Shaifali Sandal1, Xun Luo2, Allan B Massie2,3, Steven Paraskevas4, Marcelo Cantarovich1, Dorry L Segev2,3. 1. Department of Medicine, Divisions of Nephrology and Multi-Organ Transplant Program, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada. 2. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Division of Multi-Organ Transplant Program, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Abstract
Background: The use of machine perfusion (MP) in kidney transplantation lowers delayed graft function (DGF) and improves 1-year graft survival in some, but not all, grafts. These associations have not been explored in grafts stratified by the Kidney Donor Profile index (KDPI). Methods: We analyzed 78 207 deceased-donor recipients using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 2006 to 2013. The cohort was stratified using the standard criteria donor/expanded criteria donor (ECD)/donation after cardiac death (DCD)/donation after brain death (DBD) classification and the KDPI scores. In each subgroup, MP use was compared with cold storage. Results: The overall DGF rate was 25.4% and MP use was associated with significantly lower DGF in all but the ECD-DCD donor subgroup. Using the donor source classification, the use of MP did not decrease death-censored graft failure (DCGF), except in the ECD-DCD subgroup from 0 to 1 year {adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.56 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32-0.98]}. In the ECD-DBD subgroup, higher DCGF from 1 to 5 years was noted [aHR 1.15 (95% CI 1.01-1.31)]. Also, MP did not lower all-cause graft failure except in the ECD-DCD subgroup from 0 to 1 year [aHR = 0.59 (95% CI 0.38-0.91)]. Using the KDPI classification, MP did not lower DCGF or all-cause graft failure, but in the ≤70 subgroup, higher DCGF [aHR 1.16 (95% CI 1.05-1.27)] and higher all-cause graft failure [aHR 1.10 (95% CI 1.02-1.18)] was noted. Lastly, MP was not associated with mortality in any subgroup. Conclusions: Overall, MP did not lower DCGF. Neither classification better risk-stratified kidneys that have superior graft survival with MP. We question their widespread use in all allografts as an ideal approach to organ preservation.
Background: The use of machine perfusion (MP) in kidney transplantation lowers delayed graft function (DGF) and improves 1-year graft survival in some, but not all, grafts. These associations have not been explored in grafts stratified by the Kidney Donor Profile index (KDPI). Methods: We analyzed 78 207 deceased-donor recipients using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 2006 to 2013. The cohort was stratified using the standard criteria donor/expanded criteria donor (ECD)/donation after cardiac death (DCD)/donation after brain death (DBD) classification and the KDPI scores. In each subgroup, MP use was compared with cold storage. Results: The overall DGF rate was 25.4% and MP use was associated with significantly lower DGF in all but the ECD-DCD donor subgroup. Using the donor source classification, the use of MP did not decrease death-censored graft failure (DCGF), except in the ECD-DCD subgroup from 0 to 1 year {adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.56 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32-0.98]}. In the ECD-DBD subgroup, higher DCGF from 1 to 5 years was noted [aHR 1.15 (95% CI 1.01-1.31)]. Also, MP did not lower all-cause graft failure except in the ECD-DCD subgroup from 0 to 1 year [aHR = 0.59 (95% CI 0.38-0.91)]. Using the KDPI classification, MP did not lower DCGF or all-cause graft failure, but in the ≤70 subgroup, higher DCGF [aHR 1.16 (95% CI 1.05-1.27)] and higher all-cause graft failure [aHR 1.10 (95% CI 1.02-1.18)] was noted. Lastly, MP was not associated with mortality in any subgroup. Conclusions: Overall, MP did not lower DCGF. Neither classification better risk-stratified kidneys that have superior graft survival with MP. We question their widespread use in all allografts as an ideal approach to organ preservation.
Authors: Robert M Cannon; Guy N Brock; R Neal Garrison; Jason W Smith; Michael R Marvin; Glen A Franklin Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: A W Cantafio; A A S Dick; J B Halldorson; R Bakthavatsalam; J D Reyes; J D Perkins Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2011-05-18 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: Robert J Stratta; Phillip S Moore; Alan C Farney; Jeffrey Rogers; Erica L Hartmann; Amber Reeves-Daniel; Michael D Gautreaux; Samy S Iskandar; Patricia L Adams Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Cyril Moers; Jacqueline M Smits; Mark-Hugo J Maathuis; Jürgen Treckmann; Frank van Gelder; Bogdan P Napieralski; Margitta van Kasterop-Kutz; Jaap J Homan van der Heide; Jean-Paul Squifflet; Ernest van Heurn; Günter R Kirste; Axel Rahmel; Henri G D Leuvenink; Andreas Paul; Jacques Pirenne; Rutger J Ploeg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-01-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ajay K Israni; Nicholas Salkowski; Sally Gustafson; Jon J Snyder; John J Friedewald; Richard N Formica; Xinyue Wang; Eugene Shteyn; Wida Cherikh; Darren Stewart; Ciara J Samana; Adrine Chung; Allyson Hart; Bertram L Kasiske Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Nicholas G Larkins; Germaine Wong; David W Johnson; Carmel Hawley; Armando Teixeira-Pinto; Henry Pleass; Helen Pilmore; Wai H Lim Journal: Transplant Direct Date: 2021-10-22