Disparities in Acceptance of Deceased Donor Kidneys Between the United States and France and Estimated Effects of Increased US Acceptance | Nephrology | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.239.150.57. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Axelrod  DA, Schnitzler  MA, Xiao  H,  et al.  An economic assessment of contemporary kidney transplant practice.  Am J Transplant. 2018;18(5):1168-1176. doi:10.1111/ajt.14702PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Eurotransplant. https://www.eurotransplant.org/cms/. Accessed January 7, 2019.
3.
Hart  A, Smith  JM, Skeans  MA,  et al.  OPTN/SRTR 2015 Annual Data Report: Kidney.  Am J Transplant. 2017;17(suppl 1):21-116. doi:10.1111/ajt.14124PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN). https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/. Accessed January 7, 2019.
5.
Reese  PP, Harhay  MN, Abt  PL, Levine  MH, Halpern  SD.  New solutions to reduce discard of kidneys donated for transplantation.  J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;27(4):973-980. doi:10.1681/ASN.2015010023PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Stewart  DE, Garcia  VC, Rosendale  JD, Klassen  DK, Carrico  BJ.  Diagnosing the decades-long rise in the deceased donor kidney discard rate in the United States.  Transplantation. 2017;101(3):575-587. doi:10.1097/TP.0000000000001539PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Gill  J, Joffres  Y, Rose  C,  et al.  The change in living kidney donation in women and men in the United States (2005-2015): a population-based analysis.  J Am Soc Nephrol. 2018;29(4):1301-1308. doi:10.1681/ASN.2017111160PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Tullius  SG, Rabb  H.  Improving the supply and quality of deceased-donor organs for transplantation.  N Engl J Med. 2018;378(20):1920-1929. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1507080PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Massie  AB, Luo  X, Chow  EK, Alejo  JL, Desai  NM, Segev  DL.  Survival benefit of primary deceased donor transplantation with high-KDPI kidneys.  Am J Transplant. 2014;14(10):2310-2316. doi:10.1111/ajt.12830PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Merion  RM, Ashby  VB, Wolfe  RA,  et al.  Deceased-donor characteristics and the survival benefit of kidney transplantation.  JAMA. 2005;294(21):2726-2733. doi:10.1001/jama.294.21.2726PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Cohen  JB, Eddinger  KC, Locke  JE, Forde  KA, Reese  PP, Sawinski  DL.  Survival benefit of transplantation with a deceased diabetic donor kidney compared with remaining on the waitlist.  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017;12(6):974-982. doi:10.2215/CJN.10280916PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Schold  JD, Buccini  LD, Srinivas  TR,  et al.  The association of center performance evaluations and kidney transplant volume in the United States.  Am J Transplant. 2013;13(1):67-75. doi:10.1111/j.1600-6143.2012.04345.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Whiting  JF, Golconda  M, Smith  R, O’Brien  S, First  MR, Alexander  JW.  Economic costs of expanded criteria donors in renal transplantation.  Transplantation. 1998;65(2):204-207. doi:10.1097/00007890-199801270-00010PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Saidi  RF, Elias  N, Kawai  T,  et al.  Outcome of kidney transplantation using expanded criteria donors and donation after cardiac death kidneys: realities and costs.  Am J Transplant. 2007;7(12):2769-2774. doi:10.1111/j.1600-6143.2007.01993.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Kasiske  BL, Stewart  DE, Bista  BR,  et al.  The role of procurement biopsies in acceptance decisions for kidneys retrieved for transplant.  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014;9(3):562-571. doi:10.2215/CJN.07610713PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Ekser  B, Powelson  JA, Fridell  JA, Goggins  WC, Taber  TE.  Is the kidney donor profile index (KDPI) universal or UNOS-specific?  Am J Transplant. 2018;18(4):1031-1032.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
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(2):231-236. doi:10.1097/TP.0b013e3181ac620bPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Bae  S, Massie  AB, Luo  X, Anjum  S, Desai  NM, Segev  DL.  Changes in discard rate after the introduction of the Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI).  Am J Transplant. 2016;16(7):2202-2207. doi:10.1111/ajt.13769PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Frei  U, Noeldeke  J, Machold-Fabrizii  V,  et al.  Prospective age-matching in elderly kidney transplant recipients—a 5-year analysis of the Eurotransplant Senior Program.  Am J Transplant. 2008;8(1):50-57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
20.
Rose  C, Schaeffner  E, Frei  U, Gill  J, Gill  JS.  A lifetime of allograft function with kidneys from older donors.  J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;26(10):2483-2493. doi:10.1681/ASN.2014080771PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Cristal Agence de la Biomédecine. http://www.sipg.sante.fr/portail/. Accessed January 7, 2019.
22.
Strang  WN, Tuppin  P, Atinault  A, Jacquelinet  C.  The French organ transplant data system.  Stud Health Technol Inform. 2005;116:77-82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
23.
Agence de la Biomédecine. https://www.agence-biomedecine.fr/. Accessed January 7, 2019.
24.
Lehner  LJ, Kleinsteuber  A, Halleck  F,  et al.  Assessment of the Kidney Donor Profile Index in a European cohort.  Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2018;33(8):1465-1472. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfy030PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Peters-Sengers  H, Heemskerk  MBA, Geskus  RB,  et al.  Validation of the Prognostic Kidney Donor Risk Index Scoring System of Deceased Donors for Renal Transplantation in the Netherlands.  Transplantation. 2018;102(1):162-170. doi:10.1097/TP.0000000000001889PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Metropolis  N.  The beginning of the Monte Carlo method.  Stanislaw Ulam Los Alamos Sci. 1987;15:125-130.Google Scholar
27.
Efron  B.  Nonparametric estimates of standard error: The jackknife, the bootstrap and other methods.  Biometrika. 1981;63:589-599. doi:10.1093/biomet/68.3.589Google ScholarCrossref
28.
Lamb  KE, Lodhi  S, Meier-Kriesche  HU.  Long-term renal allograft survival in the United States: a critical reappraisal.  Am J Transplant. 2011;11(3):450-462. doi:10.1111/j.1600-6143.2010.03283.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Mohan  S, Chiles  MC, Patzer  RE,  et al.  Factors leading to the discard of deceased donor kidneys in the United States.  Kidney Int. 2018;94(1):187-198. doi:10.1016/j.kint.2018.02.016PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Young  EW, Goodkin  DA, Mapes  DL,  et al.  The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS): An international hemodialysis study.  Kidney Int. 2000;57(suppl 74):S-74-S-81. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1755.2000.07413.xGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Rosenblum  AM, Li  AH, Roels  L,  et al.  Worldwide variability in deceased organ donation registries.  Transpl Int. 2012;25(8):801-811. doi:10.1111/j.1432-2277.2012.01472.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Shepherd  L, O’Carroll  RE, Ferguson  E.  An international comparison of deceased and living organ donation/transplant rates in opt-in and opt-out systems: a panel study.  BMC Med. 2014;12:131. doi:10.1186/s12916-014-0131-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Rao  PS, Merion  RM, Ashby  VB, Port  FK, Wolfe  RA, Kayler  LK.  Renal transplantation in elderly patients older than 70 years of age: results from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients.  Transplantation. 2007;83(8):1069-1074. doi:10.1097/01.tp.0000259621.56861.31PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Schold  JD, Meier-Kriesche  HU.  Which renal transplant candidates should accept marginal kidneys in exchange for a shorter waiting time on dialysis?  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;1(3):532-538. doi:10.2215/CJN.01130905PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Peters-Sengers  H, Berger  SP, Heemskerk  MB,  et al.  Stretching the limits of renal transplantation in elderly recipients of grafts from elderly deceased donors.  J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017;28(2):621-631. doi:10.1681/ASN.2015080879PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Pérez-Sáez  MJ, Arcos  E, Comas  J, Crespo  M, Lloveras  J, Pascual  J; Catalan Renal Registry Committee.  Survival benefit from kidney transplantation using kidneys from deceased donors aged ≥75 years: a time-dependent analysis.  Am J Transplant. 2016;16(9):2724-2733. doi:10.1111/ajt.13800PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Collini  A, Kalmar  P, Dhamo  A, Ruggieri  G, Carmellini  M.  Renal transplant from very old donors: how far can we go?  Transplantation. 2009;87(12):1830-1836. doi:10.1097/TP.0b013e3181a6b4ffPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Goldberg  DS, Halpern  SD, Reese  PP.  Deceased organ donation consent rates among racial and ethnic minorities and older potential donors.  Crit Care Med. 2013;41(2):496-505. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e318271198cPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Gill  JS, Tonelli  M.  Penny wise, pound foolish? Coverage limits on immunosuppression after kidney transplantation.  N Engl J Med. 2012;366(7):586-589. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1114394PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Merion  RM, Goodrich  NP, Johnson  RJ,  et al.  Kidney transplant graft outcomes in 379 257 recipients on 3 continents.  Am J Transplant. 2018;18(8):1914-1923. doi:10.1111/ajt.14694PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Ojo  AO, Morales  JM, González-Molina  M,  et al; Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and; Spanish Chronic Allograft Study Group.  Comparison of the long-term outcomes of kidney transplantation: USA versus Spain.  Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013;28(1):213-220. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfs287PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Tullius  SG, Milford  E.  Kidney allocation and the aging immune response.  N Engl J Med. 2011;364(14):1369-1370. doi:10.1056/NEJMc1103007PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Original Investigation
    August 26, 2019

    Disparities in Acceptance of Deceased Donor Kidneys Between the United States and France and Estimated Effects of Increased US Acceptance

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Paris Translational Research Center for Organ Transplantation, INSERM, UMR-S970, Paris, France
    • 2Department of Kidney Transplantation, Necker Hospital, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
    • 3Department of Medicine, Renal-Electrolyte and Hypertension Division, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
    • 4Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
    • 5Agence de la Biomédecine, Saint Denis la Plaine, France
    • 6Department of Nephrology and Kidney Transplantation, Saint-Louis Hospital, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
    • 7INSERM U1018, CESP, Université Paris Sud, Villejuif, France
    JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(10):1365-1374. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.2322
    Key Points

    Question  Would a more aggressive approach to organ acceptance provide a benefit to wait-listed kidney transplant candidates?

    Findings  This cohort study analyzes the use of 156 089 deceased donor kidneys in the United States and 29 984 in France and finds that the US discard rate of these kidneys is nearly twice that of France. It uses computer simulation to model a lower US discard rate similar to that of France, and estimates a US increase of 132 445 allograft life-years.

    Meaning  Greater acceptance of kidneys from older and comorbid deceased donors in the United States could provide major survival benefits to the population of wait-listed patients.

    Abstract

    Importance  Approximately 3500 donated kidneys are discarded in the United States each year, drawing concern from Medicare and advocacy groups.

    Objective  To estimate the effects of more aggressive allograft acceptance practices on the donor pool and allograft survival for the population of US wait-listed kidney transplant candidates.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  A nationwide study using validated registries from the United States and France comprising comprehensive cohorts of deceased donors with organs offered to kidney transplant centers between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2014. Data were analyzed between September 1, 2018, and April 5, 2019.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  The primary outcome was kidney allograft discard. The secondary outcome was allograft failure after transplantation. We used logistic regression to model organ acceptance and discard practices in both countries. We then quantified using computer simulation models the number of kidneys discarded in the United States that a more aggressive system would have instead used for transplantation. Finally, based on actual survival data, we quantified the additional years of allograft life that a redesigned US system would have saved.

    Findings  In the United States, 156 089 kidneys were recovered from deceased donors between 2004 and 2014, of which 128 102 were transplanted, and 27 987 (17.9%) were discarded. In France, among the 29 984 kidneys recovered between 2004 and 2014, 27 252 were transplanted, and 2732 (9.1%, P < .001 vs United States) were discarded. The mean (SD) age of kidneys transplanted in the United States was 36.51 (17.02) years vs 50.91 (17.34) years in France (P < .001). Kidney quality showed little change in the United States over time (mean [SD] kidney donor risk index [KDRI], 1.30 [0.48] in 2004 vs 1.32 [0.46] in 2014), whereas a steadily rising KDRI in France reflected a temporal trend of more aggressive organ use (mean [SD] KDRI, 1.37 [0.47] in 2004 vs 1.74 [0.72] in 2014; P < .001). We applied the French-based allocation model to the population of US deceased donor kidneys and found that 17 435 (62%) of kidneys discarded in the United States would have instead been transplanted under the French system. We further determined that a redesigned system with more aggressive organ acceptance practices would generate an additional 132 445 allograft life-years in the United States over the 10-year observation period.

    Conclusions and Relevance  Greater acceptance of kidneys from deceased donors who are older and have more comorbidities could provide major survival benefits to the population of US wait-listed patients.

    Trial Registration  ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03723668

    ×