Renal Resistance Trend During Hypothermic Machine Perfusion Correlates With Preimplantation Biopsy Score in Transplantation of Kidneys From Extended Criteria Donors.
Journal
Transplantation proceedings
ISSN: 1873-2623
Titre abrégé: Transplant Proc
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0243532
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
23
11
2020
revised:
01
03
2021
accepted:
17
03
2021
pubmed:
10
5
2021
medline:
21
10
2021
entrez:
9
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Graft quality from extended criteria donors (ECDs) is extremely wide, and a reliable evaluation parameter is required. So far, biopsy is widely used to evaluate ECD organs and to decide whether double (DKT) or single (SKT) kidney transplantation should be performed. The aim of this study is to compare renal resistance (RR) trend during hypothermic machine perfusion (HMP) with a preimplantation biopsy score. From December 2014 to April 2020, HMP has been systematically applied to all organs from ECDs for at least 3 hours. All grafts underwent a preimplantation biopsy histologic assessment with Karpinski's score. SKTs or DKTs were performed accordingly. RR trend during the first 180 minutes of HMP was compared with the biopsy score. Eighty-three kidneys were used to perform 57 transplantations (31 SKTs and 26 DKTs). A biopsy confirmed suitability for transplantation in all cases, and the median score was 4 (range, 2-7). Kidneys with a score of 5 to 7 had significantly higher RR value than kidneys with a score of 0 to 4 at basal time (3.35 vs 2.71; P = .074), at 60 minutes (1.24 vs 0.94; P = .031), at 120 minutes (1.10 vs 0.81; P = .010), and at 180 minutes (1.00 vs 0.77; P = .022). A cutoff value of RR ≥0.88 at 120 minutes of perfusion had the best sensibility and specificity (0.71 and 0.75, respectively) to discriminate kidneys with a score of 5 to 7 from kidneys with a score of 0 to 4. No differences were found in postoperative outcomes between SKT and DKT recipients. RR trend during HMP correlates with the histologic score in ECD kidneys and can be used as a reliable parameter to evaluate graft quality.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Graft quality from extended criteria donors (ECDs) is extremely wide, and a reliable evaluation parameter is required. So far, biopsy is widely used to evaluate ECD organs and to decide whether double (DKT) or single (SKT) kidney transplantation should be performed. The aim of this study is to compare renal resistance (RR) trend during hypothermic machine perfusion (HMP) with a preimplantation biopsy score.
METHODS
METHODS
From December 2014 to April 2020, HMP has been systematically applied to all organs from ECDs for at least 3 hours. All grafts underwent a preimplantation biopsy histologic assessment with Karpinski's score. SKTs or DKTs were performed accordingly. RR trend during the first 180 minutes of HMP was compared with the biopsy score.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Eighty-three kidneys were used to perform 57 transplantations (31 SKTs and 26 DKTs). A biopsy confirmed suitability for transplantation in all cases, and the median score was 4 (range, 2-7). Kidneys with a score of 5 to 7 had significantly higher RR value than kidneys with a score of 0 to 4 at basal time (3.35 vs 2.71; P = .074), at 60 minutes (1.24 vs 0.94; P = .031), at 120 minutes (1.10 vs 0.81; P = .010), and at 180 minutes (1.00 vs 0.77; P = .022). A cutoff value of RR ≥0.88 at 120 minutes of perfusion had the best sensibility and specificity (0.71 and 0.75, respectively) to discriminate kidneys with a score of 5 to 7 from kidneys with a score of 0 to 4. No differences were found in postoperative outcomes between SKT and DKT recipients.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
RR trend during HMP correlates with the histologic score in ECD kidneys and can be used as a reliable parameter to evaluate graft quality.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33965240
pii: S0041-1345(21)00235-9
doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2021.03.036
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1823-1830Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.