Dataset Information

Ten Years of Kidney Paired Donation at Mayo Clinic: The Benefits of Incorporating ABO/HLA Compatible Pairs.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We examined the 10-year experience of Mayo Clinic's kidney paired donation (KPD).We aimed to determine the benefits for the recipients of enrolled ABO/HLA compatible pairs and determine the factors associated with prolonged KPD waiting time.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study of 332 kidney transplants facilitated by the Mayo 3-site KPD program from September 2007 to June 2018.

Results

The median (interquartile range) time from KPD entry to transplantation was 89 days (42-187 days). The factors independently associated with receiving a transplant >3 months after KPD entry included recipient blood type O and calculated panel reactive antibodies ≥98%. Fifty-four ABO/HLA compatible pairs participated in KPD for the following reasons: cytomegalovirus mismatch (18.5% [10/54]), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) mismatch (EBV) (9.3% [5/54]), age/size mismatch (51.9% [28/54]), or altruistic reasons (20.3% [11/54]). Cytomegalovirus and EBV mismatch were avoided in 90% (9/10) and 100% (5/5) of cases. Recipients who entered KPD for age/size mismatch and altruistic reasons received kidneys from donors with lower Living Kidney Donor Profile Index scores than their actual donor (median [interquartile range] 31.5 [12.3-47]; P < 0.001 and 26 (-1 to 46); P = 0.01 points lower, respectively). Median time to transplant from KPD entry for compatible pair recipients was 70 days (41-163 days), and 44.4% (24/54) of these transplants were preemptive. All chains/swaps incorporating compatible pairs included ABO/HLA incompatible pairs.

Conclusions

KPD should be considered for all living donor/recipient pairs because the recipients of these pairs can derive personal benefit from KPD while increasing the donor pool for difficult to match pairs.

SUBMITTER: Basu A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7359217 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCompatible pair participation in kidney paired donation (KPD) may increase the likelihood of finding suitable matches for all registered pairs. Retrospective studies have shown variable enthusiasm for participating in KPD in compatible pairs.ObjectiveThe study objective was to gather potential living donor (PLD) and transplant candidate (TC) perspectives on compatible pair participation in KPD.DesignSurveys and qualitative interviews.SettingThree transplant programs in Canada: Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal in Montreal (Québec), Vancouver General Hospital, and St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver (British Columbia).PatientsBoth PLDs and TCs undergoing evaluation for donation/transplantation between 2016 and 2018 at 3 transplant programs in Canada.MethodsDescriptive statistical analysis was performed for the results of the survey and thematic and content analysis method was used for the content of the qualitative interviews.ResultsA total of 116 PLDs and 111 TCs completed surveys and an additional 18 PLDs and 17 TCs underwent semi-directed interviews. Of those surveyed, 61.2% of PLDs and 76.6% of TCs reported a willingness to participate in KPD as a compatible pair. The possibility of a more optimally matched kidney for the TC and policies ensuring prioritization of the TC for repeat transplantation in the event of early graft failure increased willingness to participate in KPD. Major concerns expressed during the interviews included the desire to retain the emotional bond of directed donation, the fear of chain breaks or donor reneging, delays in transplantation, and additional travel associated with participation in KPD.LimitationThe limitations of this study are that it was conducted in only 3 Canadian transplant programs and that the interviews and surveys were in French and in English. As a consequence, the results may not be reflective of the views of individuals not living in these 2 provinces and from ethnic minority populations.ConclusionMost of the compatible PLDs and TCs surveyed were willing to participate in KPD. Ensuring timely transplantation and a more optimal match for TCs and offering a policy of reciprocity to ensure timely repeat transplantation for compatible recipients if their allograft fails post KPD transplant may further increase compatible pair participation in KPD.

Project description:To address the need to study frozen clinical specimens using next-generation RNA, DNA, chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) sequencing and protein analyses, we developed a biobank work flow to prospectively collect biospecimens from patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). We describe our standard operating procedures and work flow to annotate pathologic results and clinical outcomes. We report quality control outcomes and nucleic acid yields of our RCC submissions (N=16) to The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) project, as well as newer discovery platforms, by describing mass spectrometry analysis of albumin oxidation in plasma and 6 ChIP sequencing libraries generated from nephrectomy specimens after histone H3 lysine 36 trimethylation (H3K36me3) immunoprecipitation. From June 1, 2010, through January 1, 2013, we enrolled 328 patients with RCC. Our mean (SD) TCGA RNA integrity numbers (RINs) were 8.1 (0.8) for papillary RCC, with a 12.5% overall rate of sample disqualification for RIN <7. Banked plasma had significantly less albumin oxidation (by mass spectrometry analysis) than plasma kept at 25 °C (P<.001). For ChIP sequencing, the FastQC score for average read quality was at least 30 for 91% to 95% of paired-end reads. In parallel, we analyzed frozen tissue by RNA sequencing; after genome alignment, only 0.2% to 0.4% of total reads failed the default quality check steps of Bowtie2, which was comparable to the disqualification ratio (0.1%) of the 786-O RCC cell line that was prepared under optimal RNA isolation conditions. The overall correlation coefficients for gene expression between Mayo Clinic vs TCGA tissues ranged from 0.75 to 0.82. These data support the generation of high-quality nucleic acids for genomic analyses from banked RCC. Importantly, the protocol does not interfere with routine clinical care. Collections over defined time points during disease treatment further enhance collaborative efforts to integrate genomic information with outcomes.