Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplants from pediatric donors after cardiac death (PDCD) have quadrupled in the past 9 years, but little data exist on outcomes using these donors. We hypothesized that pediatric organs might be more sensitive to the pathophysiology of cardiac death. METHODS: We evaluated outcomes and rates of discard of more than 12,000 pediatric kidneys recovered between 2000 and 2009. We compared short- and long-term graft function among adult and pediatric recipients of PDCD kidneys compared with recipients of pediatric kidneys from donors after brain death (PDBD). RESULTS: Overall, 6.3% of pediatric kidneys recovered were PDCD and 93.7% were PDBD. Discard rates were higher for PDCD kidneys (adjusted odds ratio=1.69, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.31-2.18, P<0.001). Delayed graft function (DGF) was twice as common in recipients of PDCD grafts compared with PDBD (26.2% vs. 13.0%, P<0.001); however, among pediatric recipients, DGF rates were half of those observed in adults, and a statistically significant difference in DGF could not be detected between PDBD and PDCD grafts (6.9% vs. 4.9%, P=0.6). Among all recipients, PDCD kidneys had a greater risk of graft loss compared with PDBD kidneys (adjusted hazard ratio=1.32, 95% CI=1.06-1.65, P=0.01), although among pediatric recipients this increased risk was not statistically significant (adjusted hazard ratio=2.01, 95% CI=0.89-4.54, P=0.1). CONCLUSIONS: The differences in outcomes between adult recipients of PDCD and PDBD kidneys, and the attenuation of these differences among pediatric recipients, should be weighed against risks of prolonged waitlist time in recipients being considered for these grafts.

HYPOTHESIS: The use of kidneys from deceased donors considered at increased infectious risk represents a strategy to increase the donor pool. DESIGN: Single-institution longitudinal observational study. SETTING: Tertiary care center. PATIENTS: Fifty patients who gave special informed consent to receive Centers for Disease Control and Prevention high-risk (CDCHR) donor kidneys were followed up by serial testing for viral transmission after transplantation. Nucleic acid testing for human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B virus, and hepatitis C virus was performed on all high-risk donors before transplantation. Outcomes of CDCHR kidney recipients were compared with outcomes of non-high-risk (non-HR) kidney recipients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: New viral transmission, graft function, and waiting list time. RESULTS: No recipient seroconversion was detected during a median follow-up period of 11.3 months. Compared with non-HR donors, CDCHR donors were younger (mean [SD] age, 35 [11] vs 43 [18] years, P = .01), fewer were expanded criteria donors (2.0% vs 24.8%, P < .001), and fewer had a terminal creatinine level exceeding 2.5 mg/dL (4.0% vs 8.8%, P = .002). The median creatinine levels at 1 year after transplantation were 1.4 (interquartile range, 1.2-1.7) mg/dL for CDCHR recipients and 1.4 (interquartile range, 1.1-1.9) mg/dL for non-HR recipients (P = .4). Willingness to accept a CDCHR kidney significantly shortened the median waiting list time (274 vs 736 days, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: We show safe use of CDCHR donor kidneys and good 1-year graft function. With continued use of these organs and careful follow-up care, we will be better able to gauge donor risk and match it to recipient need to expand the donor pool and optimize patient benefit.

BACKGROUND: More than 20,000 candidates for kidney transplantation in the United States are sensitized to HLA and may have a prolonged wait for a transplant, with a reduced transplantation rate and an increased rate of death. One solution is to perform live-donor renal transplantation after the depletion of donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies. Whether such antibody depletion results in a survival benefit as compared with waiting for an HLA-compatible kidney is unknown. METHODS: We used a protocol that included plasmapheresis and the administration of low-dose intravenous immune globulin to desensitize 211 HLA-sensitized patients who subsequently underwent renal transplantation (treatment group). We compared rates of death between the group undergoing desensitization treatment and two carefully matched control groups of patients on a waiting list for kidney transplantation who continued to undergo dialysis (dialysis-only group) or who underwent either dialysis or HLA-compatible transplantation (dialysis-or-transplantation group). RESULTS: In the treatment group, Kaplan-Meier estimates of patient survival were 90.6% at 1 year, 85.7% at 3 years, 80.6% at 5 years, and 80.6% at 8 years, as compared with rates of 91.1%, 67.2%, 51.5%, and 30.5%, respectively, for patients in the dialysis-only group and rates of 93.1%, 77.0%, 65.6%, and 49.1%, respectively, for patients in the dialysis-or-transplantation group (P<0.001 for both comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Live-donor transplantation after desensitization provided a significant survival benefit for patients with HLA sensitization, as compared with waiting for a compatible organ. By 8 years, this survival advantage more than doubled. These data provide evidence that desensitization protocols may help overcome incompatibility barriers in live-donor renal transplantation. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the Charles T. Bauer Foundation.).

The recent national focus on patient safety has led to a re-examination of the risks and benefits of nighttime surgery. In liver transplantation, the hypothetical risks of nighttime operation must be weighed against either the well-established risks of prolonging cold ischemia or the potential risks of strategies to manipulate operative start times. A retrospective review was conducted of 578 liver transplants performed at a single institution between 1995 and 2008 to determine whether the incidence of postoperative complications correlated with operative start times. We hypothesized that no correlation would be observed between complication rates and operative start times. No consistent trends in relative risk of postoperative wound, vascular, biliary, or other complications were observed when eight 3-h time strata were compared. When two 12-h time strata (night, 3 p.m.-3 a.m., and day, 3 a.m.-3 p.m.) were compared, complications were not significantly different, but nighttime operations were longer in duration, and were associated a twofold greater risk of early death compared to daytime operations (adjusted OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.16-7.00, p = 0.023), though long-term survival did not differ significantly between the subgroups. This observation warrants further evaluation and underscores the need to explore and identify institution-specific practices that ensure safe operations regardless of time of day.

A 43-year-old patient with end-stage renal disease, a hypercoagulable condition and 100% panel reactive antibody was transferred to our institution with loss of hemodialysis access and thrombosis of the superior and inferior vena cava, bilateral iliac and femoral veins. A transhepatic catheter was placed but became infected. Access through a stented subclavian into a dilated azygos vein was established. Desensitization with two cycles of bortezomib was undertaken after anti-CD20 and IVIg were given. A flow-positive, cytotoxic-negative cross-match live-donor kidney at the end of an eight-way multi-institution domino chain became available, with a favorable genotype for this patient with impending total loss of a dialysis option. The patient received three pretransplant plasmapheresis treatments. Intraoperatively, the superior mesenteric vein was the only identifiable patent target for venous drainage. Eculizumab was administered postoperatively in the setting of antibody-mediated rejection and an inability to perform additional plasmapheresis. Creatinine remains normal at 6 months posttransplant and flow cross-match is negative. In this report, we describe the combined use of new agents (bortezomib and eculizumab) and modalities (nontraditional vascular access, splanchnic drainage of graft and domino paired donation) in a patient who would have died without transplantation.