BACKGROUND: There is concern in the transplant community that outcomes for the most highly sensitized recipients might be poor under Kidney Allocation System (KAS) high prioritization. METHODS: To study this, we compared posttransplant outcomes of 525 pre-KAS (December 4, 2009, to December 3, 2014) calculated panel-reactive antibodies (cPRA)-100% recipients to 3026 post-KAS (December 4, 2014, to December 3, 2017) cPRA-100% recipients using SRTR data. We compared mortality and death-censored graft survival using Cox regression, acute rejection, and delayed graft function (DGF) using logistic regression, and length of stay (LOS) using negative binomial regression. RESULTS: Compared with pre-KAS recipients, post-KAS recipients were allocated kidneys with lower Kidney Donor Profile Index (median 30% versus 35%, P < 0.001) but longer cold ischemic time (CIT) (median 21.0 h versus 18.6 h, P < 0.001). Compared with pre-KAS cPRA-100% recipients, those post-KAS had higher 3-year patient survival (93.6% versus 91.4%, P = 0.04) and 3-year death-censored graft survival (93.7% versus 90.6%, P = 0.005). The incidence of DGF (29.3% versus 29.2%, P = 0.9), acute rejection (11.2% versus 11.7%, P = 0.8), and median LOS (5 d versus 5d, P = 0.2) were similar between pre-KAS and post-KAS recipients. After accounting for secular trends and adjusting for recipient characteristics, post-KAS recipients had no difference in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.861.623.06, P = 0.1), death-censored graft failure (aHR: 0.521.001.91, P > 0.9), DGF (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.580.861.27, P = 0.4), acute rejection (aOR: 0.610.941.43, P = 0.8), and LOS (adjusted LOS ratio: 0.981.161.36, P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any statistically significant worsening of outcomes for cPRA-100% recipients under KAS, although longer-term monitoring of posttransplant mortality is warranted.
BACKGROUND: There is concern in the transplant community that outcomes for the most highly sensitized recipients might be poor under Kidney Allocation System (KAS) high prioritization. METHODS: To study this, we compared posttransplant outcomes of 525 pre-KAS (December 4, 2009, to December 3, 2014) calculated panel-reactive antibodies (cPRA)-100% recipients to 3026 post-KAS (December 4, 2014, to December 3, 2017) cPRA-100% recipients using SRTR data. We compared mortality and death-censored graft survival using Cox regression, acute rejection, and delayed graft function (DGF) using logistic regression, and length of stay (LOS) using negative binomial regression. RESULTS: Compared with pre-KAS recipients, post-KAS recipients were allocated kidneys with lower Kidney Donor Profile Index (median 30% versus 35%, P < 0.001) but longer cold ischemic time (CIT) (median 21.0 h versus 18.6 h, P < 0.001). Compared with pre-KAS cPRA-100% recipients, those post-KAS had higher 3-year patient survival (93.6% versus 91.4%, P = 0.04) and 3-year death-censored graft survival (93.7% versus 90.6%, P = 0.005). The incidence of DGF (29.3% versus 29.2%, P = 0.9), acute rejection (11.2% versus 11.7%, P = 0.8), and median LOS (5 d versus 5d, P = 0.2) were similar between pre-KAS and post-KAS recipients. After accounting for secular trends and adjusting for recipient characteristics, post-KAS recipients had no difference in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.861.623.06, P = 0.1), death-censored graft failure (aHR: 0.521.001.91, P > 0.9), DGF (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.580.861.27, P = 0.4), acute rejection (aOR: 0.610.941.43, P = 0.8), and LOS (adjusted LOS ratio: 0.981.161.36, P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any statistically significant worsening of outcomes for cPRA-100% recipients under KAS, although longer-term monitoring of posttransplant mortality is warranted.
Authors: A Barama; U Oza; R Panek; P Belitsky; A S MacDonald; J Lawen; V McAlister; B Kiberd Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: Ronald F Parsons; Jayme E Locke; Robert R Redfield; Garrett R Roll; Matthew H Levine Journal: Hum Immunol Date: 2016-10-20 Impact factor: 2.850
Authors: Mark D Stegall; Peter G Stock; Kenneth Andreoni; John J Friedewald; Alan B Leichtman Journal: Hum Immunol Date: 2016-08-21 Impact factor: 2.850
Authors: Allan B Massie; Xun Luo; Bonnie E Lonze; Niraj M Desai; Adam W Bingaman; Matthew Cooper; Dorry L Segev Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Kyle R Jackson; Karina Covarrubias; Courtenay M Holscher; Xun Luo; Jennifer Chen; Allan B Massie; Niraj Desai; Daniel C Brennan; Dorry L Segev; Jacqueline Garonzik-Wang Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Oscar K Serrano; David M Vock; Srinath Chinnakotla; Ty B Dunn; Raja Kandaswamy; Timothy L Pruett; Roger Feldman; Arthur J Matas; Erik B Finger Journal: Transplantation Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Sebastiaan Heidt; Geert W Haasnoot; Marissa J H van der Linden-van Oevelen; Frans H J Claas Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2021-06-25 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Christian Kjellman; Angela Q Maldonado; Kristoffer Sjöholm; Bonnie E Lonze; Robert A Montgomery; Anna Runström; Tomas Lorant; Niraj M Desai; Christophe Legendre; Torbjörn Lundgren; Bengt von Zur Mühlen; Ashley A Vo; Håkan Olsson; Stanley C Jordan Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 9.369