16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Kidney donation after circulatory death (DCD): state of the art

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The use of kidneys from controlled donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors has the potential to markedly increase kidney transplants performed. However, this potential is not being realized because of concerns that DCD kidneys are inferior to those from donation after brain-death (DBD) donors. The United Kingdom has developed a large and successful controlled DCD kidney transplant program that has allowed for a substantial increase in kidney transplant numbers. Here we describe recent trends in DCD kidney donor activity in the United Kingdom, outline aspects of the donation process, and describe donor selection and allocation of DCD kidneys. Previous UK Transplant Registry analyses have shown that while DCD kidneys are more susceptible to cold ischemic injury and have a higher incidence of delayed graft function, short- and medium-term transplant outcomes are similar in recipients of kidneys from DCD and DBD donors. We present an updated, extended UK registry analysis showing that longer-term transplant outcomes in DCD donor kidneys are also similar to those for DBD donor kidneys, and that transplant outcomes for kidneys from expanded-criteria DCD donors are no less favorable than for expanded-criteria DBD donors. Accordingly, the selection criteria for use of kidneys from DCD donors should be the same as those used for DBD donors. The UK experience suggests that wider international development of DCD kidney transplantation programs will help address the global shortage of deceased donor kidneys for transplantation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Each additional hour of cold ischemia time significantly increases the risk of graft failure and mortality following renal transplantation.

          Although cold ischemia time has been widely studied in renal transplantation area, there is no consensus on its precise relationship with the transplantation outcomes. To study this, we sampled data from 3839 adult recipients of a first heart-beating deceased donor kidney transplanted between 2000 and 2011 within the French observational multicentric prospective DIVAT cohort. A Cox model was used to assess the relationship between cold ischemia time and death-censored graft survival or patient survival by using piecewise log-linear function. There was a significant proportional increase in the risk of graft failure for each additional hour of cold ischemia time (hazard ratio, 1.013). As an example, a patient who received a kidney with a cold ischemia time of 30 h presented a risk of graft failure near 40% higher than a patient with a cold ischemia time of 6 h. Moreover, we found that the risk of death also proportionally increased for each additional hour of cold ischemia time (hazard ratio, 1.018). Thus, every additional hour of cold ischemia time must be taken into account in order to increase graft and patient survival. These findings are of practical clinical interest, as cold ischemia time is among one of the main modifiable pre-transplantation risk factors that can be minimized by improved management of the peri-transplantation period.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Donor characteristics associated with reduced graft survival: an approach to expanding the pool of kidney donors1

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Defining delayed graft function after renal transplantation: simplest is best.

              Delayed graft function (DGF) after renal transplantation can be diagnosed according to several different definitions, complicating comparison between studies that use DGF as an endpoint. This is a particular problem after transplantation with kidneys from donation after circulatory death (DCD) kidneys, because DGF is common, and its relationship to early graft failure may differ depending on the definition of DGF. The presence of DGF in 213 donation after brain death (DBD) and 312 DCD kidney transplants from October 2005 to August 2011 was determined according to 10 different, but widely used, definitions (based on dialysis requirements, creatinine changes, or both). The relationship of DGF to graft function and graft survival was determined. The incidence of DGF varied widely depending on the definition used (DBD; 24%-70%: DCD; 41%-91%). For kidneys from DCD donors, development of DGF was only associated with poorer 1-year estimated glomerular filtration rate for 1 of 10 definitions of DGF, and no definition of DGF was associated with impaired graft survival. Conversely, for DBD kidneys, DGF, as defined in 9 of 10 different ways, was associated with poorer 1-year estimated glomerular filtration rate and inferior graft survival. Importantly, the predictive power for poorer transplant outcome was comparable for all definitions of DGF. No definition of DGF is superior. We suggest that the most widely used and most easily calculated definition--the use of dialysis in the first postoperative week--should be universally adopted as the definition of DGF clinically and as a study endpoint.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Kidney International
                Kidney International
                Springer Nature
                00852538
                August 2015
                August 2015
                : 88
                : 2
                : 241-249
                Article
                10.1038/ki.2015.88
                25786101
                33fe9171-7719-4431-a2ef-b9c072b2c99b
                © 2015

                http://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article