The reproducibility and predictive value on outcome of renal biopsies from expanded criteria donors

Kidney International

Volumn 85, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 1161-1168

  Antonieta Azancot, M ^a   Moreso, Francesc ^a   Salcedo, Maite ^a   Cantarell, Carme ^a   Perello, Manel ^a   Torres, Irina B ^a   Montero, Angeles ^a   Trilla, Enric ^a   Sellarés, Joana ^a   Morote, Joan ^a   Seron, Daniel ^a  

^a HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARI VALL D HEBRON   (Spain)

Author keywords

Donor pre implantation biopsies; Expanded criteria donors; Kidney transplantation

Indexed keywords

CREATININE;

ACUTE GRAFT REJECTION; ADULT; AGE; ARTERY INTIMA PROLIFERATION; ARTICLE; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CLASSIFICATION; CLOSTRIDIUM DIFFICILE INFECTION; COLITIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; CREATININE BLOOD LEVEL; DEATH CENSORED GRAFT SURVIVAL; DELAYED GRAFT FUNCTION; DIABETES MELLITUS; DONOR; ESTIMATED GLOMERULUS FILTRATION RATE; EXPANDED CRITERIA DONOR; FEMALE; FIBROSING ALVEOLITIS; GLOMERULOSCLEROSIS; GLOMERULUS FILTRATION RATE; GRAFT FAILURE; GRAFT SURVIVAL; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; HYALINE DEGENERATION; HYPERTENSION; INCIDENCE; KIDNEY BIOPSY; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; KIDNEY TUBULE DISORDER; LUNG TUMOR; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MILIARY TUBERCULOSIS; PATHOLOGIST; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSEUDOMONAS PNEUMONIA; REPRODUCIBILITY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; URINARY TRACT INFECTION; AGED; BIOPSY; DONOR SELECTION; KAPLAN MEIER METHOD; KIDNEY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; RISK FACTOR; SURGERY; TIME; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; AGED; BIOPSY; DONOR SELECTION; FEMALE; GLOMERULAR FILTRATION RATE; GRAFT SURVIVAL; HUMANS; KAPLAN-MEIER ESTIMATE; KIDNEY; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK FACTORS; TIME FACTORS; TISSUE DONORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84899719220     PISSN: 00852538     EISSN: 15231755     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ki.2013.461     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Wolfe RA, Ashby VB, Milford EL et al. Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation, and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 1725-1730.
2. Rabbat CG, Thorpe KE, Russell JD et al. Comparison of mortality risk for dialysis patients and cadaveric first renal transplant recipients in Ontario, Canada. J Am Soc Nephrol 2000; 11: 917-922.
3. Organización Nacional de Trasplante (ONT). Espan a 2010. Revised in December 2011. Available on. http://www.ont.es/infesp/Paginas/ DatosdeDonacionyTrasplante.aspx.
4. United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). United States of America 2010. Revised in December 2011. Available on http:// optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/ latestData/step2.asp.
5. Sung RS, Guidinger MK, Lake CD et al. Impact of the expanded criteria donor allocation system on the use of expanded criteria donor kidneys. Transplantation 2005; 79: 1257-1261.
6. Port FK, Bragg-Gresham 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.
7. 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.
8. Pascual J, Zamora J, Pirsch JD. A systematic review of kidney transplantation from expanded criteria donors. Am J Kidney Dis 2008; 52: 553-586.
9. Cohen B, Smits JM, Haase B et al. Expanding the donor pool to increase renal transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2005; 20: 34-41.
10. 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.
11. Nyberg SL, Baskin-Bey ES, Kremers W et al. Improving the prediction of donor kidney quality: deceased donor score and resistive indices. Transplantation 2005; 80: 925-929.
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. Schold JD, Kaplan B, Baliga RS et al. The broad spectrum of quality in deceased donor kidneys. Am J Transplant 2005; 5: 757-765.
14. Navarro MD, Lopez-Andreu M, Rodriguez-Benot A et al. Significance of preimplantation analysis of kidney biopsies from expanded criteria donors in long-term outcome. Transplantation 2011; 91: 432-439.
15. Anglicheau D, Loupy A, Lefaucheur C et al. A simple clinicohistopathological composite scoring system is highly predictive of graft outcomes in marginal donors. Am J Transplant 2008; 8: 2325-2334.
16. Lopes JA, Moreso F, Riera L et al. Evaluation of pre-implantation kidney biopsies: comparison of Banff criteria to a morphometric approach. Kidney Int 2005; 67: 1595-1600.
17. Gaber LW, Moore LW, Alloway RR et al. Glomerulosclerosis as a determinant of posttransplant function of older donor renal allografts. Transplantation 1995; 60: 334-339.
18. Kayler LK, Mohanka R, Basu A et al. Correlation of histologic findings on preimplant biopsy with kidney graft survival. Transpl Int 2008; 21: 892-898.
19. 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.
20. Furness PN, Taub N. International variation in the interpretation of renal transplant biopsies: report of the CERTPAP Project. Kidney Int 2001; 60: 1998-2012.
21. Colvin RB, Cohen AH, Saiontz C et al. Evaluation of pathologic criteria for acute renal allograft rejection: reproducibility, sensitivity, and clinical correlation. J Am Soc Nephrol 1997; 8: 1930-1941.
22. Racusen LC, Solez K, Colvin RB et al. The Banff 97 working classification of renal allograft pathology. Kidney Int 1999; 55: 713-723.
23. Warth A, Cortis J, Fink L et al. Training increases concordance in classifying pulmonary adenocarcinomas according to the novel IASLC/ ATS/ERS classification. Virchows Arch 2012; 461: 185-193.
24. Cecka JM, Cohen B, Rosendale J et al. Could more effective use of kidneys recovered from older deceased donors result in more kidney transplants for older patients? Transplantation 2006; 81: 966-970.
25. Rudge CJ. Should retrieved kidneys ever be discarded? Transplantation 2006; 81: 974-975.
26. Muruve NA, Steinbecker KM, Luger AM. Are wedge biopsies of cadaveric kidneys obtained at procurement reliable? Transplantation 2000; 69: 2384-2388.
27. Wang HJ, Kjellstrand CM, Cockfield SM et al. On the influence of sample size on the prognostic accuracy and reproducibility of renal transplant biopsy. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1998; 13: 165-172.
28. Foss A, Heldal K, Scott H et al. Kidneys from deceased donors more than 75 years perform acceptably after transplantation. Transplantation 2009; 87: 1437-1441.
29. Solez K, Colvin RB, Racusen LC et al. Banff 07 classification of renal allograft pathology: updates and future directions. Am J Transplant 2008; 8: 753-760.
30. Remuzzi G, Cravedi P, Perna A et al. Long-term outcome of renal transplantation from older donors. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 343-352.
31. Fernandez-Lorente L, Riera L, Bestard O et al. Long-term results of biopsyguided selection and allocation of kidneys from older donors in older recipients. Am J Transplant 2012; 12: 2781-2788.
32. Singh P, Farber JL, Doria C et al. Peritransplant kidney biopsies: comparison of pathologic interpretations and practice patterns of organ procurement organizations. Clin Transplant 2012; 26: E191-E199.
33. Edwards EB, Posner MP, Maluf DG et al. Reasons for non-use of recovered kidneys: the effect of donor glomerulosclerosis and creatinine clearance on graft survival. Transplantation 2004; 77: 1411-1415.
34. Bajwa M, Cho YW, Pham PT et al. Donor biopsy and kidney transplant outcomes: an analysis using the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing (OPTN/UNOS) database. Transplantation 2007; 84: 1399-1405.
35. Pokorna E, Vitko S, Chadimova M et al. Proportion of glomerulosclerosis in procurement wedge renal biopsy cannot alone discriminate for acceptance of marginal donors. Transplantation 2000; 69: 36-43.
36. Carter JT, Chan S, Roberts JP et al. Expanded criteria donor kidney allocation: marked decrease in cold ischemia and delayed graft function at a single center. Am J Transplant 2005; 5: 2745-2753.
37. Kayler LK, Magliocca J, Zendejas I et al. Impact of cold ischemia time on graft survival among ECD transplant recipients: a paired kidney analysis. Am J Transplant 2011; 11: 2647-2656.
38. Gaspari F, Ferrari S, Stucchi N et al. Performance of different prediction equations for estimating renal function in kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant 2004; 4: 1826-1835.
39. Levey AS, Bosch JP, Lewis JB et al. A more accurate method to estimate glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine: a new prediction equation. Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Group. Ann Intern Med 1999; 130: 461-470.
40. Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 1968; 70: 213-220.
41. Eichinger M, Optazaite DE, Kopp-Schneider A et al. Morphologic and functional scoring of cystic fibrosis lung disease using MRI. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 1321-1329.