Deceased-donor kidney perfusate and urine biomarkers for kidney allograft outcomes: A systematic review

Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation

Volumn 27, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 3305-3314

  Bhangoo, Ronik S ^a,b   Hall, Isaac E ^a,b   Reese, Peter P ^c   Parikh, Chirag R ^a,b  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b VA CONNECTICUT HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

biomarkers; deceased donors; delayed graft function; kidney transplantation

Indexed keywords

ASPARTATE AMINOTRANSFERASE; BIOLOGICAL MARKER; CALCIUM; CHLORIDE; FATTY ACID BINDING PROTEIN; GLUTATHIONE TRANSFERASE; HEART TYPE FATTY ACID BINDING PROTEIN; KIDNEY INJURY MOLECULE 1; LACTATE DEHYDROGENASE; LACTIC ACID; MICROSOMAL AMINOPEPTIDASE; NEUTROPHIL GELATINASE ASSOCIATED LIPOCALIN; POTASSIUM; SODIUM; TROLOX C; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BLOOD GAS TENSION; CADAVER DONOR; DELAYED GRAFT FUNCTION; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; HUMAN; KIDNEY PERFUSION; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; OSMOLALITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREDICTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; URINALYSIS; VALIDATION PROCESS;

ACUTE-PHASE PROTEINS; BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; CADAVER; DELAYED GRAFT FUNCTION; GLUTATHIONE TRANSFERASE; HUMANS; HYDROGEN-ION CONCENTRATION; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; L-LACTATE DEHYDROGENASE; LACTIC ACID; LIPOCALINS; PERFUSION; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROGNOSIS; PROTO-ONCOGENE PROTEINS; TISSUE DONORS; TRANSPLANTATION, HOMOLOGOUS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84864614153     PISSN: 09310509     EISSN: 14602385     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfr806     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Tuttle-Newhall JE, Krishnan SM, Levy MF et al. Organ donation and utilization in the United States: 1998-2007. Am J Transplant 2009; 9: 879-893.
2. Metzger RA, Delmonico FL, Feng S et al. Expanded criteria donors for kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant 2003; 3 (Suppl 4): 114-125.
3. Yarlagadda SG, Coca SG, Formica RN, Jr et al. Association between delayed graft function and allograft and patient survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2009; 24: 1039-1047.
4. Shoskes DA, Halloran PFDelayed graft function in renal transplantation: etiology, management and long-term significance. J Urol 1996; 155: 1831-1840.
5. Sung RS, Christensen LL, Leichtman AB et al. Determinants of discard of expanded criteria donor kidneys: impact of biopsy and machine perfusion. Am J Transplant 2008; 8: 783-792.
6. Rao PS, Ojo AThe alphabet soup of kidney transplantation: SCD, DCD, ECD-fundamentals for the practicing nephrologist Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2009 4 1827-1831.
7. Jochmans I, Pirenne JGraft quality assessment in kidney transplantation: not an exact science yet!. Curr Opin Organ Transplant 2011; 16: 174-179.
8. Louvar DW, Li N, Snyder J et al. "Nature versus nurture" study of deceased-donor pairs in kidney transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol 2009; 20: 1351-1358.
9. Coca SG, Yalavarthy R, Concato J et al. Biomarkers for the diagnosis and risk stratification of acute kidney injury: a systematic review. Kidney Int 2008; 73: 1008-1016.
10. Sarwal MM, Benjamin J, Butte AJ et al. Transplantomics and biomarkers in organ transplantation: a report from the first international conference. Transplantation 2011; 91: 379-382.
11. Anglicheau D, Loupy A, Lefaucheur C et al. A simple clinico- histopathological composite scoring system is highly predictive of graft outcomes in marginal donors. Am J Transplant 2008; 8: 2325-2334.
12. Nyberg SL, Matas AJ, Kremers WK et al. Improved scoring system to assess adult donors for cadaver renal transplantation. Am J Transplant 2003; 3: 715-721.
13. Rao PS, Schaubel DE, Guidinger MK et al. A comprehensive risk quantification score for deceased donor kidneys: the kidney donor risk index. Transplantation 2009; 88: 231-236.
14. Schold JD, Kaplan B, Baliga RS et al. The broad spectrum of quality in deceased donor kidneys. Am J Transplant 2005; 5(4 Pt 1): 757-765.
15. Kasiske BL, Israni AK, Snyder JJ et al. A simple tool to predict outcomes after kidney transplant. Am J Kidney Dis 2010; 56: 947-960.
16. Munivenkatappa RB, Schweitzer EJ, Papadimitriou JC et al. The Maryland aggregate pathology index: a deceased donor kidney biopsy scoring system for predicting graft failure. Am J Transplant 2008; 8: 2316-2324.
17. Cockfield SM, Moore RB, Todd G et al. The prognostic utility of deceased donor implantation biopsy in determining function and graft survival after kidney transplantation. Transplantation 2010; 89: 559-566.
18. Jochmans I, Moers C, Smits JM et al. The prognostic value of renal resistance during hypothermic machine perfusion of deceased donor kidneys. Am J Transplant 2011; 11: 2214-2220.
19. Bond M, Pitt M, Akoh J et al. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of methods of storing donated kidneys from deceased donors: a systematic review and economic model. Health Technol Assess 2009; 13: iii-iv, xi-xiv, 1-156.
20. Wight J, Chilcott J, Holmes M et al. The clinical and cost-effectiveness of pulsatile machine perfusion versus cold storage of kidneys for transplantation retrieved from heart-beating and non-heartbeating donors. Health Technol Assess 2003; 7: 1-94.
21. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138: W1-W12.
22. Smidt N, Overbeke J, de Vet H et al. Endorsement of the STARD Statement by biomedical journals: survey of instructions for authors. Clin Chem 2007; 53: 1983-1985.
23. Johnson RW, Anderson M, Taylor RM et al. Significance of perfusate lactic acidosis in cadaveric renal transplantation. Br Med J 1973; 1: 391-395.
24. Sy G, Jr, Toledo-Pereyra LH, Dienst SG et al. Are there any important predicting factors of renal function during hypothermic pulsatile perfusion for transplantation?. Am Surg 1980; 46: 340-343.
25. Sterling WA, Pierce JC, Hume DM et al. Renal preservation by hypothermic storage plus pulsatile perfusion. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1972; 135: 589-592.
26. Gok MA, Pelzers M, Glatz JFC et al. Do tissue damage biomarkers used to assess machine-perfused NHBD kidneys predict long-term renal function post-transplant?. Clin Chim Acta 2003; 338: 33-43.
27. Kosieradzki M, Kuczynska J, Piwowarska J et al. Prognostic significance of free radicals: mediated injury occurring in the kidney donor. Transplantation 2003; 75: 1221-1227.
28. Newman CP, Shenton BKRe-evaluation of viability testing of cadaveric kidneys for transplantation. Br J Urol 1981; 53: 95-98.
29. Daemen JW, Oomen AP, Janssen MA et al. Glutathione S-transferase as predictor of functional outcome in transplantation of machinepreserved non-heart-beating donor kidneys. Transplantation 1997; 63: 89-93.
30. Cho SI, Zalneraitis B, Ohmi N et al. Prediction of cadaver kidney function by ligandin analysis. J Surg Res 1981; 30: 361-364.
31. Feinfeld DA, Levine RD, Levine SD et al. Ligandin in perfusates from transplanted kidneys: a test for tubular necrosis. Nephron 1978; 21: 38-41.
32. Horpacsy G, Schroder K, Zinsmeyer J et al. Clinical experiences in the Gambro-preservation unit: analysis of 105 human cadaver kidneys. Acta Med Pol 1978; 19: 59-65.
33. Burleson RL, Jones DB, Yenikomshian AM et al. Clinical renal preservation by cryoperfusion with an albumin perfusate: renal perfusion with albumin. Arch Surg 1978; 113: 688-692.
34. Johnson RW, Taylor RM, Swinney J et al. Perfusate lactic acidosis, an essential measurement for evaluating human cadaver kidneys. Surg Forum 1974; 25: 266-267.
35. Sarvary E, Nemes B, Jaray J et al. Prediction of early renal graft function by the measurement of donor urinary glutathione S-transferases. Transplantation 2000; 69: 1397-1402.
36. Shoskes DA, Webster R, Shahed AOxidant stress in cadaveric and living kidney donors as markers of renal injury: utility of total antioxidant capacity and isoprostane levels in urine. Transplant Proc 2000; 32: 804-805.
37. Zivna H, Zivny P, Navratil P et al. The role of cytokines and antioxidant status in graft quality prediction. Transplant Proc 1999; 31: 2094.
38. Kosieradzki M, Danielewicz R, Kwiatkowski A et al. Early function of kidneys stored by continuous hypothermic pulsatile perfusion can be predicted using a new "viability index". Transplant Proc 2002; 34: 541-543.
39. Stephenson TP, Hendry WF, Ward JP et al. Continuous perfusion of human cadaveric kidneys for transplantation. Br J Urol 1975; 47: 37-44.
40. Kiser WS, Magnusson MO, Hewitt CB et al. Experience with preservation of shipped-in cadaver kidneys. Transplant Proc 1972; 4: 607-609.
41. Asher J, Wilson C, Gok M et al. Factors predicting duration of delayed graft function in non-heart-beating donor kidney transplantation. Transplant Proc 2005; 37: 348-349.
42. Kootstra G, Kievit JK, Heineman EThe non heart-beating donor. Br Med Bull 1997; 53: 844-853.
43. Danielewicz R, Kwiatkowski A, Polak W et al. An assessment of ischemic injury of the kidney for transplantation during machine pulsatile preservation. Transplant Proc 1997; 29: 3580-3581.
44. Anderson CB, Sicard GA, Haid SD et al. Cadaver kidney characteristics and immediate renal allograft function. Proc Clin Dial Transplant Forum 1977; 7: 7-10.
45. Modgill VK, Wiggins PA, Rosenberg IL et al. An evaluation of viability tests of human cadaveric kidneys. Br J Surg 1977; 64: 548-553.
46. de Vries B, Snoeijs MGJ, von Bonsdorff L et al. Redox-active iron released during machine perfusion predicts viability of ischemically injured deceased donor kidneys. Am J Transplant 2006; 6: 2686-2693.
47. Moers C, Varnav OC, van Heurn E et al. The value of machine perfusion perfusate biomarkers for predicting kidney transplant outcome. Transplantation 2010; 90: 966-973.
48. Polyak MMR, Arrington BOM, Stubenbord WT et al. The influence of pulsatile preservation on renal transplantation in the 1990s. Transplantation 2000; 69: 249.
49. Nijboer WN, Schuurs TA, Damman J et al. Kidney injury molecule- 1 is an early noninvasive indicator for donor brain death-induced injury prior to kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant 2009; 9: 1752-1759.
50. Robert R, Guilhot J, Pinsard M et al. A pair analysis of the delayed graft function in kidney recipient: the critical role of the donor. J Crit Care 2010; 25: 582-590.
51. Hollmen ME, Kyllonen LE, Inkinen KA et al. Deceased donor neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin and delayed graft function after kidney transplantation: a prospective study. Crit Care 2011; 15: R121.
52. Brook NR, Waller JR, Nicholson MLNonheart-beating kidney donation: current practice and future developments. Kidney Int 2003; 63: 1516-1529.
53. Pepe MS, Etzioni R, Feng Z et al. Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001; 93: 1054-1061.
54. Westendorp WH, Leuvenink HG, Ploeg RJBrain death induced renal injury. Curr Opin Organ Transplant 2011; 16: 151-156.
55. Talbot D, Shenton BK, Buckley PE et al. Experiences learned in the successful establishment of a nonheart beating donor program for renal transplantation. J Urol 2003; 170(4 Pt 1): 1088-1092.
56. Kozaki K, Sakurai E, Kubota K et al. Prediction of kidney nonfunction after transplantation with machine perfusion preservation. Transplant Proc 2000; 32: 275-276.
57. Yarlagadda SG, Coca SG, Garg AX et al. Marked variation in the definition and diagnosis of delayed graft function: a systematic review. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2008; 23: 2995-3003