Dataset Information

Association Between Donor-Recipient Biological Relationship and Allograft Outcomes After Living Donor Kidney Transplant.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

The proportion of living donor kidney transplants from donors unrelated to their recipients is increasing in the US.

Objective

To examine the association between donor-recipient biological relationship and allograft survival after living donor kidney transplant.

Design, setting, and participants

This retrospective cohort study used Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data on US adult living donor kidney transplants (n = 86 154) performed from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2014, excluding cases in which recipients previously received a kidney transplant (n = 10 342) or key data were missing (n = 2832). Last follow-up was March 20, 2020.

Exposures

Donor-recipient biological relationship.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was death-censored allograft failure. Univariate and multivariable time-to-event analyses were performed for death-censored allograft failure for the overall cohort, then separately for recipients with and without primary diagnoses of cystic kidney disease and for transplants from African American and non-African American donors.

Results

Among the 72 980 transplant donor and recipients included in the study (median donor age, 41 years; interquartile range [IQR], 32-50 years; 43 990 [60%] female; 50 014 [69%] White), 43 174 (59%) donors and recipients were biologically related and 29 806 (41%) were unrelated. Donors related to their recipients were younger (median [IQR] age, 39 [31-48] vs 44 [35-52] years) and less likely to be female (24 848 [58%] vs 19 142 [64%]) or White (26 933 [62%] vs 23 081 [77%]). Recipients related to their donors were younger (median [IQR] age, 48 [34-58] vs 50 [40-58] years), more likely to be female (18 035 [42%] vs 10 530 [35%]), and less likely to have cystic kidney disease (2530 [6%] vs 4600 [15%]). Related pairs had fewer HLA mismatches overall (median [IQR], 3 [2-3] vs 5 [4-5]). After adjustment for HLA mismatches, donor and recipient characteristics, and transplant era, donor-recipient biological relationship was associated with higher death-censored allograft failure (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.10; P = .03). When stratified by primary disease, this association persisted only for recipients without cystic kidney disease. When stratified by donor race, this association persisted only for transplants from African American donors.

Conclusions and relevance

In this cohort study, living donor kidney transplants from donors biologically related to their recipients had higher rates of allograft failure than transplants from donors unrelated to their recipients after HLA matching was accounted for. Further study is needed to determine which genetic or socioenvironmental factors are associated with this finding.

SUBMITTER: Husain SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8044734 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceIn the United States, substantial disparities in access to kidney transplant exist for wait-listed candidates with end-stage renal disease. The implications of transplant centers' willingness to accept kidney offers for access to transplant and mortality outcomes are unknown.ObjectiveTo determine the outcomes for wait-listed kidney transplant candidates after the transplant center's refusal of a deceased donor kidney offer.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study obtained data from the United Network for Organ Sharing Potential Transplant Recipient data set on all deceased donor kidney offers in the United States made between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2015. The final study cohort included adult patients who were wait-listed for kidney transplant and received at least 1 allograft offer during the study period (N?=?280?041). Data analysis was conducted from June 1, 2018, to March 30, 2019.ExposureCandidate state of residence.Main outcomes and measuresWaiting list outcome event groups included received deceased donor allograft, received living donor allograft, died while on the waiting list, removed from the waiting list without a transplant, or still on the waiting list at the end of follow-up.ResultsAmong the 280?041 kidney transplant candidates included in the study, the mean (SD) age at wait-listing was 51.1 (13.1) years, and male patients were predominant (171 517 [61.2%]). In this cohort, 81 750 candidates (29.2%) received a deceased donor kidney allograft, 30 870 (11.0%) received a living donor allograft, 25 967 (9.3%) died while on the waiting list, and 59 359 (21.2%) were removed from the waiting list. Overall, 10 candidates with at least 1 previous allograft offer died each day during the study period. Time to first offer was similar for candidates who received deceased donor kidney allograft compared with those who died while waiting (median [interquartile range {IQR}] time, 79 [16-426] days vs 78 [17-401] days, respectively). Deceased donor allograft recipients had a median of 17 offers (IQR, 6-44) over 422 days (IQR, 106-909 days), whereas candidates who died while waiting received a median of 16 offers (IQR, 6-41) over 651 days (IQR, 304-1117 days). Most kidneys (84%) were declined on behalf of at least 1 candidate before being accepted for transplant. As reported by centers, organ or donor quality concerns accounted for 8 416 474 (92.6%) of all declined offers, whereas offers were infrequently refused because of patient-related factors (232 193 [2.6%]), logistical limitations (49 492 [0.5%]), or other concerns. The odds of death after an offer and the median number of offers received prior to death varied considerably by state.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that transplant candidates appeared to receive a large number of viable deceased donor kidney offers that were refused on their behalf by transplant centers, potentially exacerbating the detrimental consequences of the organ shortage; increased transparency in organ allocation process and decisions may improve patient-centered care and access to kidney transplant.

Project description:ImportanceColorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death, and nearly 70% of patients with this cancer have unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLMs). Compared with chemotherapy, liver transplant has been reported to improve survival in patients with CRLMs, but in North America, liver allograft shortages make the use of deceased-donor allografts for this indication problematic.ObjectiveTo examine survival outcomes of living-donor liver transplant (LDLT) for unresectable, liver-confined CRLMs.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective cohort study included patients at 3 North American liver transplant centers with established LDLT programs, 2 in the US and 1 in Canada. Patients with liver-confined, unresectable CRLMs who had demonstrated sustained disease control on oncologic therapy met the inclusion criteria for LDLT. Patients included in this study underwent an LDLT between July 2017 and October 2020 and were followed up until May 1, 2021.ExposuresLiving-donor liver transplant.Main outcomes and measuresPerioperative morbidity and mortality of treated patients and donors, assessed by univariate statistics, and 1.5-year Kaplan-Meier estimates of recurrence-free and overall survival for transplant recipients.ResultsOf 91 evaluated patients, 10 (11%) underwent LDLT (6 [60%] male; median age, 45 years [range, 35-58 years]). Among the 10 living donors, 7 (70%) were male, and the median age was 40.5 years (range, 27-50 years). Kaplan-Meier estimates for recurrence-free and overall survival at 1.5 years after LDLT were 62% and 100%, respectively. Perioperative morbidity for both donors and recipients was consistent with established standards (Clavien-Dindo complications among recipients: 3 [10%] had none, 3 [30%] had grade II, and 4 [40%] had grade III; donors: 5 [50%] had none, 4 [40%] had grade I, and 1 had grade III).Conclusions and relevanceThis study's findings of recurrence-free and overall survival rates suggest that select patients with unresectable, liver-confined CRLMs may benefit from total hepatectomy and LDLT.

Project description:Background:Nephron endowment in renal transplantation is infrequently considered, but may have important implications for post kidney transplantation outcomes. In this population-cohort study, we analyzed the deceased-donor kidney transplant outcomes stratified by donor-to-recipient size ratios. Methods:Data for all deceased-donor adult kidney transplantation recipients between 2003 and 2015 were extracted from the UK Transplant Registry. We used weight as a surrogate marker for kidney size and defined the following mismatch categories (donor weight/recipient weight × 100): less than 75% (small donor kidney), 75% to 125% (weight matched kidney), and greater than 125% (large donor kidney). Univariable and multivariable analyses were undertaken to assess the relationship between this marker and patient outcomes. Results:Outcomes for 11 720 transplants were analyzed with weight mismatch stratified as follows; small donor kidney (n = 1608, 13.7%), weight matched kidney (n = 7247, 61.8%) and large donor kidney (n = 2865, 24.4%). On multivariable analysis, no significant differences were detected in overall (P = 0.876) or death-censored (P = 0.173) graft survival, or in rates of delayed graft function (P = 0.396) between these 3 groups. However, 12-month creatinine levels were found to decline progressively across the groups (P < 0.001), with adjusted averages of 144.2 ?mol/L for recipients of small donor kidneys, 134.7 ?mol/L in weight matched kidneys, and 124.9 ?mol/L in recipients of large donor kidneys. In addition, patient survival was found to be significantly shorter in recipients of larger kidneys than those with weight matched kidneys (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.40; P = 0.009), which is inconsistent with the existing literature. Conclusions:Our data demonstrate that 12-month creatinine is influenced by donor-to-recipient difference in body weight, but that no such difference is observed for either delayed graft function or death-censored graft survival. However, we observed increased mortality in recipients receiving larger kidneys; an observation which conflicts with the existing literature and warrants further investigation.

Project description:Background and objectivesMany donors and recipients report an improved bond posttransplantation; however, unexpected conflicts and tension may also occur. Insights into the lived experiences of the donor-recipient relationship can inform strategies for interventions and support. We aimed to describe donor and recipient expectations and experiences of their relationship before and after living kidney donor transplantation.Design, setting and participantsSemistructured interviews were conducted with 16 donor-recipient pairs before the transplant and 11-14 months post-transplant. Transcripts were analysed thematically.ResultsWe identified seven themes (with respective subthemes): donation as enacting familial responsibility for care; analytical decision making to mitigate regret (avoiding anticipated regret and maintaining control, removing emotional impulsivity); strengthened interpersonal ties (gaining a deeper appreciation among family members, stronger empathy for each other, improving social participation); instability of relational impacts (anger and aggression threatening dynamics, unanticipated stress and emotional lability, triggering familial tension); renegotiating social roles (unexpected continuation of caregiving responsibilities, inability to relinquish the caregiving role, disappointment with unfulfilled renewal of intimacy, dissatisfaction over discrepant energy levels); guilt over unmet expectations and inevitability of the gift relationship (vague and transient indebtedness, expectation of reciprocity, transferring kidney ownership).ConclusionsDonor-recipient relationships may be improved through increased empathy, appreciation, and ability to participate in life together; however, unfulfilled expectations and behavioural and emotional changes in recipients (a side effect related to immunosuppression) remain unresolved consequences of living kidney donor transplantation. Education and counselling to help donors and recipients adjust to potential changes in relationship dynamics may help protect and foster relational stability postdonation.