Bertram L Kasiske1, Darren E Stewart, Bipin R Bista, Nicholas Salkowski, Jon J Snyder, Ajay K Israni, Gretchen S Crary, John D Rosendale, Arthur J Matas, Francis L Delmonico. 1. Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Minneapolis, Minnesota;, †Department of Medicine and, ¶Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota;, ‡Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, United Network for Organ Sharing, Richmond, Virginia;, §Departments of Medicine and, *Surgery, and, ‖Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, ††New England Organ Bank, Waltham, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is a shortage of kidneys for transplant, and many patients on the deceased donor kidney transplant waiting list would likely benefit from kidneys that are currently being discarded. In the United States, the most common reason given for discarding kidneys retrieved for transplant is procurement biopsy results. This study aimed to compare biopsy results from discarded kidneys with discard attributed to biopsy findings, with biopsy results from comparable kidneys that were successfully transplanted. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: In this retrospective, observational, case-control study, biopsy reports were examined from 83 kidneys discarded in 2010 due to biopsy findings (cases), 83 contralateral transplanted kidneys from the same donor (contralateral controls), and 83 deceased donors randomly matched to cases by donor risk profile (randomly matched controls). A second procurement biopsy was obtained in 64 of 332 kidneys (19.3%). RESULTS: The quality of biopsy reports was low, with amounts of tubular atrophy, interstitial inflammation, arteriolar hyalinosis, and acute tubular necrosis often not indicated; 69% were wedge biopsies and 94% used frozen tissue. The correlation between first and second procurement biopsies was poor; only 25% of the variability (R(2)) in glomerulosclerosis was explained by biopsies being from the same kidney. The percentages of glomerulosclerosis overlapped substantially between cases, contralateral controls, and randomly matched controls: 17.1%±15.3%, 9.0%±6.6%, and 5.0%±5.9%, respectively. Of all biopsy findings, only glomerulosclerosis>20% was independently correlated with discard (cases versus contralateral controls; odds ratio, 15.09; 95% confidence interval, 2.47 to 92.41; P=0.003), suggesting that only this biopsy result was used in acceptance decisions. One-year graft survival was 79.5% and 90.7% in contralateral and randomly matched controls, respectively, versus 91.6% among all deceased donor transplants in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Routine use of biopsies could lead to unnecessary kidney discards.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is a shortage of kidneys for transplant, and many patients on the deceased donor kidney transplant waiting list would likely benefit from kidneys that are currently being discarded. In the United States, the most common reason given for discarding kidneys retrieved for transplant is procurement biopsy results. This study aimed to compare biopsy results from discarded kidneys with discard attributed to biopsy findings, with biopsy results from comparable kidneys that were successfully transplanted. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: In this retrospective, observational, case-control study, biopsy reports were examined from 83 kidneys discarded in 2010 due to biopsy findings (cases), 83 contralateral transplanted kidneys from the same donor (contralateral controls), and 83 deceased donors randomly matched to cases by donor risk profile (randomly matched controls). A second procurement biopsy was obtained in 64 of 332 kidneys (19.3%). RESULTS: The quality of biopsy reports was low, with amounts of tubular atrophy, interstitial inflammation, arteriolar hyalinosis, and acute tubular necrosis often not indicated; 69% were wedge biopsies and 94% used frozen tissue. The correlation between first and second procurement biopsies was poor; only 25% of the variability (R(2)) in glomerulosclerosis was explained by biopsies being from the same kidney. The percentages of glomerulosclerosis overlapped substantially between cases, contralateral controls, and randomly matched controls: 17.1%±15.3%, 9.0%±6.6%, and 5.0%±5.9%, respectively. Of all biopsy findings, only glomerulosclerosis>20% was independently correlated with discard (cases versus contralateral controls; odds ratio, 15.09; 95% confidence interval, 2.47 to 92.41; P=0.003), suggesting that only this biopsy result was used in acceptance decisions. One-year graft survival was 79.5% and 90.7% in contralateral and randomly matched controls, respectively, versus 91.6% among all deceased donor transplants in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Routine use of biopsies could lead to unnecessary kidney discards.
Authors: K M Leunissen; F T Bosman; F H Nieman; G Kootstra; M A Vromen; T C Noordzij; J P van Hooff Journal: Transplantation Date: 1989-10 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Sumit Mohan; Mariana C Chiles; Rachel E Patzer; Stephen O Pastan; S Ali Husain; Dustin J Carpenter; Geoffrey K Dube; R John Crew; Lloyd E Ratner; David J Cohen Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2018-05-05 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Sumit Mohan; Eric Campenot; Mariana C Chiles; Dominick Santoriello; Eric Bland; R John Crew; Paul Rosenstiel; Geoffrey Dube; Ibrahim Batal; Jai Radhakrishnan; P Rodrigo Sandoval; James Guarrera; M Barry Stokes; Vivette D'Agati; David J Cohen; Lloyd E Ratner; Glen Markowitz Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-07-06 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Sanjay Kulkarni; Guo Wei; Wei Jiang; Licia A Lopez; Chirag R Parikh; Isaac E Hall Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2019-12-05 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Syed Ali Husain; Mariana C Chiles; Samnang Lee; Stephen O Pastan; Rachel E Patzer; Bekir Tanriover; Lloyd E Ratner; Sumit Mohan Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Mona D Doshi; Peter P Reese; Isaac E Hall; Bernd Schröppel; Joseph Ficek; Richard N Formica; Francis L Weng; Rick D Hasz; Heather Thiessen-Philbrook; Chirag R Parikh Journal: Transplantation Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Sumit Mohan; Karl Foley; Mariana C Chiles; Geoffrey K Dube; Rachel E Patzer; Stephen O Pastan; R John Crew; David J Cohen; Lloyd E Ratner Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 10.612