Bae S, Massie A B, Luo X, Anjum S, Desai N M, Segev D L
Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.
Am J Transplant. 2016 Jul;16(7):2202-7. doi: 10.1111/ajt.13769. Epub 2016 Mar 22.
Since March 26, 2012, the Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) has been provided with all deceased-donor kidney offers, with the goal of improving the expanded criteria donor (ECD) indicator. Although an improved risk index may facilitate identification and transplantation of marginal yet viable kidneys, a granular percentile system may reduce provider-patient communication flexibility, paradoxically leading to more discards ("labeling effect"). We studied the discard rates of the kidneys recovered for transplantation between March 26, 2010 and March 25, 2012 ("ECD era," N = 28 636) and March 26, 2012 and March 25, 2014 ("KDPI era," N = 29 021) using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) data. There was no significant change in discard rate from ECD era (18.1%) to KDPI era (18.3%) among the entire population (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.97 1.041.10 , p = 0.3), or in any KDPI stratum. However, among kidneys in which ECD and KDPI indicators were discordant, "high risk" standard criteria donor (SCD) kidneys (with KDPI > 85) were at increased risk of discard in the KDPI era (aOR = 1.07 1.421.89 , p = 0.02). Yet, recipients of these kidneys were at much lower risk of death (adjusted Risk Ratio [aRR] = 0.56 0.770.94 at 2 years posttransplant) compared to those remaining on dialysis waiting for low-KDPI kidneys. Our findings suggest that there might be an unexpected, harmful labeling effect of reporting a high KDPI for SCD kidneys, without the expected advantage of providing a more granular risk index.
自2012年3月26日起,所有脑死亡供肾信息中都会提供肾脏捐赠者配型指数(KDPI),目的是改进扩展标准供体(ECD)指标。尽管改进后的风险指数可能有助于识别边缘但仍可移植的肾脏并进行移植,但精细的百分位数系统可能会降低医护人员与患者沟通的灵活性,反而导致更多的弃用情况(“标签效应”)。我们利用移植受者科学注册系统(SRTR)的数据,研究了2010年3月26日至2012年3月25日(“ECD时代”,N = 28636)以及2012年3月26日至2014年3月25日(“KDPI时代”,N = 29021)期间回收用于移植的肾脏的弃用率。在整个人口中,从ECD时代(18.1%)到KDPI时代(18.3%),弃用率没有显著变化(校正比值比[aOR] = 0.97,95%置信区间[CI]:1.04 - 1.10,p = 0.3),在任何KDPI分层中也是如此。然而,在ECD和KDPI指标不一致的肾脏中,则出现了差异:在KDPI时代,“高风险”的标准供体(SCD)肾脏(KDPI > 85)被弃用的风险增加(aOR = 1.07,95%CI:1.42 - 1.89,p = 0.02)。然而,与那些仍在等待低KDPI肾脏的透析患者相比,这些肾脏的接受者在移植后2年的死亡风险要低得多(校正风险比[aRR] = 0.56,95%CI:0.77 - 0.94)。我们的研究结果表明,报告SCD肾脏的高KDPI可能会产生意想不到的有害标签效应,而没有提供更精细风险指数的预期优势。