No abstract

Longer pre-transplant dialysis, cyclosporine-based protocols and/or intensified immunosuppression with additional mycophenolate mofetil, and larger proportions of time of prednisolone treatment during follow-up increase de novo RCC risk.

Background Prognostic models for 3-year mortality after kidney transplantation based on pre-transplant donor and recipient variables may avoid futility and thus improve donor organ allocation. Material/Methods There were 1546 consecutive deceased-donor kidney transplants in adults (January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2012) used to identify pre-transplant donor and recipient variables with significant independent influence on long-term survival (Cox regression modelling). Detected factors were used to develop a prognostic model for 3-year mortality in 1289 patients with follow-up of >3 years (multivariable logistic regression). The sensitivity and specificity of this model’s prognostic ability was assessed with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Results Highly immunized recipients [hazard ratio (HR: 2.579, 95% CI: 1.272–4.631], high urgency recipients (HR: 3.062, 95% CI: 1.294–6.082), recipients with diabetic nephropathy (HR: 3.471, 95% CI: 2.476–4.751), as well as 0, 1, or 2 HLA DR mismatches (HR: 1.349, 95% CI: 1.160–1.569) were independent and significant risk factors for patient survival. Younger recipient age ≤42.1 years (HR: 0.137, 95% CI: 0.090–0.203), recipient age 42.2–52.8 years (HR: 0.374, 95% CI: 0.278–0.498), recipient age 52.9–62.8 years (HR: 0.553, 95% CI: 0.421–0.723), short cold ischemic times ≤11.8 hours (HR: 0.602, 95% CI: 0.438–0.814) and cold ischemic times 11.9–15.3 hours (HR: 0.736, 95% CI: 0.557–0.962) reduced this risk independently and significantly. The AUROC of the derived model for 3-year post-transplant mortality with these variables was 0.748 (95% CI: 0.689–0.788). Conclusions Older, highly immunized or high urgency transplant candidates with anticipated longer cold ischemic times, who were transplanted with the indication of diabetic nephropathy should receive donor organs with no HLA DR mismatches to improve their mortality risk.

Broadening the donor pool with non-blood related donors seems to be legitimate, although with respect to careful medical selection, since donor age in combination with male recipient sex were shown to be risk factors for decreased graft function. Warm ischemic time and waiting time need to be kept as short as possible to avoid delayed graft function. Transplantation across HLA and ABO borders did not affect outcome significantly.

PurposeThe widening gap between demand and supply of organs for transplantation provides extraordinary challenges for ethical donor organ allocation rules. The transplant community is forced to define favorable recipient/donor combinations for simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplantation. The aim of this study is the development of a prognostic model for the prediction of kidney function 1 year after simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation using pre-transplant donor and recipient variables with subsequent internal and external validation.MethodsIncluded were patients with end-stage renal failure due to diabetic nephropathy. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was applied for prognostic model design with retrospective data from Hannover Medical School, Germany (01.01.2000–31.12.2011) followed by prospective internal validation (01 Jan. 2012–31 Dec. 2015). Retrospective data from another German transplant center in Kiel was retrieved for external model validation via the initially derived logit link function.ResultsThe developed prognostic model is able to predict kidney graft function 1 year after transplantation ≥ KDIGO stage III with high areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve in the development cohort (0.943) as well as the internal (0.807) and external validation cohorts (0.784).ConclusionThe proposed validated model is a valuable tool to optimize present allocation rules with the goal to prevent transplant futility. It might be used to support donor organ acceptance decisions for individual recipients.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00423-018-1712-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.