Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Patient-level risk factors for delayed graft function (DGF) have been well described. However, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network definition of DGF is based on dialysis in the first week, which is subject to center-level practice patterns. It remains unclear if there are center-level differences in DGF and if measurable center characteristics can explain these differences. METHODS: Using the 2003 to 2012 Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data, we developed a hierarchical (multilevel) model to determine the association between center characteristics and DGF incidence after adjusting for known patient risk factors and to quantify residual variability across centers after adjustment for these factors. RESULTS: Of 82,143 deceased donor kidney transplant recipients, 27.0% developed DGF, with a range across centers of 3.2% to 63.3%. A center's proportion of preemptive transplants (odds ratio [OR], 0.83; per 5% increment; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.74-;0.93; P = 0.001) and kidneys with longer than 30 hr of cold ischemia time (CIT) (OR, 0.95; per 5% increment; 95% CI, 0.92-;0.98; P = 0.001) were associated with less DGF. A center's proportion of donation after cardiac death donors (OR, 1.12; per 5% increment; 95% CI, 1.03-;1.17; P < 0.001) and imported kidneys (OR, 1.06; per 5% increment; 95% CI, 1.03-;1.10; P < 0.001) were associated with more DGF. After patient-level and center-level adjustments, only 41.8% of centers had DGF incidences consistent with the national median and 28.2% had incidences above the national median. CONCLUSION: Significant heterogeneity in DGF incidences across centers, even after adjusting for patient-level and center-level characteristics, calls into question the generalizability and validity of the current DGF definition. Enhanced understanding of center-level variability and improving the definition of DGF accordingly may improve DGF's utility in clinical care and as a surrogate endpoint in clinical trials.

The initial contact point between a recipient's immune system and a transplanted graft is the vascular endothelium. Clinical studies suggest a pathogenic role for non-HLA antiendothelial cell antibodies (AECAs) in allograft rejection; however, evidence linking AECAs of known specificity to in vivo vascular injury is lacking. Here, we used high-density protein arrays to identify target antigens for AECAs isolated from the sera of recipients of kidney transplants experiencing antibody-mediated rejection in the absence of donor-specific HLA antibodies. Four antigenic targets expressed on endothelial cells were identified: endoglin, Fms-like tyrosine kinase-3 ligand, EGF-like repeats and discoidin I-like domains 3, and intercellular adhesion molecule 4; the first three have been implicated in endothelial cell activation and leukocyte extravasation. To validate these findings, ELISAs were constructed, and sera from an additional 150 renal recipients were tested. All four AECAs were detected in 24% of pretransplant sera, and they were associated with post-transplant donor-specific HLA antibodies, antibody-mediated rejection, and early transplant glomerulopathy. AECA stimulation of endothelial cell cultures increased adhesion molecule expression and production of inflammatory cytokines: regulated on activation, normal T cell expressed and secreted PDGF and RESISTIN. These correlations between in vitro experiments and in vivo histopathology suggest that AECAs activate the vascular endothelium, amplifying the alloimmune response and increasing microvascular damage. Given the growing number of transplant candidates, a better understanding of the antigenic targets, beyond HLA, and mechanisms of immune injury will be essential for improving long-term allograft survival.

Unlike antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) with clinical features, it remains unclear whether subclinical AMR should be treated, as its effect on allograft loss is unknown. It is also uncertain if AMR's effect is homogeneous across donor (deceased/live) and (HLA/ABO) antibody types. We compared 219 patients with AMR (77 subclinical, 142 clinical) to controls matched on HLA/ABO-compatibility, donor type, prior transplant, panel reactive antibody (PRA), age and year. One and 5-year graft survival in subclinical AMR was 95.9% and 75.7%, compared to 96.8% and 88.4% in matched controls (p = 0.0097). Subclinical AMR was independently associated with a 2.15-fold increased risk of graft loss (95% CI: 1.19-3.91; p = 0.012) compared to matched controls, but not different from clinical AMR (p = 0.13). Fifty three point two percent of subclinical AMR patients were treated with plasmapheresis within 3 days of their AMR-defining biopsy. Treated subclinical AMR patients had no difference in graft loss compared to matched controls (HR 1.73; 95% CI: 0.73-4.05; p = 0.21), but untreated subclinical AMR patients did (HR 3.34; 95% CI: 1.37-8.11; p = 0.008). AMR's effect on graft loss was heterogeneous when stratified by compatible deceased donor (HR = 4.73; 95% CI: 1.57-14.26; p = 0.006), HLA-incompatible deceased donor (HR = 2.39; 95% CI: 1.10-5.19; p = 0.028), compatible live donor (no AMR patients experienced graft loss), ABO-incompatible live donor (HR = 6.13; 95% CI: 0.55-67.70; p = 0.14) and HLA-incompatible live donor (HR = 6.29; 95% CI: 3.81-10.39; p < 0.001) transplant. Subclinical AMR substantially increases graft loss, and treatment seems warranted.

Rituximab has been used to increase the efficacy of desensitization protocols for human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-incompatible kidney transplantation; however, controlled comparisons have not been reported. Here we examined 256 post-transplant HLA antibody levels in 25 recipients desensitized with and 25 without rituximab induction, to determine the impact of B-cell depletion. We found significantly less HLA antibody rebound in the rituximab-treated patients (7% of donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) and 33% of non-DSAs) compared with a control cohort desensitized and transplanted without rituximab (32% DSAs and 55% non-DSAs). The magnitude of the increase was significantly larger among patients who did not receive rituximab. Interestingly, in rituximab-treated patients, of the 39 HLA antibodies that increased post transplant, 34 were specific for HLA mismatches present in previous allografts or pregnancies, implying limited efficacy in memory B-cell depletion. Compared with controls, rituximab-treated patients had a significantly greater mean reduction in DSA (-2505 vs. -292 mean fluorescence intensity), but a similar rate of DSA persistence (52% in rituximab treated-and 40% in non-treated recipients). Thus, rituximab induction in HLA-incompatible recipients reduced the incidence and magnitude of HLA antibody rebound, but did not affect DSA elimination, antibody-mediated rejection, or 5-year allograft survival when compared with recipients desensitized and transplanted without rituximab.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we present our experience with ureteral complications requiring revision surgery after renal transplantation and compare our results to a matched control population. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of our database between 1997 and 2012. We divided the cases into early (<60 d) and late repairs. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare graft survival between the intervention cohort and controls generated from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data set. RESULTS: Of 2671 kidney transplantations, 51 patients were identified as to having undergone 53 ureteral revision procedures; 43.4% of cases were performed within 60 d of the transplant and were all associated with urinary leaks, and 49% demonstrated ureteral stenosis. Reflux allograft pyelonephritis and ureterolithiasis were each the indication for intervention in 3.8%; 15.1% of the lesions were located at the anastomotic site, 37.7% in the distal segment, 7.5% in the middle segment, 5.7% proximal ureter, and 15.1% had a long segmental stenosis. In 18.9%, the location was not specified. Techniques used included ureterocystostomy (30.2%), ureteroureterostomy (34%), ureteropyelostomy (30.1%), pyeloileostomy (1.9%), and ureteroileostomy (3.8%). No difference in overall graft survival (HR 1.24 95% CI 0.33-4.64, p = 0.7) was detected when compared to the matched control group. CONCLUSION: Using a variety of techniques designed to re-establish effective urinary flow, we have been able to salvage a high percentage of these allografts. When performed by an experienced team, a ureteric complication does not significantly impact graft survival or function as compared to a matched control group.