Background

Patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and end-stage renal disease may receive a simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK), living-donor kidney (LDK), or deceased-donor kidney (DDK) with possible pancreas after kidney transplantation. SPK is associated with superior patient and kidney graft survival compared with DDK, whereas SPK and LDK have comparable outcomes. It is unclear whether SPK and LDK offer a survival benefit over zero-mismatch (0MM) DDK. In this study, we compared the outcomes of T1DM recipients using data from the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network/United Network for Organ Sharing.

Methods

Adult (≥18 years) first-time transplant recipients with T1DM waitlisted for SPK and transplanted from 1995 to 2010 were included in this study. Patient and death-censored kidney graft survival were compared between 0MMDDK (n=228), mismatched (MM) DDK (n=964), 0MMSPK (n=215), MMSPK (n=11951), 2 haplotype identical (2hap) LDK (n=205), and non-2hapLDK (n=1719) recipients. Multivariate analysis was performed using stepwise Cox proportional hazards models.

Results

At 7 years, patient and death-censored graft survival of 0MMDDK recipients (85% and 81%, respectively) were not statistically different from that of 0MMSPK (81% and 85%; log-rank P value vs. 0MMDDK, 0.17 and 0.48, respectively) and 2hapLDK recipients (89% and 86%; log-rank P value vs. 0MMDDK, 0.34 and 0.18, respectively). Among all groups, MMDDK showed the worst patient survival (71%; log-rank P value vs. 0MMDDK, 0.001)

Conclusion

Patient and kidney graft survival of 0MMDDK recipients were comparable to both SPK and LDK recipients. These findings suggest that T1DM patients awaiting SPK may consider accepting a 0MMDDK if an offer is available.

Pancreas transplant alone (PTA) is usually performed in type 1 diabetic patients with preserved renal function to correct severe metabolic complications. One of the major concerns is renal failure after PTA. Here, we reported the cumulative incidence of kidney failure requiring kidney transplantation (KF/KT) among PTA recipients in the United States. Using the Organ Procurement Transplant Network/ United Network for Organ Sharing database, all primary adult PTA recipients with estimated baseline glomerular filtration rate (by the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation) >or=60 mL/min/1.73m2 were selected (n=1085). KF/ KT after PTA was defined as: wait-listing for or receiving a kidney alone (KA) or simultaneous pancreas kidney (SPK) transplant. The median follow-up time was 1185 days (25-75%: 524-2183). Ten years post PTA, 120 (11.1%) patients developed KF/KT; of those, 70 (6.5%) subsequently received a KA/SPK transplant (56 received KA and 14 received SPK) and 50 (4.6%) recipients were listed without receiving a transplant. The cumulative incidence of KF/KT after PTA at 1, 3, and 5 years after PTA was 0.3, 2.5, and 9.7%, respectively. In conclusion, KF/KT after PTA was not uncommon (9.7% at 5 years), and prospective PTA recipients should be aware of the risks of kidney failure after transplantation.

Background

In 2003, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) changed its policy to allow candidates with 'inactive' status to accrue time on the waitlist. In this study, we assessed the transplant outcomes among deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) recipients who were temporarily inactive specifically due to medical reason, i.e., being temporarily too sick (reason 7).

Methods

Using the UNOS database, adult DDKT recipients were divided into two groups: those who had never been inactivated (active group) and those with a history of being inactive due to reason 7 (reason 7 group). Patient and graft survival, 3-year risk of death, and graft failure were examined and compared.

Results

After 3 years of follow-up, patient survival in the reason 7 group was significantly lower than that of the active group (88.14% versus 91.93%, p < 0.01). The reason 7 group had a 20% increased risk of death (hazard ratio, HR 1.20, confidence interval, CI 1.04 - 1.38), a 16% increase in graft failure (HR 1.16, CI 1.06-1.28), and a 15% decrease in death-censored graft failure (HR 1.15, CI 1.01-1.31).

Conclusion

Recipients with a history of reason 7 have lower patient and graft survival when compared to the active group. Nonetheless, the margins of difference are minimal. Candidates with a history of reason 7 should not be discouraged from transplantation once they return to active status. Standardized criteria for placing candidates on inactive status should be developed to reduce disparities among transplant centers.