Determinants of discard of expanded criteria donor kidneys: Impact of biopsy and machine perfusion

American Journal of Transplantation

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 783-792

  Sung, R S ^a   Christensen, L L ^b   Leichtman, A B ^c   Greenstein, S M ^d   Distant, D A ^e   Wynn, J J ^f   Stegall, M D ^g   Delmonico, F L ^h   Port, F K ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b ARBOR RESEARCH COLLABORATIVE FOR HEALTH   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

^d ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e SUNY DOWNSTATE MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^f MEDICAL COLLEGE OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^g MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^h MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Biopsy; Delayed graft function; Discard rates; Expanded criteria donors; Glomerulosclerosis; Graft failure; Machine perfusion

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; DONOR SELECTION; FEMALE; GLOMERULOSCLEROSIS; GRAFT FAILURE; HUMAN; KIDNEY BIOPSY; KIDNEY DONOR; MACHINE PERFUSION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PERFUSION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL;

BIOPSY; CADAVER; DEATH; HUMANS; KIDNEY; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; LIVER; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; LIVING DONORS; PATIENT SELECTION; PERFUSION; REGISTRIES; TISSUE DONORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES; WAITING LISTS;

EID: 40449114234     PISSN: 16006135     EISSN: 16006143     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2008.02157.x     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. 2005 Annual Report, Table 5.4. Available from : https://www.ustransplant.org, Accessed December 15, 2006.
2. Ojo AO, Hanson JA, Meier-Kriesche H et al. Survival in recipients of marginal cadaveric donor kidneys compared with other recipients and wait-listed transplant candidates. J Am Soc Nephrol 2001 12 : 589 597.
3. Port FK, Bragg JL, Metzger RA et al. Donor characteristics associated with reduced graft survival: An approach to expanding the pool of kidney donors. Transplantation 2002 74 : 1281 1286.
4. 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 : 701 711.
5. Sung RS, Guidinger MK, Lake C et al. Impact of the expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidney allocation system on the utilization of ECD kidneys. Transplantation 2005 79 : 1257 1261.
6. Lee CM, Scandling JD, Pavlakis M, Markezich AJ, Dafoe DC, Alfrey EJ. A review of kidneys that nobody wanted: Determinants of optimal outcome. Transplantation 1998 65 : 213 219.
7. Schnitzler MA, Whiting JF, Brennan DC et al. The expanded criteria donor dilemma in cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplantation 2003 75 : 1940 1945.
8. Doshi MD, Hunsicker LG. Short- and long-term outcomes with the use of kidneys and livers donated after cardiac death. Am J Transplant 2007 7 : 121 129.
9. Edwards EB, Posner MP, Maluf DG, Kauffman HM. Reasons for non-use of recovered kidneys: The effect of donor glomerulosclerosis and creatinine clearance on graft survival. Transplantation 2004 77 : 1411 1415.
10. Cecka JM, Cohen B, Rosendale J, Smith M. Could more effective use of kidneys recovered from older deceased donors result in more kidney transplants for older patients? Transplantation 2006 81 : 966 970.
11. Remuzzi G, Cravedi P, Perna A et al. Long-term outcome of renal transplantation from older donors. N Eng J Med 2006 354 : 343 352.
12. Randhawa PS, Minervini MI, Lombardero M et al. Biopsy of marginal donor kidneys: Correlation of histologic findings with graft dysfunction. Transplantation 2000 69 : 1352 1357.
13. Pokorna E, Vitko S, Chadimova M, Schuck O, Ekberg H. Proportion of glomerulosclerosis in procurement wedge renal biopsy cannot alone discriminate for acceptance of marginal donors. Transplantation 2000 69 : 36 43.
14. Lipkowitz GS, Leichtman AB, Christensen LL et al. Procurement, utilization and initial outcome in a prospective ECD study. Am J Transplant 2005 5S11 (abstract 350.
15. Sellers MT, Gallichio MH, Hudson SL et al. Improved outcomes in cadaveric renal allografts with pulsatile preservation. Clin Transplant 2000 14 : 543 549.
16. Wight JP, Chilcott JB, Holmes MW, Brewer N. Pulsatile machine perfusion vs. cold storage of kidneys for transplantation: A rapid and systematic review. Clin Transplant 2003 17 : 293 307.
17. Polyak MM, Arrington BO, Stubenbord WT et al. The influence of pulsatile preservation on renal transplantation in the 1990s. Transplantation 2000 69 : 249 258.
18. 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.
19. Guarrara JV, Polyak MM, Arrington B et al. Pushing the envelope in renal preservation: Improved results with novel perfusate modifications for pulsatile machine perfusion of cadaver kidneys. Transplant Proc 2004 36 : 1257 1260.