Campos Sandra, Ballesteros Maria Angeles, Rodrigo Emilio, López Del Moral Covadonga, Campos-Juanatey Félix, Suberviola Borja, García-Alcalde Lucía, Amaya Aurora, Domínguez-Gil Beatriz, Ruiz-San Millan Juan Carlos, Miñambres Eduardo
Transplant Coordination Unit and Service of Intensive Care, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Orense, Orense, Spain.
Transplant Coordination Unit and Service of Intensive Care, University Hospital Marqués de Valdecilla-IDIVAL, Santander, Spain.
Transplant Direct. 2025 Apr 10;11(5):e1790. doi: 10.1097/TXD.0000000000001790. eCollection 2025 May.
The aim of our study is to share our experience with uncontrolled donation after the circulatory determination of death (uDCDD) kidney transplantation and to propose updated donor selection criteria for uDCDD programs.
A prospective study comparing kidney recipients of grafts from local uDCDD donors with recipients of grafts from local standard criteria donors after the neurological determination of death (DNDD) between 2013 and 2024. Donor acceptance was determined using a combination of 3 factors: donor age, no-flow period, and warm ischemic time (WIT). Normothermic regional perfusion was the preservation method in uDCDD cases.
The study included 43 kidney recipients from uDCDD donors and 80 controls. The median no-flow period was 10 min (interquartile range, 5-13), and the median WIT was 101 min (interquartile range, 86-118). The incidence of delayed graft function was significantly higher in the uDCDD group (46.5% versus 21.3%; = 0.004), although no significant difference was observed in primary nonfunction rates (2.3% versus 0%; = 0.35). Long-term outcomes, including serum creatinine levels and estimated glomerular filtration rate at 5 y, were similar in both groups. Graft survival rates at 1 y (95.3% versus 100%) and 5 y (92.1% versus 95%) showed no significant differences between the uDCDD and the DNDD groups. Multivariate analysis revealed that uDCDD kidney recipients did not have a higher risk of graft loss.
Kidney transplantation from uDCDD donors is a viable option, yielding outcomes comparable with those from standard DNDD donors. Strict donor selection criteria and efforts to minimize WIT are essential to achieving optimal long-term results.
我们研究的目的是分享我们在心脏死亡后器官捐献(uDCDD)肾移植方面的经验,并为uDCDD项目提出更新的供体选择标准。
一项前瞻性研究,比较2013年至2024年间当地uDCDD供体肾移植受者与脑死亡(DNDD)后当地标准标准供体肾移植受者。使用供体年龄、无血流时间和热缺血时间(WIT)三个因素的组合来确定供体接受情况。常温区域灌注是uDCDD病例的保存方法。
该研究包括43例uDCDD供体肾移植受者和80例对照。中位无血流时间为10分钟(四分位间距,5 - 13),中位WIT为101分钟(四分位间距,86 - 118)。uDCDD组移植肾功能延迟的发生率显著更高(46.5%对21.3%;P = 0.004),尽管原发性无功能率无显著差异(2.3%对0%;P = 0.35)。两组的长期结果,包括5年时的血清肌酐水平和估计肾小球滤过率相似。uDCDD组和DNDD组1年(95.3%对100%)和5年(92.1%对95%)的移植肾存活率无显著差异。多变量分析显示,uDCDD肾移植受者的移植肾丢失风险并不更高。
uDCDD供体肾移植是一种可行的选择,其结果与标准DNDD供体的结果相当。严格的供体选择标准和尽量减少WIT的努力对于实现最佳长期结果至关重要。