UK transplant registry, we identified 4714 kidney-only transplants from controlled DCD donors to adult recipients between 2006 and 2016; 2832 recipients (60·1%) had immediate graft function and 1882 (39·9%) had DGF. Of the 1847 recipients with DGF duration recorded, 926 (50·1%) had DGF < 7 days, 576 (31·2%) had DGF 7–14 days, and 345 (18·7%) had DGF >14 days. After risk adjustment, the presence of DGF was not associated with inferior long-term graft or patient survivals. However, DGF duration of >14 days was associated with an increased risk of death-censored graft failure (hazard ratio 1·7, p = ·001) and recipient death (hazard ratio 1·8, p < ·001) compared to grafts with immediate function. This study suggests that shorter periods of DGF have no adverse influence on graft or patient survival after DCD donor kidney transplantation and that DGF >14 days is a novel early biomarker for significantly worse longer-term outcomes.     

Transplanting kidneys from donation after cardiac death donors with acute kidney injury

Donation after cardiac death (DCD) and acute kidney injury (AKI) donors have historically been considered independent risk factors for delayed graft function (DGF), allograft failure, and inferior outcomes. With growing experience, updated analyses have shown good outcomes. There continues to be limited data, however, on outcomes specific to DCD donors who have AKI. Primary outcomes for this study were post–kidney transplant patient and allograft survival comparing two donor groups: DCD AKIN stage 2‐3 and DBD AKIN stage 2‐3. In comparing these groups, there were no short‐ or long‐term differences in patient (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54‐1.93, P = .83) or allograft survival (HR 1.47, 95% CI 0.64‐2.97, P = .32). In multivariate models, the DCD/DBD status had no significant impact on the estimated GFR (eGFR) at 1 (P = .38), 2 (P = .60), and 3 years (P = .52). DGF (57.9% vs 67.9%, P = .09), rejection (12.1% vs 13.9%, P = .12), and progression of interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy (IFTA) on protocol biopsy (P = .16) were similar between the two groups. With careful selection, good outcomes can be achieved utilizing severe AKI DCD kidneys. Historic concerns regarding primary nonfunction, DGF resulting in interstitial fibrosis and rejection, and inferior outcomes were not observed. Given the ongoing organ shortage, increased effort should be undertaken to further utilize these donors.     

Kidney donation after circulatory death in a country with a high number of brain dead donors: 10-year experience in Belgium

Worldwide shortage of standard brain dead donors (DBD) has revived the use of kidneys donated after circulatory death (DCD). We reviewed the Belgian DCD kidney transplant (KT) experience since its reintroduction in 2000. Risk factors for delayed graft function (DGF) were identified using multivariate analysis. Five-year patient/graft survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves. The evolution of the kidney donor type and the impact of DCDs on the total KT activity in Belgium were compared with the Netherlands. Between 2000 and 2009, 287 DCD KT were performed. Primary nonfunction occurred in 1% and DGF in 31%. Five-year patient and death-censored graft survival were 93% and 95%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, cold storage (versus machine perfusion), cold ischemic time, and histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate solution were independent risk factors for the development of DGF. Despite an increased number of DCD donations and transplantations, the total number of deceased KT did not increase significantly. This could suggest a shift from DBDs to DCDs. To increase KT activity, Belgium should further expand controlled DCD programs while simultaneously improve the identification of all potential DBDs and avoid their referral for donation as DCDs before brain death occurs. Furthermore, living donation remains underused.     

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.     

Expanding the Donor Kidney Pool: Utility of Renal Allografts Procured in a Setting of Uncontrolled Cardiac Death

The chronic shortage of deceased kidney donors has led to increased utilization of donation after cardiac death (DCD) kidneys, the majority of which are procured in a controlled setting. The objective of this study is to evaluate transplantation outcomes from uncontrolled DCD (uDCD) donors and evaluate their utility as a source of donor kidneys. From January 1995 to December 2004, 75,865 kidney-alone transplants from donation after brain death (DBD) donors and 2136 transplants from DCD donors were reported to the United Network for Organ Sharing. Among the DCD transplants, 1814 were from controlled and 216 from uncontrolled DCD donors. The log-rank test was used to compare survival curves. The incidence of delayed graft function in controlled DCD (cDCD) was 42% and in uDCD kidneys was 51%, compared to only 24% in kidneys from DBD donors (p < 0.001). The overall graft and patient survival of DCD donors was similar to that of DBD donor kidneys (p = 0.66; p = 0.88). Despite longer donor warm and cold ischemic times, overall graft and patient survival of uDCD donors was comparable to that of cDCD donors (p = 0.65, p = 0.99). Concerted efforts should be focused on procurement of uDCD donors, which can provide another source of quality deceased donor kidneys.     

Kidneys from uncontrolled donors after cardiac death: which kidneys do worse?

Kidneys from uncontrolled donors after cardiac death (DCD) expand the donor pool, but are associated with more primary nonfunction (PNF) and delayed graft function (DGF) compared with more conventional donor kidneys. It remains unclear, which factors influence outcome of uncontrolled donation. Therefore, we studied which donor, graft, and recipient characteristics are associated with PNF in a large cohort study. The association between different characteristics and short‐term graft function was analyzed for kidneys procured in the Maastricht region from 1 January 1981 to 1 July 2009. Patients were followed until 7 January 2010. A total of 135 uncontrolled donor kidneys were included in this study. The incidence of PNF and DGF was 22% and 61%, respectively. Increasing donor age is an independent risk factor for graft failure in a univariate analysis (OR 1.035, 95% CI 1.004–1.068, P = 0.028). Donor age remains strongly associated with PNF in a multivariate analysis (OR 1.064, 95% CI 1.013–1.118, P = 0.014). However, the predictive value of donor age alone is poor (AURC 0.640, 95% CI 0.553–0.721). Increasing donor age of uncontrolled DCD donors is a major risk factor for PNF. Other clinically relevant variables were not associated with PNF. Donor age is strongly associated with PNF and remains an important parameter in donor selection.