Thongprayoon Charat, Miao Jing, Jadlowiec Caroline C, Mao Shennen A, Mao Michael A, Leeaphorn Napat, Kaewput Wisit, Pattharanitima Pattharawin, Tangpanithandee Supawit, Krisanapan Pajaree, Nissaisorakarn Pitchaphon, Cooper Matthew, Cheungpasitporn Wisit
Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Division of Transplant Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA.
J Pers Med. 2023 Jul 3;13(7):1094. doi: 10.3390/jpm13071094.
Clinical outcomes of deceased donor kidney transplants coming from diabetic donors currently remain inconsistent, possibly due to high heterogeneities in this population. Our study aimed to cluster recipients of diabetic deceased donor kidney transplants using an unsupervised machine learning approach in order to identify subgroups with high risk of inferior outcomes and potential variables associated with these outcomes. Consensus cluster analysis was performed based on recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related characteristics in 7876 recipients of diabetic deceased donor kidney transplants from 2010 to 2019 in the OPTN/UNOS database. We determined the important characteristics of each assigned cluster and compared the post-transplant outcomes between the clusters. Consensus cluster analysis identified three clinically distinct clusters. Recipients in cluster 1 ( = 2903) were characterized by oldest age (64 ± 8 years), highest rate of comorbid diabetes mellitus (55%). They were more likely to receive kidney allografts from donors that were older (58 ± 6.3 years), had hypertension (89%), met expanded criteria donor (ECD) status (78%), had a high rate of cerebrovascular death (63%), and carried a high kidney donor profile index (KDPI). Recipients in cluster 2 ( = 687) were younger (49 ± 13 years) and all were re-transplant patients with higher panel reactive antibodies (PRA) (88 [IQR 46, 98]) who received kidneys from younger (44 ± 11 years), non-ECD deceased donors (88%) with low numbers of HLA mismatch (4 [IQR 2, 5]). The cluster 3 cohort was characterized by first-time kidney transplant recipients (100%) who received kidney allografts from younger (42 ± 11 years), non-ECD deceased donors (98%). Compared to cluster 3, cluster 1 had higher incidence of primary non-function, delayed graft function, patient death and death-censored graft failure, whereas cluster 2 had higher incidence of delayed graft function and death-censored graft failure but comparable primary non-function and patient death. An unsupervised machine learning approach characterized diabetic donor kidney transplant patients into three clinically distinct clusters with differing outcomes. Our data highlight opportunities to improve utilization of high KDPI kidneys coming from diabetic donors in recipients with survival-limiting comorbidities such as those observed in cluster 1.
目前,来自糖尿病供体的已故供体肾移植的临床结果仍不一致,这可能是由于该人群存在高度异质性。我们的研究旨在使用无监督机器学习方法对糖尿病已故供体肾移植受者进行聚类,以识别预后较差的高风险亚组以及与这些结果相关的潜在变量。基于2010年至2019年OPTN/UNOS数据库中7876例糖尿病已故供体肾移植受者的受者、供体和移植相关特征进行了共识聚类分析。我们确定了每个指定聚类的重要特征,并比较了各聚类之间的移植后结果。共识聚类分析确定了三个临床上不同的聚类。聚类1(n = 2903)中的受者年龄最大(64±8岁),合并糖尿病的发生率最高(55%)。他们更有可能接受来自年龄较大(58±6.3岁)、患有高血压(89%)、符合扩大标准供体(ECD)状态(78%)、脑血管死亡发生率高(63%)且肾脏供体特征指数(KDPI)高的供体的肾移植。聚类2(n = 687)中的受者较年轻(49±13岁),并且都是再次移植患者,其群体反应性抗体(PRA)较高(88[四分位间距46, 98]),他们接受的肾脏来自较年轻(44±11岁)、非ECD已故供体(88%),HLA错配数量较少(4[四分位间距2, 5])。聚类3队列的特征是首次肾移植受者(100%),他们接受的肾移植来自较年轻(42±11岁)、非ECD已故供体(98%)。与聚类3相比,聚类1的原发性无功能、移植肾功能延迟、患者死亡和死亡审查的移植失败发生率更高,而聚类2的移植肾功能延迟和死亡审查的移植失败发生率更高,但原发性无功能和患者死亡情况相当。一种无监督机器学习方法将糖尿病供体肾移植患者分为三个临床上不同的聚类,其结果各异。我们的数据突出了改善在患有诸如聚类1中观察到的限制生存的合并症的受者中使用来自糖尿病供体的高KDPI肾脏的机会。