Affordable Access

Publisher Website

Prediction of Kidney Transplant Outcome by Donor Quality Scoring Systems: Expanded Criteria Donor and Deceased Donor Score

Transplantation Proceedings
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2012.09.061
  • Medicine


Abstract Due to disparity between organ supply and demand, use of kidneys from suboptimal donors has become increasingly common. Several donor quality systems have been developed to identify kidneys with an increased risk for graft dysfunction and loss. The purpose of our study was to compare the utility of Deceased Donor Score (DDS) and expanded criteria donor (ECD) status to predict kidney transplant outcomes in a single center. We analysed 280 deceased donor renal transplantation procedures, collecting data from the prospectively maintained institutional database. Kidney transplant outcome variable included delayed graft function, 1-year glomerular filtration rate (GFR1y), and death-censored graft loss (DCGL). Kidneys were obtained from marginal donors in 45.7% of transplant recipients by DDS and in 24.9% by ECD. DDS-defined marginal donors suffered delayed graft function (DGF) more frequently than nonmarginal donors (40.8% vs 25.0%; P = .006), whereas ECD did not develop DGF at a greater rate. GFR1Y was significantly worse among patients receiving kidneys from marginal donors: DDS 40.3 ± 12.9 vs 57.7 ± 19.4 mL/min/1.73 m2 (P < .001) and ECD 39.4 ± 14.1 vs 53.8 ± 19.1 mL/min/1.73 m2 (P < .0001). The most severe donor category defined by DDS (grade D) showed an independently worse death-censored graft survival hazard rate [HR] 2.661, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.076–6.582; P = .034). DDS and ECD scoring systems are based on donor information available at the time of transplantation that predict 1-year graft function. Moreover in our center, DDS was better to predict DGF and death-censored graft survival than ECD.

There are no comments yet on this publication. Be the first to share your thoughts.