Allocation of the Highest Quality Kidneys and Transplant Outcomes Under the New Kidney Allocation System.
Adult
Donor Selection
/ organization & administration
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Graft Survival
Humans
Kidney Transplantation
/ methods
Male
Middle Aged
Resource Allocation
Retrospective Studies
Risk Factors
Tissue Donors
Tissue and Organ Procurement
/ organization & administration
Transplant Recipients
United States
Kidney allocation
OPTN/UNOS
allosensitization
estimated post-transplantation survival (EPTS)
graft loss
highly sensitized
kidney allocation system (KAS)
kidney donor profile index (KDPI)
organ donation policy
panel reactive antibodies (PRA)
posttransplantation outcomes
renal transplantation
sensitization
waitlist
Journal
American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation
ISSN: 1523-6838
Titre abrégé: Am J Kidney Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8110075
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2019
05 2019
Historique:
received:
06
04
2018
accepted:
19
12
2018
pubmed:
2
4
2019
medline:
1
2
2020
entrez:
2
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Increased access to transplantation for highly sensitized candidates following implementation of the kidney allocation system (KAS) has been mostly due to higher use of organs with a lower kidney donor profile index (KDPI; a quality metric for donated kidneys), although changes in allocation of these organs was not intended. It is unclear whether clinical outcomes have changed in association with these changes. We investigated the use of kidneys with low and high KDPI scores over time and whether KDPI score affects patient and graft survival differently across varying levels of allosensitization. Observational cohort study. Adult (aged ≥18 years) recipients of a deceased donor kidney transplant between October 1, 2009, and September 30, 2017 (Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing database; n = 84,451). Calculated panel-reactive antibody (cPRA) level (0%, 1%-79%, 80%-89%, 90%-98%, and 99%-100%) and KDPI score (≤20%, 21%-85%, and >85%). Death, graft loss. Time to event. Allocation of kidneys with KDPI scores ≤ 20% and KDPI scores of 21% to 85% to recipients with cPRA levels ≥ 99% increased 4-fold following implementation of the KAS with little change in allocation of kidneys with KDPI scores > 85%. Patient survival and graft loss were strongly associated with KDPI score, whereas the association with cPRA level was minimal. There was no evidence of a differential effect of KDPI scores across the range of cPRA levels on patient survival (P for interaction=0.06-0.9) or graft loss (P for interaction=0.5-0.9). Patient survival at 5 years among the 5 cPRA groups ranged from 87.2% to 89.8% for recipients of kidneys with KDPI scores ≤ 20% (P=0.2), 82.8% to 85.5% for KDPI scores of 21% to 85% (P=0.04), and 70.2% to 79.2% for KDPI scores > 85% (P=0.2). Cumulative incidence of graft loss by cPRA level ranged from 7.7% to 10.6% for recipients of kidneys with KDPI scores ≤ 20% (P=0.2), 11.8% to 15.0% for KDPI scores of 21% to 85% (P < 0.001), and 19.8% to 29.7% for KDPI scores > 85% (P = 0.4). Lack of data for crossmatches, donor-specific antibodies, and immunomodulation. Highly sensitized recipients received kidneys with lower KDPI scores following implementation of the KAS, reducing access to these kidneys by less-sensitized candidates. KDPI score has a stronger association with patient survival and graft loss than cPRA level. The association of KDPI score with these outcomes was not modified by the recipient's level of sensitization. The impact of the redistribution of kidneys with low KDPI scores on outcomes among less-sensitized recipients needs further evaluation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30929853
pii: S0272-6386(19)30056-3
doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2018.12.036
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Observational Study
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
605-614Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.