Although cold ischemia time has been widely studied in renal transplantation area, there is no consensus on its precise relationship with the transplantation outcomes. To study this, we sampled data from 3839 adult recipients of a first heart-beating deceased donor kidney transplanted between 2000 and 2011 within the French observational multicentric prospective DIVAT cohort. A Cox model was used to assess the relationship between cold ischemia time and death-censored graft survival or patient survival by using piecewise log-linear function. There was a significant proportional increase in the risk of graft failure for each additional hour of cold ischemia time (hazard ratio, 1.013). As an example, a patient who received a kidney with a cold ischemia time of 30 h presented a risk of graft failure near 40% higher than a patient with a cold ischemia time of 6 h. Moreover, we found that the risk of death also proportionally increased for each additional hour of cold ischemia time (hazard ratio, 1.018). Thus, every additional hour of cold ischemia time must be taken into account in order to increase graft and patient survival. These findings are of practical clinical interest, as cold ischemia time is among one of the main modifiable pre-transplantation risk factors that can be minimized by improved management of the peri-transplantation period.

Little is known about the impact of posttransplant blood transfusion on the sensitization of anti‐HLA antibodies and the formation of donor‐specific antibodies (DSAs). The aims of our study were to determine the 1‐year incidence of DSAs (assessed using a solid‐phase assay) and antibody‐mediated rejection (AMR) in kidney transplant patients who had or had not received a blood transfusion during the first year after transplantation. Included were 390 non–HLA‐sensitized patients who had received an ABO‐compatible kidney transplant and had not previously or simultaneously received a nonkidney transplant. Overall, 64% of patients received a red blood cell transfusion within the first year after transplantation, most within the first month. The overall 1‐year incidence of DSAs was significantly higher in patients that had undergone transfusion (7.2% vs. 0.7% in patients with no transfusion, p < 0.0001). AMR occurred more often in the transfusion group (n = 15, 6%) compared with the nontransfusion group (n = 2, 1.4%; p = 0.04). Blood transfusion was an independent predictive factor for de novo DSA formation but not for AMR. Patients who had a transfusion and developed DSAs were more often treated with cyclosporin A (n = 10, 55.5%) rather than tacrolimus (n = 45, 19.4%; p = 0.0001). In conclusion, early posttransplant blood transfusion may increase immunological risk, especially in underimmunosuppressed patients.

We aimed to assess the correlation of anti-angiotensin II type 1 receptor antibodies (anti-AT1R-Abs) before transplantation on a multicentric cohort of kidney transplant recipients (2008-2012), under tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), screened by Luminex technology for anti-HLA immunization. Anti-AT1R antibody levels were measured by ELISA in pretransplantation sera of 940 kidney recipients from three French centers of the DIVAT cohort. Multivariable Cox models estimated the association between pretransplant anti-angiotensin II type 1 receptor antibodies and time to acute rejection episodes (ARE) or time to graft failure. Within our cohort, 387 patients (41.2%) had pretransplant AT1R-Abs higher than 10 U/ml and only 8% (72/970) greater than 17 U/ml. The cumulative probability of clinically relevant (cr)-ARE was 22.5% at 1 year post-transplantation [95% CI (19.9-25.4%)]. The cumulative probability of graft failure and patient death were 10.6% [95% CI (8.4-13.3%)] and 5.7% [95% CI (4.0-8.1%)] at 3 years post-transplantation, respectively. Multivariate Cox models indicated that pretransplant anti-AT1R antibody levels higher than 10 U/ml were not significantly independently associated with higher risks of acute rejection episodes [HR = 1.04, 95% CI (0.80-1.35)] nor with risk of graft failure [HR = 0.86, 95% CI (0.56-1.33)]. Our study did not confirm an association between pretransplant anti-AT1R antibody levels and kidney transplant outcomes.

BackgroundOld studies reported a worse outcome for second transplant recipient (STR) than for first transplant recipient (FTR) mainly due to non-comparable populations with numbers confounding factors. More recent analysis, based on improved methodology by using multivariate regressions, challenged this generally accepted idea: the poor prognosis for STR is still under debate.MethodologyTo assess the long-term patient-and-graft survival of STR compared to FTR, we performed an observational study based on the French DIVAT prospective cohort between 1996 and 2010 (N = 3103 including 641 STR). All patients were treated with a CNI, an mTOR inhibitor or belatacept in addition to steroids and mycophenolate mofetil for maintenance therapy. Patient-and-graft survival and acute rejection episode (ARE) were analyzed using Cox models adjusted for all potential confounding factors such as pre-transplant anti-HLA immunization.ResultsWe showed that STR have a higher risk of graft failure than FTR (HR = 2.18, p = 0.0013) but that this excess risk was observed after few years of transplantation. There was no significant difference between STR and FTR in the occurrence of either overall ARE (HR = 1.01, p = 0.9675) or steroid-resistant ARE (HR = 1.27, p = 0.4087).ConclusionsThe risk of graft failure following second transplantation remained consistently higher than that observed in first transplantation after adjusting for confounding factors. The rarely performed time-dependent statistical modeling may explain the heterogeneous conclusions of the literature concerning second transplantation outcomes. In clinical practice, physicians should not consider STR and FTR equally.

Supplemental digital content is available in the text.

Summary Compared to dialysis, kidney transplantation appears to be the best treatment for chronic kidney failure, even for older aged patients. Nevertheless, the individual benefit of transplanting elderly patients has to be balanced against the corresponding increase in the number of patients awaiting grafts. We analyzed the excess mortality related to kidney transplant recipients by taking into account the expected mortality of the general population (additive regression model for relative survival). We applied this method to a cohort of patients who received a first deceased‐donor kidney transplant between 1998 and 2009 in France (DIVAT, n = 3641). Overall 10‐year mortality was 13%. As expected, recipient age was the main risk factor associated with overall mortality. In contrast, recipient age was no longer significantly associated with the excess of mortality related to kidney transplant status by subtracting the expected mortality of the general population. Delayed graft function (DGF), pretransplantation immunization, and past history of diabetes appeared as the main risk factors of this higher mortality rate. Our results constitute a strong argument in favor of kidney transplantation, regardless of the patient's age. Preventing DGF may be more effective for decreasing the risk of death specifically attributable to the disease.

After the first year post transplantation, prognostic mortality scores in kidney transplant recipients can be useful for personalizing medical management. We developed a new prognostic score based on 5 parameters and computable at 1-year post transplantation. The outcome was the time between the first anniversary of the transplantation and the patient’s death with a functioning graft. Afterwards, we appraised the prognostic capacities of this score by estimating time-dependent Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves from two prospective and multicentric European cohorts: the DIVAT (Données Informatisées et VAlidées en Transplantation) cohort composed of patients transplanted between 2000 and 2012 in 6 French centers; and the STCS (Swiss Transplant Cohort Study) cohort composed of patients transplanted between 2008 and 2012 in 6 Swiss centers. We also compared the results with those of two existing scoring systems: one from Spain (Hernandez et al.) and one from the United States (the Recipient Risk Score, RRS, Baskin-Bey et al.). From the DIVAT validation cohort and for a prognostic time at 10 years, the new prognostic score (AUC = 0.78, 95%CI = [0.69, 0.85]) seemed to present significantly higher prognostic capacities than the scoring system proposed by Hernandez et al. (p = 0.04) and tended to perform better than the initial RRS (p = 0.10). By using the Swiss cohort, the RRS and the the new prognostic score had comparable prognostic capacities at 4 years (AUC = 0.77 and 0.76 respectively, p = 0.31). In addition to the current available scores related to the risk to return in dialysis, we recommend to further study the use of the score we propose or the RRS for a more efficient personalized follow-up of kidney transplant recipients.

When a patient is registered on renal transplant waiting list, she/he expects a clear information on the likelihood of being transplanted. Nevertheless, this event is in competition with death and usual models for competing events are difficult to interpret for non-specialists. We used a horizontal mixture model. Data were extracted from two French dialysis and transplantation registries. The "Ile-de-France" region was used for external validation. The other patients were randomly divided for training and internal validation. Seven variables were associated with decreased long-term probability of transplantation: age over 40 years, comorbidities (diabetes, cardiovascular disease, malignancy), dialysis longer than 1 year before registration and blood groups O or B. We additionally demonstrated longer mean time-to-transplantation for recipients under the age of 50, overweight recipients, recipients with blood group O or B and with pre-transplantation anti-HLA class I or II immunization. Our model can be used to predict the long-term probability of transplantation and the time in dialysis among transplanted patients, two easily interpretable parts. Discriminative capacities were validated on both the internal and external (AUC at 5 years = 0.72, 95% CI from 0.68 to 0.76) validation samples. However, calibration issues were highlighted and illustrated the importance of complete re-estimation of the model for other countries. We illustrated the ease of interpretation of horizontal modelling, which constitutes an alternative to sub-hazard or cause-specific approaches. Nevertheless, it would be useful to test this in practice, for instance by questioning both the physicians and the patients. We believe that this model should also be used in other chronic diseases, for both etiologic and prognostic studies.