Expanded-criteria donors: An emerging source of kidneys to alleviate the organ shortage

Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 395-400

  Ismail, Hazem R ^a   Flechner, Stuart M ^a  

^a CLEVELAND CLINIC LERNER COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

ABO incompatible transplants; Dual transplants; Expanded criteria donors; Kidney transplantation; Pediatric en bloc transplants

Indexed keywords

BLOOD GROUP ABO INCOMPATIBILITY; CADAVER KIDNEY; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DEATH; DIALYSIS; GRAFT SURVIVAL; HEART DEATH; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; INFORMED CONSENT; KIDNEY DONOR; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; PEDIATRICS; REVIEW; RISK FACTOR; SAFETY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 33746364479     PISSN: 10872418     EISSN: 15317013     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mot.0000236703.75704.c4     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. Sheehy E, Conrad SL, Brigham LE, et al. Estimating the number of potential organ donors in the United States. N Engl J Med 2003; 349:667-674.
2. Rosengard BR, Feng S, Alfrey EJ, et al. Report of the Crystal City meeting to maximize the use of organs recovered from the cadaver donor. Am J Transplant 2002; 2:1-10.
3. Metzger RA, Delmonico FL, Feng S, et al. Expanded criteria donors for kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant 2003; 3 (Suppl 4):114-125.
4. Mandal AK, Kalligonis AN, Ratner LE. Expanded criteria donors: attempts to increase the renal transplant donor pool. Adv Ren Replace Ther 2000; 7:117-130.
5. Nishikido M, Noguchi M, Koga S, et al. Kidney transplantation from nonheart-beating donors: analysis of organ procurement and outcome. Transplant Proc 2004; 36:1888-1890.
6. Alonso A, Fernandez-Rivera C, Villaverde P, et al. Renal transplantation from nonheart-beating donors: a single-center 10-year experience. Transplant Proc 2005; 37:3658-3660.
7. Keizer KM, de Fijter JW, Haase-Kromwijk BJ, Weimar W. Nonheart-beating donor kidneys in the Netherlands: allocation and outcome of transplantation. Transplantation 2005; 79:1195-1199. European Multicenter trial identifying warm ischemia time as an important factor determining outcomes of DCD kidney transplants.
8. Asher J, Oliver A, Wilson C, et al. A simple cardiovascular risk score can predict poor outcome in nonheart-beating donor renal transplantation. Transplant Proc 2005; 37:1044-1046.
9. Bains JC, Sandford R, Brook NR, et al. Comparison of renal allograft fibrosis after transplantation from heart-beating and nonheart-beating donors. Br J Surg 2005; 92:113-118. Important study using molecular techniques to confirm the long-term histologic integrity of DCD kidneys.
10. Rudich SM, Kaplan B, Magee JC, et al. Renal transplantations performed using nonheart-beating organ donors: going back to the future? Transplantation 2002; 74:1715-1720.
11. Matsuoka L, Shah T, Aswad S, et al. Pulsatile perfusion reduces the incidence of delayed graft function in expanded criteria donor kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant 2006 ; 6:1473-1478. Interesting report suggesting a beneficial effect of hydrodistension of the renal microcirculation using pulsatile perfusion to overcome preservation injury in DCD kidneys.
12. Veroux P, Veroux M, Puliatti C, et al. Kidney transplantation from cadaveric donors unsuitable for other centers and older than 60 years of age. Transplant Proc 2005; 37:2451-2453.
13. Bunnapradist S, Gritsch HA, Peng A, et al. Dual kidneys from marginal adult donors as a source for cadaveric renal transplantation in the United States. J Am Soc Nephrol 2003; 14:1031-1036.
14. Lee RS, Miller E, Marsh CL, Kuhr CS. Intermediate outcomes of dual renal allografts: the University of Washington experience. J Urol 2003; 169:855-858.
15. Remuzzi G, Cravedi P, Perna A, et al. Long-term outcome of renal transplantation from older donors. N Engl J Med 2006; 354:343-353. Important series highlighting the importance of pretransplant histology for predicting outcomes in older donor kidneys, transplanted either as DKT or SKT.
16. Nyberg S, Baskin-Bey E, Kremers W, et al. Improving the prediction of donor kidney quality: deceased donor score and resistive indices. Transplantation 2005; 80:925-929. Study identifying the role of demographic and functional criteria in predicting the quality and viability of deceased-donor kidneys.
17. Ramos E, Aoun S, Harmon WE. Expanding the donor pool: effect on graft outcome. J Am Soc Nephrol 2002; 13:2590-2599.
18. Flechner SM. Transplantation in the elderly: will you still list me when I'm 64? J Am Geriatr Soc 2002; 50:195-197.
19. Denny R, Matas AJ, Najarian JS. Graft and quality of life outcomes in older recipients of a kidney transplant. Exp Clin Transplant 2003; 1:69-72.
20. Famulski KS, Halloran PF. Molecular events in kidney ageing. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 2005; 14:243-248. Describes the molecular and cellular changes during kidney ageing that lead to diminished function, atrophy, and glomerular scarring.
21. Oniscu GC, Brown H, Forsythe JL. How old is old for transplantation? Am J Transplant 2004; 4:2067-2074.
22. Giessing M, Budde K, Fritsche L, et al. 'Old-for-old' cadaveric renal transplantation: surgical findings, perioperative complications and outcome. Eur Urol 2003; 44:701-708.
23. Fritsche L, Horstrup J, Budde K, et al. Old-for-old kidney allocation allows successful expansion of the donor and recipient pool. Am J Transplant 2003; 3:1434-1439.
24. Weiss-Salz I, Mandel M, Galai N, et al. Negative impact of 'old-to-old' donations on success of cadaveric renal transplants. Clin Transplant 2005; 19:372-376. Single-center report highlighting that older recipients have more surgical morbidity and a compromised outcome compared with younger recipients.
25. Smyth GP, Eng MP, Power RP, et al. Long-term outcome of cadaveric pediatric en-bloc transplantation: a 15-year experience. Transplant Proc 2005; 37:4228-4229.
26. Beasley KA, Balbontin F, Cook A, et al. Long-term follow-up of pediatric enbloc renal transplantation. Transplant Proc 2003; 35:2398-2399.
27. Sanchez-Fructuoso AI, Prats D, Perez-Contin MJ, et al. Increasing the donor pool using en-bloc pediatric kidneys for transplant. Transplantation 2003; 76:1180-1184.
28. Hiramoto JS, Freise CE, Randall HR, et al. Successful long-term outcomes using pediatric en-bloc kidneys for transplantation. Am J Transplant 2002; 2:337-342.
29. Bresnahan BA, McBride MA, Cherikh WS, Hariharan S. Risk factors for renal allograft survival from pediatric cadaver donors: an analysis of United Network for Organ Sharing data. Transplantation 2001; 72:256-261.
30. Borboroglu PG, Foster CE, Philosophe B, et al. Solitary renal allografts from pediatric cadaver donors less than 2 years of age transplanted into adult recipients. Transplantation 2004; 77:698-702.
31. Gonzalez-Segura C, Pascual M, Garcia Huete L, et al. Donors with positive blood culture: could they transmit infections to the recipients? Transplant Proc 2005; 37:3664-3666. Provocative report on transplanting kidneys from bacteremic donors without transmission of disease into the recipient.
32. Freeman RB, Giatras I, Falagas ME, et al. Outcome of transplantation of organs procured from bacteremic donors. Transplantation 1999; 68:1107-1111.
33. Fong TL, Bunnapradist S, Jordan SC, Cho YW. Impact of hepatitis B core antibody status on outcomes of cadaveric renal transplantation: analysis of UNOS database between 1994 and 1999. Transplantation 2002; 73:85-89.
34. Akalin E, Ames S, Sehgal V, et al. Safety of using hepatitis B virus core antibody or surface antigen-positive donors in kidney or pancreas transplantation. Clin Transplant 2005; 19:364-366. Highlights the role of lamivudine prophylaxis in recipients who receive hepatitis B core antibody-seropositive kidneys.
35. Bloom RD, Sayer G, Fa K, et al. Outcome of hepatitis C virus-infected kidney transplant candidates who remain on the waiting list. Am J Transplant 2005; 5:139-144. Describes the safety of using HCV-seropositive donor kidneys in recipients who are HCV seropositive.
36. Lopez-Navidad A, Caballero F. Extended criteria for organ acceptance: strategies for achieving organ safety and for increasing organ pool. Clin Transplant 2003; 17:308-324.
37. Futagawa Y, Terasaki PI. ABO incompatible kidney transplantation: an analysis of UNOS Registry data. Clin Transplant 2006; 20:122-126. Important registry database analysis of ABO-incompatible deceased-donor transplants, confirming reasonable but diminished outcomes compared with ABO-compatible grafts.
38. Aikawa A, Yamashita M, Hadano T, et al. ABO incompatible kidney transplantation: immunological aspect. Exp Clin Transplant 2003; 1:112-118.
39. Takahashi K, Saito K, Takahara S, et al. Excellent long-term outcome of ABO-incompatible living donor kidney transplantation in Japan. Am J Transplant 2004; 4:1011-1012.
40. Segev DL, Simpkins CE, Warren DS, et al. ABO incompatible high-titer renal transplantation without splenectomy or anti-CD20 treatment. Am J Transplant 2005; 5:2570-2575.
41. Ackerman PD, Thistlethwaite JRJr, Ross LF. Attitudes of minority patients with end-stage renal disease regarding ABO-incompatible list-paired exchanges. Am J Transplant 2006; 6:83-88. Highlights the consequences of list-paired donor exchange, which usually pays back a paired recipient with a blood group O kidney from the deceased-donor pool. Such practice raises issues of equity and fairness to those waiting for a blood group O organ.