Background. There is a scarcity of data on the consequences of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) infections in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) from emerging countries. Methods. Here, we present a cohort study of 13 transplant centers in India including 250 KTR (226 living and 24 deceased donors) with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 positivity from March 23, 2020, until September 15, 2020. We detailed demographics, immunosuppression regimen, clinical profile, treatment, and outcomes. Results. Median age of transplant recipients was 43 years, and recipients presented at a median of 3.5 years after transplant. Most common comorbidities (94%) included arterial hypertension (84%) and diabetes (32%); presenting symptoms at the time of COVID-19 included fever (88%), cough (72%), and sputum production (52%). Clinical severity ranged from asymptomatic (6%), mild (60%), and moderate (20%) to severe (14%). Strategies to modify immunosuppressants included discontinuation of antimetabolites without changes in calcineurin inhibitors and steroids (60%). Risk factors for mortality included older age; dyspnea; severe disease; obesity; allograft dysfunction before COVID-19 infection; acute kidney injury; higher levels of inflammatory markers including C-reactive protein, interleukin-6 level, and procalcitonin; chest X-ray abnormality, and intensive care unit/ventilator requirements. Overall patient mortality was 11.6% (29 of 250), 14.5% (29 of 200) in hospitalized patients, 47% (25 of 53) in intensive care unit patients, and 96.7% (29 of 30) in patients requiring ventilation. KTRs with mild COVID-19 symptoms (n = 50) were managed as outpatients to optimize the utilization of scarce resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions. Mortality rates in COVID-19-positive KTR appear to be higher than those in nonimmunosuppressed patients, and high mortality was noted among those requiring intensive care and those on ventilator.

In a living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) dominated transplant programme, kidney paired donation (KPD) may be a cost-effective and valid alternative strategy to increase LDKT in countries with limited resources where deceased donation kidney transplantation (DDKT) is in the initial stages. Here, we report our experience of 300 single-centre KPD transplantations to increase LDKT in India. Between January 2000 and July 2016, 3616 LDKT and 561 DDKT were performed at our transplantation centre, 300 (8.3%) using KPD. The reasons for joining KPD among transplanted patients were ABO incompatibility (n = 222), positive cross-match (n = 59) and better matching (n = 19). A total of 124 two-way (n = 248), 14 three-way (n = 42), one four-way (n = 4) and one six-way exchange (n = 6) yielded 300 KPD transplants. Death-censored graft and patient survival were 96% (n = 288) and 83.3% (n = 250), respectively. The mean serum creatinine was 1.3 mg/dl at a follow-up of 3 ± 3 years. We credit the success of our KPD programme to maintaining a registry of incompatible pairs, counselling on KPD, a high-volume LDKT programme and teamwork. KPD is legal, cost effective and rapidly growing for facilitating LDKT with incompatible donors. This study provides large-scale evidence for the expansion of single-centre LDKT via KPD when national programmes do not exist.

No abstract

AIMTo avoid desensitization protocols and ABO incompatible kidney transplantation (KT) due to high costs and increased risk of infections from intense immunosuppression.METHODSWe present institutional ethical review board - approved study of single center 6-way kidney exchange transplantation. The participants comprised ABO incompatibility (n = 1); positive cross-match and/or presence of donor specific antibody (n = 5). The average time required from registration in kidney paired donation (KPD) registry to find suitable donors was 45 d and time required to perform transplants after legal permission was 2 mo.RESULTSGraft and patient survival were 100%, and 100%, respectively. One patient had biopsy-proven acute borderline T cell rejection (Banff update 2013, type 3). Mean serum creatinine was 0.8 mg/dL at 9 mo follow-up. The waiting time in KPD was short as compared to deceased donor KT.CONCLUSIONWe report first non-simultaneous, single center, 6-way kidney exchange transplantation from India. Our experience will encourage other centers in India to undertake this practice.

LKT after living-donor nephrectomy is feasible, but it has steep learning curve. Graft fixation with peritoneal fold is necessary to avoid torsion and related graft loss. Pain after LKT is significantly less compared with conventional OKT.

This is a report of 10 simultaneous KPD transplantations in a single day in a single centre on WKD raising awareness of KPD. KPD is viable, legal and rapidly growing modality for facilitating LRDRTx for patients who are incompatible with their healthy, willing LRD.

BackgroundTo ascertain the validity of kidney paired donations (KPDs) as an alternative strategy for increasing living donor kidney transplantations (LDKTs) in an LDKT-dominated transplant programme since directed kidney transplantation, ABO-incompatible or crossmatch-positive pairs are not feasible due to costs and infectious complications.MethodsThis was a prospective single-centre study of 77 KPD transplantations (25 two-way, 7 three-way and 1 six-way exchange) from 1 January 2015 to 1 January 2016 of 158 registered donor recipient pairs. During this period, a total of 380 kidney transplantations [71 deceased donor kidney transplantations (DDKTs), 309 LDKTs] were performed. The reasons for opting for KPD were ABO incompatibility (n = 45), sensitization (n = 26) and better matching (n = 6).ResultsKPD matching was facilitated in 62% (n = 98) of transplants. In all, 48.7% (n = 77) of the transplants were completed in 2015, whereas 13.3% (n = 21) of the matched patients were to undergo transplant surgery in early 2016 after getting legal permission. The waiting time for KPD was shorter compared with DDKT. The death-censored graft survival and patient survival were 98.7% (n = 76) and 93.5% (n = 72), respectively. In all, 14.2% (n = 11) of patients had acute rejection. Match rates among sensitized (n = 60) and O group patients (n = 62) were 58.3% (n = 35) and 41.9% (n = 26), respectively. Of these, 43.3% (n = 26) and 29% (n = 18) of transplants were completed and 15% (n = 9) and 12.9% (n = 8), respectively, are waiting for legal permission.ConclusionsLDKT increased by 25% in 1 year in our single-centre KPD programme. Our key to success was the formation of a KPD registry, awareness and active counselling programs and developing a dedicated team.

Kidney exchange transplantation is well established modality to increase living donor kidney transplantation. Reasons for joining kidney exchange programs are ABO blood group incompatibility, immunological incompatibility (positive cross match or donor specific antibody), human leukocyte antigen (HLA) incompatibility (poor HLA matching), chronological incompatibility and financial incompatibility. Kidney exchange transplantation has evolved from the traditional simultaneous anonymous 2-way kidney exchange to more complex ways such as 3-way exchange, 4-way exchange, n-way exchange,compatible pair, non-simultaneous kidney exchange,non-simultaneous extended altruistic donor, never ending altruistic donor, kidney exchange combined with desensitization, kidney exchange combined with ABO incompatible kidney transplantation, acceptable mismatch transplant, use of A2 donor to O patients, living donor-deceased donor list exchange, domino chain, non-anonymous kidney exchange, single center, multicenter, regional, National, International and Global kidney exchange. Here we discuss recent advances in kidney exchanges such as International kidney exchange transplantation in a global environment, three categories of advanced donation program, deceased donors as a source of chain initiating kidneys, donor renege myth or reality, pros and cons of anonymity in developed world and (non-) anonymity in developing world, pros and cons of donor travel vs kidney transport, algorithm for management of incompatible donor-recipient pairs and pros and cons of Global kidney exchange. The participating transplant teams and donor-recipient pairs should make the decision by consensus about kidney donor travel vs kidney transport and anonymity vs non-anonymity in allocation as per local resources and logistics. Future of organ transplantation in resource-limited setting will be liver vs kidney exchange, a legitimate hope or utopia?