FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1594585245> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1594585245 endingPage "2664" @default.
• W1594585245 startingPage "2657" @default.
• W1594585245 abstract "Increased cold ischemia time (CIT) predisposes to delayed graft function (DGF). DGF is considered a risk factor for graft failure after kidney transplantation, but DGF has multiple etiologies. To analyze the risk of CIT-induced DGF on graft survival, we evaluated paired deceased-donor kidneys (derived from the same donor transplanted to different recipients) in which one donor resulted in DGF and the other did not, using national Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data between 2000 and 2009. Of 54 565 kidney donors, 15 833 were excluded for mate kidney nontransplantation, 27 340 because both or neither kidney developed DGF and 2310 for same/unknown CIT. The remaining 9082 donors (18 164 recipients) were analyzed. The adjusted odds (aOR) of DGF were significantly higher when CIT was longer by ≥1 h (aOR 1.81, 95% CI 1.7–2.0), ≥5 h (aOR 2.5, 95% CI 2.3–2.9), ≥10 h (aOR 3.3, 95% CI 2.7–2.9) and ≥15 h (aOR 4.4, 95% CI 3.4–5.8) compared to shorter CIT transplants. In the multivariable models adjusted for recipient characteristics, graft survival between paired donor transplants, with and without DGF, were similar. These results suggest that DGF, specifically induced by prolonged CIT, has limited bearing on long-term outcomes, which may have important implications for kidney utilization. Increased cold ischemia time (CIT) predisposes to delayed graft function (DGF). DGF is considered a risk factor for graft failure after kidney transplantation, but DGF has multiple etiologies. To analyze the risk of CIT-induced DGF on graft survival, we evaluated paired deceased-donor kidneys (derived from the same donor transplanted to different recipients) in which one donor resulted in DGF and the other did not, using national Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data between 2000 and 2009. Of 54 565 kidney donors, 15 833 were excluded for mate kidney nontransplantation, 27 340 because both or neither kidney developed DGF and 2310 for same/unknown CIT. The remaining 9082 donors (18 164 recipients) were analyzed. The adjusted odds (aOR) of DGF were significantly higher when CIT was longer by ≥1 h (aOR 1.81, 95% CI 1.7–2.0), ≥5 h (aOR 2.5, 95% CI 2.3–2.9), ≥10 h (aOR 3.3, 95% CI 2.7–2.9) and ≥15 h (aOR 4.4, 95% CI 3.4–5.8) compared to shorter CIT transplants. In the multivariable models adjusted for recipient characteristics, graft survival between paired donor transplants, with and without DGF, were similar. These results suggest that DGF, specifically induced by prolonged CIT, has limited bearing on long-term outcomes, which may have important implications for kidney utilization. As the disparity between kidney need and availability continues to widen, efforts to reduce kidney discard are critically important. In 2009, 44% of expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys recovered in the United States were not transplanted compared to 10% of standard criteria donor (SCD) and 23% of donation after cardiac death (DCD) recoveries (1Shapiro R Halloran PF Delmonico FL Bromberg JS The ‘two, one, zero’ decision: What to do with suboptimal deceased donor kidneys.Am J Transplant. 2010; 10: 1959-1960Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (31) Google Scholar). Placement of deceased-donor kidneys to centers outside of the local donor service area offers the potential to reduce discard; however, placement of locally rejected kidneys is often delayed because of the time required to find an accepting center (2Massie AB Desai NM Montgomery RA Singer AL Segev DL Improving distribution efficiency of hard-to-place deceased donor kidneys: Predicting probability of discard or delay.Am J Transplant. 2010; 10: 1613-1620Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (51) Google Scholar). This may lead to prolonged cold ischemia time (CIT), which may contribute to the ultimate discard of the kidney. Based on the response-to-injury hypothesis (3Land W. Possible role of postischemic reperfusion injury as initiator of allorecognition/alloactivation.Transplant Proc. 1998; 30: 42-69Google Scholar, 4Salahudeen A Wang C McDaniel O et al.Antioxidant lazaroid U-74006F improves renal function and reduces the expression of cytokines, inducible nitric oxide synthase, and MHC antigens in asyngeneic renal transplant model. Partial support for the response-to-injury hypothesis.Transplantation. 1996; 62: 1628-1633Crossref PubMed Scopus (34) Google Scholar, 5Halloran PF Homik J Goes N et al.The “injury response”: A concept linking nonspecific injury, acute rejection, and long-term transplant outcomes.Transplant Proc. 1997; 29: 79-81Crossref PubMed Scopus (203) Google Scholar), early injury from cold ischemia may set the stage for indolent, yet chronically progressive, damage leading to higher rates of chronic graft loss. In addition, many kidneys not accepted by local centers are considered marginal and clinicians may be reluctant to accept kidneys with a long anticipated CIT for fear of an additive deleterious effect (6Cacciarelli TV Sumrani N DiBeneditto A Hong JH Sommer BG The influence of cold ischemia and donor age on renal allograft outcome in the cyclosporine era.Transplant Proc. 1992; 24: 2044-2045Google Scholar). CIT has clearly been shown to be an independent risk factor for delayed graft function (DGF; Refs. 7Ojo AO Wolfe RA Held PJ et al.Delayed graft function: Risk factors and implications for renal allograft survival.Transplantation. 1997; 63: 968-974Crossref PubMed Scopus (843) Google Scholar, 8Doshi MD Garg N Reese PP Parikh CR Recipient risk factors associated with delayed graft function: A paired kidney analysis.Transplantation. 2011; 91: 666-671Crossref PubMed Scopus (83) Google Scholar, 9Tandon V Botha JF Banks J et al.A tale of two kidneys—how long can a kidney transplant wait?.Clin Transplant. 2000; 14: 189-192Crossref PubMed Scopus (22) Google Scholar), and DGF is generally associated with inferior graft survival (7Ojo AO Wolfe RA Held PJ et al.Delayed graft function: Risk factors and implications for renal allograft survival.Transplantation. 1997; 63: 968-974Crossref PubMed Scopus (843) Google Scholar, 8Doshi MD Garg N Reese PP Parikh CR Recipient risk factors associated with delayed graft function: A paired kidney analysis.Transplantation. 2011; 91: 666-671Crossref PubMed Scopus (83) Google Scholar, 9Tandon V Botha JF Banks J et al.A tale of two kidneys—how long can a kidney transplant wait?.Clin Transplant. 2000; 14: 189-192Crossref PubMed Scopus (22) Google Scholar); however, the direct impact of CIT-induced DGF on graft survival is unclear (7Ojo AO Wolfe RA Held PJ et al.Delayed graft function: Risk factors and implications for renal allograft survival.Transplantation. 1997; 63: 968-974Crossref PubMed Scopus (843) Google Scholar, 8Doshi MD Garg N Reese PP Parikh CR Recipient risk factors associated with delayed graft function: A paired kidney analysis.Transplantation. 2011; 91: 666-671Crossref PubMed Scopus (83) Google Scholar, 9Tandon V Botha JF Banks J et al.A tale of two kidneys—how long can a kidney transplant wait?.Clin Transplant. 2000; 14: 189-192Crossref PubMed Scopus (22) Google Scholar, 10Shoskes DA Cecka JM Deleterious effects of delayed graft function in cadaveric renal transplant recipients independent of acute rejection.Transplantation. 1998; 66: 1697-1701Crossref PubMed Scopus (353) Google Scholar, 11Opelz G Dohler B Multicenter analysis of kidney preservation.Transplantation. 2007; 83: 247-253Crossref PubMed Scopus (168) Google Scholar, 12Giessing M Fuller TF Friedersdorff F et al.Comparison of first and second kidney transplants from the same deceased donor.Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010; 25: 4055-4061Crossref PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar, 13Kyllonen L Salmela K Transplantation of both kidneys from 408 donors; comparison of results.Transpl Int. 2000; 13: S95-S98Crossref PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar, 14Giblin L O’Kelly P Little D et al.A comparison of long-term graft survival rates between the first and second donor kidney transplanted—the effect of a longer cold ischaemic time for the second kidney.Am J Transplant. 2005; 5: 1071-1075Crossref PubMed Scopus (48) Google Scholar, 15Lim WH McDonald SP Russ GR Effect on graft and patient survival between shipped and locally transplanted well-matched cadaveric renal allografts in Australia over a 10-year period.Nephrology. 2006; 11: 73-77Crossref PubMed Scopus (16) Google Scholar, 16Kayler LK Sokolich J Magliocca J Schold JD Import kidney transplants from nonmandatory share deceased donors: Characteristics, distribution and outcomes.Am J Transplant. 2011; 1: 77-85Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (19) Google Scholar, 17Stegall MD Dean PG McBride MA Wynn JJ Survival of mandatorily shared cadaveric kidneys and their paybacks in the zero mismatch era.Transplantation. 2002; 74: 670-675Crossref PubMed Scopus (27) Google Scholar). The etiology of DGF is multifactorial, with some causes of DGF, which are potentially more directly associated with outcomes (e.g. donor quality and technical failures) compared to other causes of DGF, which may or may not have a direct causal relationship with long-term graft failures (e.g. center variation in practice or CIT). To determine the risks associated with transplantation of deceased-donor kidneys with long CIT, we analyzed national registry data for patient and graft survival of adult transplant recipients of deceased-donor kidney pairs with discordant incidence of DGF. An analysis of mate kidneys from the same donor is optimal to control for the predominant effects of donor quality while illustrating the effects of CIT. In addition, we evaluated associations of CIT with the incidence of DGF and acute rejection using the same-paired donor approach. We utilized data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR). The SRTR data system includes data on all donor, wait-listed candidates and transplant recipients in the United States, submitted by the members of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN). The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), US Department of Health and Human Services provides oversight to the activities of the OPTN and SRTR contractors. Data submitted to the SRTR were accessed to identify all kidney-alone transplant recipient pairs with a common deceased donor in the United States between January 2000 and October 2009. Of 54 565 total kidney donors, 15 833 were excluded for nontransplantation of the mate kidney, 27 340 because both or neither kidney developed DGF and 2310 due to same (n = 1982) or unknown (n = 328) CIT. The remaining 9082 donors or 18 164 recipients were analyzed, of which exactly half had DGF. A Cox regression model was fitted to compute covariate-adjusted patient survival, graft survival and death-censored graft survival hazard ratios (aHR). CIT and donor variables were not included in these models based on the paired-kidney study design. The following recipient variables were included in these models: age (continuous), gender, race (African American, Hispanic, Caucasian, other), cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD; glomerulonephritis, diabetes, polycystic kidney disease, hypertension, other), re-transplantation (yes/no), time on dialysis pre- and postplacement on the waiting list and before transplantation (categorized; Ref. 18Schold JD Sehgal AR Srinivas TR Poggio ED Navaneethan SD Kaplan B Marked variation of the association of ESRD duration before and after wait listing on kidney transplant outcomes.Am J Transplant. 2010; 10: 2008-2016Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (49) Google Scholar), number of HLA-A, -B and -DR mismatches (0–6), panel reactive antibody (PRA) level (0, 1–10, 11–30, >30), body mass index, year of transplant (continuous), insurance status (private, medicare, medicaid, other), educational attainment (missing, high school, some college, college) and machine perfusion (yes, no, missing). The appropriate functional form of model covariates was determined by exploratory data analysis in unadjusted models and perceived impact on clinical meaningfulness. Paired donors were categorized using a donor identifier available in the registry. Recipient outcomes were compared between paired donors stratified by CIT group, in which the kidney with the shorter CIT was placed in the short-CIT group, and its mate with the longer CIT in the long-CIT group. ECD was defined as deceased donations deriving from donors with ages >60 years or >50 years with any two of the following donor criteria: (1) Donor serum terminal creatinine >1.5 mg/dL, (2) hypertension or (3) death from cerebrovascular accident. All other donations were considered SCDs. DGF was defined as reported need for dialysis within 1 week posttransplantation. Transplants were classified as nonlocal, if the donor and recipient transplant center were not in the same organ procurement organization (OPO). Acute rejection is defined as treatment given for acute rejection. The odds of DGF and acute rejection were assessed using a multivariable-generalized estimating equation adjusted for recipient factors, with paired donors considered a repeated measure in the models. The dependence of observations derived from the kidneys from the same donor was accounted for in Cox models, with adjustment of the standard error of the hazard ratio (sandwich estimator). Overall kidney graft survival (defined as time-to-graft loss or death) plots were generated from Kaplan–Meier models. Relevant characteristics of the donor, the recipient and the graft between patient groups were compared using McNemer’s test for categorical variables and paired t-tests for continuous variables based on paired observations. All analyses were performed using SAS software, version 9.2 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Statistical significance was identified by a p value of >0.05 and all confidence intervals (CI) also used a 95% threshold. This study was approved by the Cleveland Clinic Institutional Review Board. The study population consisted of 18 164 kidney transplant recipient pairs reported to the SRTR between January 2000 and October 2009. Donor characteristics of the study population included 70.8% standard criteria, 19.8% expanded criteria and 9.4% DCD donors. The average duration of increased CIT in the pair with longer time was 7.5 h (short CIT group, 15.1 ± 7.0 vs. long CIT group, 22.6 ± 8.6 h). Demographic characteristics of recipients are presented in Table 1. The longer CIT group was comprised of significantly lower proportions of preemptively transplanted recipients and recipients with private insurance; there were higher proportions of recipients with diabetes, BMI >30 kg/m2 higher average age, machine-pumped kidneys, kidneys from zero-HLA mismatched donors and kidneys from nonlocal donors, compared to the longer CIT group. The two groups were similar in terms of the other characteristics evaluated.Table 1:Recipient characteristics by cold ischemia time (CIT) groupsCharacteristicShorter CIT group (n = 9081)Longer CIT group (n = 9081)p-Value1Testing the difference between the long and short CIT groups (McNemer’s test for paired observations).Age (mean ± SD)50 ± 1551 ± 140.04African American32%33%0.10Male62%63%0.43Primary diagnosis of diabetes25%27%0.001Retransplant13%13%0.54Preemptive transplant10%9%0.01BMI >30 kg/m231%33%0.0002PRA >30%24%24%0.31Private insurance28%27%0.04CIT (in h; mean ± SD)15 ± 723 ± 9<0.0001HLA mismatches >366%67%0.23Zero-antigen HLA mismatch11%14%<0.0001Kidney machine perfusion18%19%<0.0001Nonlocal donor24%35%<0.0001BMI = body mass index; CIT = cold ischemia time; PRA = panel reactive antibodies; HLA = human leukocyte antigens; OPO = organ procurement organization.1 Testing the difference between the long and short CIT groups (McNemer’s test for paired observations). Open table in a new tab BMI = body mass index; CIT = cold ischemia time; PRA = panel reactive antibodies; HLA = human leukocyte antigens; OPO = organ procurement organization. DGF occurred in exactly 50% of cases based on the study design and was incrementally more likely in the mate kidney with longer CIT. Among paired donors with longer CIT, the DGF rate was 57%. On multivariate analysis adjusted for recipient characteristics, the odds of DGF was 81% greater for a CIT of ≥1 h over the shorter CIT group (aOR 1.8, 95% CI 1.7–2.0), 2.5-fold greater when the CIT was ≥5 h longer (aOR 2.5, 95% CI 2.3–2.9), 3.3-fold greater with a ≥10 h longer (aOR 3.3, 95% CI2.7–2.9) and 4.4-fold greater with a 15+ h longer CIT (aOR 4.4, 95% CI 3.4–5.8) relative to the shorter CIT group (Table 2). Corresponding DGF rates for the longer CIT group were 61%, 64% and 68%, respectively (Figure 1).Table 2:Adjusted likelihood of delayed graft function by the difference in cold ischemia time between paired donorsParameter (reference = short CIT group)Adjusted odds ratio95% Confidence limitsPr >|Z|CIT ≥1 h longer (n = 18 164)1.811.661.97<0.001CIT ≥5 h longer (n = 10 350)2.542.272.85<0.001CIT ≥10 h longer (n = 4792)3.252.733.86<0.001CIT 15+ h longer (n = 2258)4.443.425.75<0.001Generalized estimating equation was adjusted for age (continuous), gender, race (African American, Hispanic, Caucasian, other), cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD; glomerulonephritis, diabetes, polycystic kidney disease, hypertension, other), retransplantation (yes/no), time on dialysis pre- and postplacement on the waiting list and before transplantation (categorized), number of HLA-A, -B and -DR mismatches (0–6), panel reactive antibody (PRA) level (0, 1–10,11–30, >30), body mass index, year of transplant (continuous), insurance status (private, medicare, medicaid, other), educational attainment (missing, high school, some college, college) and machine perfusion (yes, no, missing) with donors considered a random effect. Open table in a new tab Generalized estimating equation was adjusted for age (continuous), gender, race (African American, Hispanic, Caucasian, other), cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD; glomerulonephritis, diabetes, polycystic kidney disease, hypertension, other), retransplantation (yes/no), time on dialysis pre- and postplacement on the waiting list and before transplantation (categorized), number of HLA-A, -B and -DR mismatches (0–6), panel reactive antibody (PRA) level (0, 1–10,11–30, >30), body mass index, year of transplant (continuous), insurance status (private, medicare, medicaid, other), educational attainment (missing, high school, some college, college) and machine perfusion (yes, no, missing) with donors considered a random effect. Unadjusted graft survival rates between patients with delta CITs of ≥1, ≥5 and ≥10 h were not significantly different between recipients with higher CIT relative to the paired donor recipients with lower CIT (Figures 2A–C); however, there was a significant decrement in overall graft survival in the longer CIT group with a CIT difference ≥15 h compared to the shorter CIT group (Figure 2D). The significant findings of the unadjusted analysis did not persist after adjustment for recipient factors. On multivariate analysis, there were no significant differences in the risk of overall graft loss or death-censored graft loss between short and long CIT groups, regardless of the extent of CIT difference (Table 3).Table 3:Cox proportional hazard models for overall graft loss, death censored graft loss and patient loss by CIT groupsStudy group (reference level)OutcomeOverall graft lossPatient deathDeath censored graft lossAHR95% Confidence intervalAHR95% Confidence intervalAHR95% Confidence intervalLonger CIT group (shorter CIT group)1.030.97–1.091.010.94–1.091.040.96–1.12≥5 h longer CIT group (shorter CIT group)1.030.96–1.111.040.94–1.141.050.95–1.16≥10 h longer CIT group (shorter CIT group)1.060.95–1.181.120.97–1.291.050.90–1.2115+ h longer CIT group (shorter CIT group)1.150.97–1.351.271.03–1.571.070.86–1.33All models adjusted for age (continuous), gender, race (African American, Hispanic, Caucasian, other), cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD; glomerulonephritis, diabetes, polycystic kidney disease, hypertension, other), retransplantation (yes/no), time on dialysis pre- and postplacement on the waiting list and before transplantation (categorized), number of HLA-A, -B and -DR mismatches (0–6), panel reactive antibody (PRA) level (0, 1–10,11–30, >30), body mass index, year of transplant (continuous), insurance status (private, Medicare, Medicaid, other), educational attainment (missing, high school, some college, college) and machine perfusion (yes, no, missing). Standard errors adjusted for dependence of donor pairs using sandwich estimator. AHR = adjusted hazard ratio; CIT = cold ischemia time. Open table in a new tab All models adjusted for age (continuous), gender, race (African American, Hispanic, Caucasian, other), cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD; glomerulonephritis, diabetes, polycystic kidney disease, hypertension, other), retransplantation (yes/no), time on dialysis pre- and postplacement on the waiting list and before transplantation (categorized), number of HLA-A, -B and -DR mismatches (0–6), panel reactive antibody (PRA) level (0, 1–10,11–30, >30), body mass index, year of transplant (continuous), insurance status (private, Medicare, Medicaid, other), educational attainment (missing, high school, some college, college) and machine perfusion (yes, no, missing). Standard errors adjusted for dependence of donor pairs using sandwich estimator. AHR = adjusted hazard ratio; CIT = cold ischemia time. Overall patient death rates were not significantly different between the shorter CIT groups relative to the CIT groups with delta CITs of ≥1, ≥5 and ≥10 h (Table 3); whereas, a delta-CIT of ≥15 h was associated with a 27% greater risk of death (aHR 1.27, 95% CI 1.03–1.57), compared to the shorter CIT group (Table 3). The overall rate of acute rejection within 1 year after transplantation was 11%. The proportion of patients that were treated for acute rejection within 1 year by CIT group is displayed in Figure 3. Between each of the four delta-CIT levels of shorter and longer CIT, there was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of acute rejection. In the multivariable-generalized estimating equations, these results were consistent and demonstrated no significant association of CIT with acute rejection. In the subset of ECD transplants that were from brain dead donors (n = 3446), there was no statistically significant difference in time to overall graft loss associated with the kidney with the longer CIT (aHR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85–1.07). Similarly, there were no statistically significant differences in time to overall graft loss associated with the kidney with longer CIT for the DCD/SCD or the DCD/ECD groups, although the analysis of the latter subgroup is limited by insufficient sample size (Table 4).Table 4:Delayed graft function rates and unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios for overall graft loss for longer CIT-paired donor by deceased donor category (reference is shorter paired donor)Deceased donor typeNDGF longer CIT pairDGF shorter CIT pairUnadjusted hazard ratio for overall graft loss (reference: shorter CIT pair)AHR for overall graft loss (reference: shorter CIT pair)SCD/non-DCD1301658%42%1.06 (0.99–1.13)1.04 (0.98–1.12)ECD/non-DCD344654%46%0.98 (0.87–1.10)0.95 (0.85–1.07)SCD/DCD154659%41%1.12 (0.88–1.43)1.08 (0.83–1.39)ECD/DCD15654%46%1.69 (0.98–2.92)1Sample size insufficient to adjust for full covariate set.DGF = delayed graft function; SCD = standard criteria donor; ECD = expanded criteria donor; DCD = donation after cardiac death; AHR = adjusted hazard ratio.1 Sample size insufficient to adjust for full covariate set. Open table in a new tab DGF = delayed graft function; SCD = standard criteria donor; ECD = expanded criteria donor; DCD = donation after cardiac death; AHR = adjusted hazard ratio. One of the concerns of the current allocation system for deceased-donor kidneys is that increased CITs, incurred while attempting to place kidneys, may have a deleterious impact on transplant outcome and, thereby, inhibit acceptance rates. Using SRTR data of paired kidney transplants with discordant DGF rates between 2000 and 2009, we found that although the odds of DGF was significantly higher with increasing durations of CIT, graft survival was similar regardless of the difference in CIT between the paired kidneys. This may be important evidence that donors with prolonged CIT offer an important benefit to recipients and are a potential source to expand national transplant rates. Previous large multivariable analyses have generally reported worse graft survival associated with increasing CIT. The Collaborative Transplant Study found greater risks of graft failure with CITs >18 h (11Opelz G Dohler B Multicenter analysis of kidney preservation.Transplantation. 2007; 83: 247-253Crossref PubMed Scopus (168) Google Scholar), and an analysis of US Renal Data System found a continuous worsening of outcome associated with each 6-h increase in ischemia (7Ojo AO Wolfe RA Held PJ et al.Delayed graft function: Risk factors and implications for renal allograft survival.Transplantation. 1997; 63: 968-974Crossref PubMed Scopus (843) Google Scholar). A major limitation of these studies is the likely inability of multivariate models to accurately adjust for important donor quality confounders, which may not always be codified in standard registries, a problem that is ameliorated with the use of a paired kidney analysis. In addition, baseline renal functionality is a strong predictor of long-term renal function (19Lane BR Russo P Uzzo RG Comparison of cold and warm ischemia during partial nephrectomy in 660 solitary kidneys reveals predominant role of nonmodifiable factors determining ultimate renal function.J Urol. 2011; 185: 421-427Crossref PubMed Scopus (291) Google Scholar), yet currently measured variables, such as, serum creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate, may not fully account for baseline renal functionality. The absence of an effect of CIT on graft survival in our study is similar to the negative findings by other paired kidney analyses (15Lim WH McDonald SP Russ GR Effect on graft and patient survival between shipped and locally transplanted well-matched cadaveric renal allografts in Australia over a 10-year period.Nephrology. 2006; 11: 73-77Crossref PubMed Scopus (16) Google Scholar, 16Kayler LK Sokolich J Magliocca J Schold JD Import kidney transplants from nonmandatory share deceased donors: Characteristics, distribution and outcomes.Am J Transplant. 2011; 1: 77-85Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (19) Google Scholar, 17Stegall MD Dean PG McBride MA Wynn JJ Survival of mandatorily shared cadaveric kidneys and their paybacks in the zero mismatch era.Transplantation. 2002; 74: 670-675Crossref PubMed Scopus (27) Google Scholar). Lim et al. (15Lim WH McDonald SP Russ GR Effect on graft and patient survival between shipped and locally transplanted well-matched cadaveric renal allografts in Australia over a 10-year period.Nephrology. 2006; 11: 73-77Crossref PubMed Scopus (16) Google Scholar) noted that recipients of either shipped or locally transplanted well-matched renal allografts have similar graft and patient survivals. We previously reported overall similar overall graft survival for 441 regional and 311 national nonmandatory share kidneys relative to locally transplanted mates (16Kayler LK Sokolich J Magliocca J Schold JD Import kidney transplants from nonmandatory share deceased donors: Characteristics, distribution and outcomes.Am J Transplant. 2011; 1: 77-85Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (19) Google Scholar). Stegall et al. (17Stegall MD Dean PG McBride MA Wynn JJ Survival of mandatorily shared cadaveric kidneys and their paybacks in the zero mismatch era.Transplantation. 2002; 74: 670-675Crossref PubMed Scopus (27) Google Scholar) found no significant difference in the survival of payback kidneys compared with locally transplanted mismatched kidneys. Interestingly, our analysis demonstrated a significant association of CIT with patient survival for the group with delta CITs of ≥15 h. This finding may be related to recipient selection as recipients of the longer CIT donors had higher proportions of known risk factors for patient death (fewer preemptively transplanted recipients and fewer recipients with private insurance; higher proportions of recipients with diabetes, BMI >30 kg/m2 and a higher average age). Although, we adjusted the analysis for known recipient confounders, there may be other risk factors not ascertained in the national dataset that are not included in the analysis. In addition, there may be combinations of donor and/or recipient characteristics or interactions between factors that influence outcomes but are not captured in our multivariate models. This paired analysis of kidney recipients demonstrates that despite a strong association of CIT with DGF, graft survival was similar regardless of CIT differences of 15 h or more over the CIT of the first transplanted mate kidney. We hypothesize that the DGF caused by prolonged CIT is due to acute tubular necrosis, which is largely sublethal damage and recoverable (20Tilney NL Guttman RD Effects of initial ischemia/reperfusion injury on the transplanted kidney.Transplantation. 1997; 64: 945-947Crossref PubMed Scopus (209) Google Scholar); and therefore, does not impact long-term function. These findings are similar to those seen in graft outcomes in kidney transplantation of DCD kidneys from standard-criteria donors. In spite of the terminal warm ischemia inherent in the DCD-donor organ recovery process, resulting in high DGF rates, it has been shown that short- and medium-term graft survival rates are similar between donation after brain death standard-criteria donors and DCD donor kidney grafts, suggesting that ischemic injury is likely to be a reversible lesion (21Sudhindran S Pettigrew GJ Drain A et al.Outcome of transplantation using kidneys from controlled (Maastricht category 3) nonheartbeating donors.Clin Transplant. 2003; 17: 93-100Crossref PubMed Scopus (55) Google Scholar). The national sharing system in the United States is an important method for kidney placement. Most discarded kidneys are not rejected by one, but by many transplant centers. Our finding that CIT induced DGF is not associated with graft survival among kidney pairs, has important implications for transplant centers considering utilization of kidneys with anticipated prolonged CITs. In particular, kidneys currently discarded due to CIT are likely to provide a significant benefit to patients. The perception that these kidneys are too high risk, which may not be fully supported by empirical evidence, may have led to discard, whereas, results of this study could potentially highlight the utility of these organs. Our analysis demonstrated a significant increase in DGF for kidneys with longer CITs than their mates. Incremental increases in DGF were also seen with increasing duration of CIT from the reference kidney. Although the findings of our study suggest that CIT induced DGF is not an independent risk factor for graft failure in deceased-donor kidney transplants, other consequences of DGF noted in previous studies are substantial including prolonged hospitalization, higher cost of transplantation, increased complexity of management of immunosuppressive drugs and an adverse effect on the rehabilitation potential of transplant recipients (22Matas AJ Gillingham KJ Elick BA et al.Risk factors for prolonged hospitalization after kidney transplants.Clin Transplant. 1997; 11: 259-264PubMed Google Scholar, 23Freedland SJ Shoskes DA Economic impact of delayed graft function and suboptimal kidneys.Transplant Rev. 1999; 13: 23-30Crossref Scopus (26) Google Scholar, 24Rosenthal JT Danovitch GM Wilikinson A Ettenger RB The high cost of delayed graft function in cadaveric renal transplantation.Transplantation. 1991; 51: 1115-1118Crossref PubMed Scopus (139) Google Scholar, 25Barama A Kiberd BA Belitsky P et al.Financial impact of cold ischemia time in renal transplantation.Transplant Proc. 1997; 29: 1563-1564Crossref PubMed Scopus (7) Google Scholar). Acute rejection was not associated with CIT in our study. These findings are in accordance with the findings of some studies (9Tandon V Botha JF Banks J et al.A tale of two kidneys—how long can a kidney transplant wait?.Clin Transplant. 2000; 14: 189-192Crossref PubMed Scopus (22) Google Scholar,12Giessing M Fuller TF Friedersdorff F et al.Comparison of first and second kidney transplants from the same deceased donor.Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010; 25: 4055-4061Crossref PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar), but not in others (11Opelz G Dohler B Multicenter analysis of kidney preservation.Transplantation. 2007; 83: 247-253Crossref PubMed Scopus (168) Google Scholar,14Giblin L O’Kelly P Little D et al.A comparison of long-term graft survival rates between the first and second donor kidney transplanted—the effect of a longer cold ischaemic time for the second kidney.Am J Transplant. 2005; 5: 1071-1075Crossref PubMed Scopus (48) Google Scholar). Giblin et al. (14Giblin L O’Kelly P Little D et al.A comparison of long-term graft survival rates between the first and second donor kidney transplanted—the effect of a longer cold ischaemic time for the second kidney.Am J Transplant. 2005; 5: 1071-1075Crossref PubMed Scopus (48) Google Scholar) found acute rejection rates to be significantly lower for first kidneys compared to second kidneys transplanted (22.3% vs. 28.1%, p < 0.01) in an unadjusted paired analysis at a single center. Opelz et al. (11Opelz G Dohler B Multicenter analysis of kidney preservation.Transplantation. 2007; 83: 247-253Crossref PubMed Scopus (168) Google Scholar) demonstrated a 20% increase in rejection risk on nonpaired multivariate analysis only when kidneys were preserved for more than 36 h and suggested that prolonged cold storage results in increased allograft immunogenicity. Others suggest a correlation of CIT with graft fibrosis (26Kim J Seok YM Jung KJ et al.Reactive oxygen species/oxidative stress contributes to progression of kidney fibrosis following transient ischemic injury in mice.Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2009; 297: F461-F470Crossref PubMed Scopus (173) Google Scholar,27Kuypers DR Chapman JR O’Connell PJ et al.Predictors of renal transplant histology at three months.Transplantation. 1999; 67: 1222-1230Crossref PubMed Scopus (118) Google Scholar). Kim et al. (26Kim J Seok YM Jung KJ et al.Reactive oxygen species/oxidative stress contributes to progression of kidney fibrosis following transient ischemic injury in mice.Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2009; 297: F461-F470Crossref PubMed Scopus (173) Google Scholar) studied the effects of transient ischemia in mice and demonstrated increased production of reactive oxygen species resulting in fibrosis. Kuypers et al. (27Kuypers DR Chapman JR O’Connell PJ et al.Predictors of renal transplant histology at three months.Transplantation. 1999; 67: 1222-1230Crossref PubMed Scopus (118) Google Scholar) reported that DGF solely due to ischemia (in the absence of rejection) correlates strongly with the presence of fibrosis in the renal allograft at 3 months posttransplant. Our results are subject to the limitations inherent in observational data. Because recipients are often not randomly selected to receive kidneys, it is possible that they are in some unmeasured way systemically less (or more) healthy than recipients of kidneys with long CIT kidneys. A recipient selection bias may exist, in which transplant centers that are utilizing a kidney with long CIT may select a “less-healthy” recipient than what would be selected for a kidney with shorter CIT. For example, the differences in recipient characteristics suggest a recipient selection bias that may explain the poorer overall patient survivals in the delta CIT ≥15 h group compared to the shorter CIT group. There is the possibility for residual confounding as a result of recipient- or center-related factors not included in the OPTN data. Our analyses included many, but not all, of the factors that may confer risks at or after transplantation, such as, implantation technique, anastomosis time, recipient anatomy, immunosuppression type and dosing, recipient anatomic abnormalities, preservation solution type utilized during machine perfusion and length of machine perfusion. The paired kidney analysis allows for the adjustment for most donor factors, but it is not possible to capture anatomical abnormalities in one of the kidneys (multiple vessels, extent of atherosclerosis, injured vasculature) that could lead to technical difficulties, independent of recipient factors. In addition, there may be combinations of donor and/or recipient characteristics or interactions between factors that influence outcomes but are not captured in our multivariate models. Lastly, there may be a CIT threshold at which graft outcomes begins to deteriorate that would not be detected in any analysis due to the paucity of cases with extremely long CITs. Potential issues relating to the determination of acute rejection include missing or incomplete data, reporting bias, sampling and technique errors, measures of quantification and subjective interpretation. There has been extensive focus in the field of transplantation on recovery and placement of all possible donor organs. Although increasing CIT is a risk factor for DGF in our analysis, there is limited effect of CIT on graft survival suggesting that CIT induced DGF may not be associated with diminished long-term outcomes of deceased-donor kidneys. These data may suggest important opportunities to increase transplant rates of previously discarded organs. The data, reported here, have been supplied by the Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation as the contractor for the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR). The interpretation and reporting of these data are the responsibility of the author(s) and in no way should be seen as an official policy of or interpretation by the SRTR or the US Government. The authors of this manuscript have no conflicts of interest to disclose as described by the American Journal of Transplantation." @default.
• W1594585245 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1594585245 creator A5020319597 @default.
• W1594585245 creator A5021944743 @default.
• W1594585245 creator A5070667307 @default.
• W1594585245 date "2011-12-01" @default.
• W1594585245 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W1594585245 title "Influence of CIT-Induced DGF on Kidney Transplant Outcomes" @default.
• W1594585245 cites W1529951627 @default.
• W1594585245 cites W1585280522 @default.
• W1594585245 cites W1966244902 @default.
• W1594585245 cites W1969667211 @default.
• W1594585245 cites W1976312773 @default.
• W1594585245 cites W1980692158 @default.
• W1594585245 cites W1988422170 @default.
• W1594585245 cites W2007410147 @default.
• W1594585245 cites W2033041065 @default.
• W1594585245 cites W2033053485 @default.
• W1594585245 cites W2043561308 @default.
• W1594585245 cites W2047366579 @default.
• W1594585245 cites W2060508116 @default.
• W1594585245 cites W2062223975 @default.
• W1594585245 cites W2075382404 @default.
• W1594585245 cites W2084395904 @default.
• W1594585245 cites W2086895400 @default.
• W1594585245 cites W2105112513 @default.
• W1594585245 cites W2123471272 @default.
• W1594585245 cites W2130145797 @default.
• W1594585245 cites W2153886315 @default.
• W1594585245 cites W2166722323 @default.
• W1594585245 cites W4232745783 @default.
• W1594585245 cites W4256162382 @default.
• W1594585245 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2011.03817.x" @default.
• W1594585245 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22051325" @default.
• W1594585245 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W1594585245 type Work @default.
• W1594585245 sameAs 1594585245 @default.
• W1594585245 citedByCount "122" @default.
• W1594585245 countsByYear W15945852452012 @default.
• W1594585245 countsByYear W15945852452013 @default.
• W1594585245 countsByYear W15945852452014 @default.
• W1594585245 countsByYear W15945852452015 @default.
• W1594585245 countsByYear W15945852452016 @default.
• W1594585245 countsByYear W15945852452017 @default.
• W1594585245 countsByYear W15945852452018 @default.
• W1594585245 countsByYear W15945852452019 @default.
• W1594585245 countsByYear W15945852452020 @default.
• W1594585245 countsByYear W15945852452021 @default.
• W1594585245 countsByYear W15945852452022 @default.
• W1594585245 countsByYear W15945852452023 @default.
• W1594585245 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1594585245 hasAuthorship W1594585245A5020319597 @default.
• W1594585245 hasAuthorship W1594585245A5021944743 @default.
• W1594585245 hasAuthorship W1594585245A5070667307 @default.
• W1594585245 hasBestOaLocation W15945852451 @default.
• W1594585245 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W1594585245 hasConcept C126894567 @default.
• W1594585245 hasConcept C131872663 @default.
• W1594585245 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W1594585245 hasConcept C2780091579 @default.
• W1594585245 hasConcept C2780303639 @default.
• W1594585245 hasConcept C2994498544 @default.
• W1594585245 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1594585245 hasConceptScore W1594585245C126322002 @default.
• W1594585245 hasConceptScore W1594585245C126894567 @default.
• W1594585245 hasConceptScore W1594585245C131872663 @default.
• W1594585245 hasConceptScore W1594585245C177713679 @default.
• W1594585245 hasConceptScore W1594585245C2780091579 @default.
• W1594585245 hasConceptScore W1594585245C2780303639 @default.
• W1594585245 hasConceptScore W1594585245C2994498544 @default.
• W1594585245 hasConceptScore W1594585245C71924100 @default.
• W1594585245 hasIssue "12" @default.
• W1594585245 hasLocation W15945852451 @default.
• W1594585245 hasLocation W15945852452 @default.
• W1594585245 hasOpenAccess W1594585245 @default.
• W1594585245 hasPrimaryLocation W15945852451 @default.
• W1594585245 hasRelatedWork W1542731846 @default.
• W1594585245 hasRelatedWork W1594585245 @default.
• W1594585245 hasRelatedWork W2014607806 @default.
• W1594585245 hasRelatedWork W2015613332 @default.
• W1594585245 hasRelatedWork W2079077757 @default.
• W1594585245 hasRelatedWork W2378237925 @default.
• W1594585245 hasRelatedWork W2792701479 @default.
• W1594585245 hasRelatedWork W3028727574 @default.
• W1594585245 hasRelatedWork W3194831965 @default.
• W1594585245 hasRelatedWork W4239475524 @default.
• W1594585245 hasVolume "11" @default.
• W1594585245 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1594585245 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1594585245 magId "1594585245" @default.
• W1594585245 workType "article" @default.