Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Recipients of kidneys from living donors who subsequently develop end-stage renal disease (ESRD) also have higher graft failure, suggesting the 2 donor kidneys share risk factors that could inform recipient outcomes. Given that donor ESRD is rare, an earlier and more common postdonation outcome could serve as a surrogate to individualize counseling and management for recipients. Hypertension is a frequent event before donor ESRD; thus, early postdonation hypertension might indicate higher risk of graft failure. METHODS:We studied Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data to quantify the association between early postdonation hypertension and recipient graft failure using propensity score-weighted Cox proportional hazards regression. We also examined the association between postdonation systolic blood pressure and graft failure. RESULTS:Of 37 901 recipients, 2.4% had a donor who developed hypertension within 2 years postdonation. Controlling for donor and recipient characteristics, recipients whose donors developed hypertension had no higher risk for graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-1.25, P = 0.72). This was consistent among subgroups of recipients at higher risk for adverse outcomes due to hyperfiltration: African American recipients (aHR 1.10, 95% CI 0.70-1.73, P = 0.68) and those with ESRD caused by hypertension (aHR 1.10, 95% CI 0.65-1.85, P = 0.73) or diabetes (aHR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56-1.13, P = 0.20). However, graft failure was associated with postdonation systolic blood pressure (per 10 mm Hg, aHR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.08, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Although postdonation systolic blood pressure is associated with graft failure, the reported diagnosis of hypertension as determined by the requirement for blood pressure treatment early postdonation did not portend a higher risk of recipient graft failure in the same way as eventual postdonation ESRD.

BACKGROUND:Observed long-term outcomes no longer reflect the survival trajectory facing pediatric liver transplant (LT) recipients today. We aimed to use national registry data and parametric models to project 20- and 30-year post-transplant outcomes for recently transplanted pediatric LT recipients. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 13,442 first-time pediatric (age <18) LT recipients using 1987 to 2018 Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data. We validated the proposed method (ie, to project long-term patient and graft survival using parametric survival models and short-term data) in 2 historic cohorts (1987-1996 and 1997-2006) and estimated long-term projections among patients transplanted between 2007 and 2018. Projections were stratified by raft type, recipient age, and indication for transplant. RESULTS:Parsimonious parametric models with Weibull distribution can be applied to post-transplant data and used to project long-term outcomes for pediatric LT recipients beyond observed data. Projected 20-year patient survival for pediatric LT recipients transplanted in 2007 to 2018 was 84.0% (95% confidence interval 81.5-85.8), compared to observed 20-year survival of 72.8% and 63.6% among those transplanted in 1997 to 2006 and 1987 to 1996, respectively. Projected 30-year survival for pediatric LT recipients in 2007 to 2018 was 80.1% (75.2-82.7), compared to projected 30-year survival of 68.6% (66.1-70.9) in the 1997 to 2006 cohort and observed 30-year survival of 57.5% in the 1987 to 1996 cohort. Twenty- and 30-year patient and graft survival varied slightly by recipient age, graft type, and indication for transplant. CONCLUSIONS:Projected long-term outcomes for recently transplanted pediatric LT recipients are excellent, reflective of substantial improvements in medical care, and informative for physician-patient education and decision making in the current era.

Steatotic donor livers (SDLs) (macrosteatosis ≥30%) represent a possible donor pool expansion, but are frequently discarded due to a historical association with mortality and graft loss. However, changes in recipient/donor demographics, allocation policy, and clinical protocols might have altered utilization and outcomes of SDLs. We used Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 2005 to 2017 and adjusted multilevel regression to quantify temporal trends in discard rates (logistic) and posttransplant outcomes (Cox) of SDLs, accounting for Organ Procurement Organization-level variation. Of 4346 recovered SDLs, 58.0% were discarded in 2005, versus only 43.1% in 2017 (P < .001). SDLs were always substantially more likely discarded versus non-SDLs, although this difference decreased over time (adjusted odds ratio in 2005-2007:_13.15 15.28_17.74 ; 2008-2011:_11.77 13.41_15.29 ; 2012-2014:_9.87 11.37_13.10 ; 2015-2017:_7.79 8.89_10.15 , P < .001 for all). Conversely, posttransplant outcomes of recipients of SDLs improved over time: recipients of SDLs from 2012 to 2017 had 46% lower risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: _0.43 0.54_0.68 , P < .001) and 47% lower risk of graft loss (aHR: _0.42 0.53_0.67 , P < .001) compared to 2005 to 2011. In fact, in 2012 to 2017, recipients of SDLs had equivalent mortality (aHR: _0.90 1.04_1.21 , P = .6) and graft loss (aHR: _0.90 1.04_1.20 , P = .6) to recipients of non-SDLs. Increasing utilization of SDLs might be a reasonable strategy to expand the donor pool.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE:Risk factors for kidney failure are the basis of live kidney donor candidate evaluation. We quantified risk for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) by the biological relationship of the donor to the recipient, a risk factor that is not addressed by current clinical practice guidelines. STUDY DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS:A cohort of 143,750 US kidney donors between 1987 and 2017. EXPOSURE:Biological relationship of donor and recipient. OUTCOME:ESKD. Donors' records were linked to national dialysis and transplantation registries to ascertain development of the outcome. ANALYTIC APPROACH:Donors were observed over a median of 12 (interquartile range, 6-18; maximum, 30) years. Survival analysis methods that account for the competing risk for death were used. RESULTS:Risk for ESKD varied by orders of magnitude across donor-recipient relationship categories. For Asian donors, risks compared with unrelated donors were 259.4-fold greater for identical twins (95% CI, 19.5-3445.6), 4.7-fold greater for full siblings (95% CI, 0.5-41.0), 3.5-fold greater for offspring (95% CI, 0.6-39.5), 1.0 for parents, and 1.0 for half-sibling or other biological relatives. For black donors, risks were 22.5-fold greater for identical twin donors (95% CI, 4.7-107.0), 4.1-fold for full siblings (95% CI, 2.1-7.8), 2.7-fold for offspring (95% CI, 1.4-5.4), 3.1-fold for parents (95% CI, 1.4-6.8), and 1.3-fold for half-sibling or other biological relatives (95% CI, 0.5-3.3). For white donors, risks were 3.5-fold greater for identical twin donors (95% CI, 0.5-25.3), 2.0-fold for full siblings (95% CI, 1.4-2.8), 1.4-fold for offspring (95% CI, 0.9-2.3), 2.9-fold for parents (95% CI, 2.0-4.1), and 0.8-fold for half-sibling or other biological relatives (95% CI, 0.3-1.6). LIMITATIONS:Insufficient sample size in some race and relationship groups. Absence of data for family history of kidney disease for donors biologically unrelated to their recipients. CONCLUSIONS:Marked differences in risk for ESKD across types of donor-recipient relationship were observed for Asian, black, and white donors. These findings warrant further validation with more robust data to better inform clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND:A number of deceased donor kidney scoring systems have been developed to predict post-transplant graft failure. However, studies comparing the predictive ability of these scoring systems to each other are lacking. METHODS:We used single-center histopathologic and UNOS data from 140 marginal deceased donor kidneys and transplant recipients to compare the predictive accuracy of the Maryland Aggregate Pathology Index (MAPI), Kidney Donor Risk Index (KDRI), Remuzzi, and Nyberg scoring systems for 2-year graft survival using time-dependent receiver operating curves and Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS:MAPI had the highest predictive accuracy (area under curve [AUC] = 0.81) compared to KDRI (AUC = 0.45), Remuzzi (AUC = 0.59), and Nyberg (AUC = 0.63) for 2-year graft survival. Furthermore, when analyzing each score according to its pre-defined risk strata, MAPI was the only scoring system for which 2-year graft survival was significantly different across strata (84.3% for low risk, 56.5% for intermediate risk, and 50% for high risk, P < .001). Additionally, MAPI was the only risk score significantly associated with 2-year graft survival (hazard ratio per point: 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.23, P = .03). CONCLUSIONS:In a single-center cohort of biopsied marginal kidneys used for transplantation, MAPI had the best predictive ability of these four scoring systems. When biopsy data are available for kidneys considered for transplantation, the MAPI score may provide additional information that could be used to better identify kidneys likely to have longer graft survival.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:In the United States, kidney paired donation networks have facilitated an increasing proportion of kidney transplants annually, but transplant outcome differences beyond 5 years between paired donation and other living donor kidney transplant recipients have not been well described. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS:), and transplant factors (zero HLA mismatch). RESULTS:=0.2) between National Kidney Registry and control recipients. CONCLUSIONS:Even after transplanting patients with greater risk factors for worse post-transplant outcomes, nationalized paired donation results in equivalent outcomes when compared with control living donor kidney transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND:Early steroid withdrawal (ESW) is associated with acceptable outcomes in kidney transplant (KT) recipients. Recipients with delayed graft function (DGF), however, often have a suboptimal allograft milieu, which may alter the risk/benefit equation for ESW. This may contribute to varying practices across transplant centers. METHODS:Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we studied 110,019 adult deceased-donor KT recipients between 2005 and 2017. We characterized the association of DGF with the use of ESW versus continued steroid maintenance across KT centers, and quantified the association of ESW with acute rejection, graft failure, and mortality using multivariable logistic and Cox regression with DGF-ESW interaction terms. RESULTS:=0.6). CONCLUSIONS:KT centers in the United States use ESW inconsistently in recipients with DGF. Our findings suggest ESW may lead to worse KT outcomes in recipients with DGF.