Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Jun 23;3(7):e177.
doi: 10.1097/TXD.0000000000000680. eCollection 2017 Jul.

Impact of Cold Ischemia Time in Kidney Transplants From Donation After Circulatory Death Donors

Liise Kayler  1 , Xia Yu  2 , Carlos Cortes  2 , Michelle Lubetzky  3 , Patricia Friedmann  4
Affiliations

Impact of Cold Ischemia Time in Kidney Transplants From Donation After Circulatory Death Donors

Liise Kayler et al. Transplant Direct. .

Abstract

Background: Deceased-donor kidneys are exposed to ischemic events from donor instability during the process of donation after circulatory death (DCD). Clinicians may be reluctant to transplant DCD kidneys with prolonged cold ischemia time (CIT) for fear of an additional deleterious effect.

Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study examining US registry data between 1998 and 2013 of adult first-time kidney-only recipients of paired kidneys (derived from the same donor transplanted into different recipients) from DCD donors.

Results: On multivariable analysis, death-censored graft survival (DCGS) was comparable between recipients of kidneys with higher CIT relative to paired donor recipients with lower CIT when the CIT difference was 1 hour or longer (adjusted hazard ratio, [aHR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-1.17; n = 6276), 5 hours or longer (aHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.80-1.19; n = 3130), 10 hours or longer (aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.82-1.60; n = 1124) or 15 hours (aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.66-1.99; n = 498). There was a higher rate of primary non function in the long CIT groups for delta 1 hour or longer (0.89% vs 1.63%; P = 0.006), 5 hours (1.09% vs 1.67%, P = 0.13); 10 hours (0.53% vs 1.78%; P = 0.03), and 15 hours (0.40% vs 1.61%; P = 0.18), respectively. Between each of the 4 delta CIT levels of shorter and longer CIT, there was a significantly and incrementally higher rate of delayed graft function in the long CIT groups for delta 1 hour or longer (37.3% vs 41.7%; P < 0.001), 5 hours (35.9% vs 42.7%; P < 0.001), 10 hours (29.4% vs 44.2%, P < 0.001), and 15 hours (29.6% vs 46.1%, P < 0.001), respectively. Overall patient survival was comparable with delta CITs of 1 hour or longer (aHR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.84-1.08), 5 hours (aHR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.85-1.20), and 15 hours (aHR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.79-2.06) but not 10 hours (aHR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.09-1.98).

Conclusions: These results suggest that in the setting of a prior ischemic donor event, prolonged CIT has limited bearing on long-term outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no funding or conflicts of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Flow diagram of cohort creation.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
A, Kaplan-Meier plots of DCGS, all-cause graft survival, and patient survival in pairs with shorter and longer cold ischemia time with 1 hour or longer difference. B, Kaplan-Meier plots of DCGS, all-cause graft survival, and patient survival in DCD donor pairs with shorter and longer cold ischemia time with 5 hours or longer difference. C, Kaplan-Meier plots of DCGS, all-cause graft survival, and patient survival in pairs with shorter and longer cold ischemia time with 10 hours or longer difference. D, Kaplan-Meier plots of DCGS, all-cause graft survival, and patient survival in pairs with shorter and longer cold ischemia time with 15 hours or longer difference.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Proportion of patients with DGF by delta CIT.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Proportion of patients with acute rejection at 1 year by delta CIT.
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
Proportion of patients with primary nonfunction by delta CIT.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Shapiro R, Halloran PF, Delmonico FL, et al. The “two, one, zero” decision: what to do with suboptimal deceased donor kidneys. Am J Transplant. 2010;10:1959–1960. - PubMed
    1. Massie AB, Desai NM, Montgomery RA, et al. Improving distribution efficiency of hard-to-place deceased donor kidneys: predicting probability of discard or delay. Am J Transplant. 2010;10:1613–1620. - PubMed
    1. Summers DM, Johnson RJ, Hudson A, et al. Effect of donor age and cold storage time on outcome in recipients of kidneys donated after circulatory death in the UK: a cohort study. Lancet. 2013;381:727–734. - PubMed
    1. Locke JE, Segev DL, Warren DS, et al. Outcomes of kidneys from donors after cardiac death: implications for allocation and preservation. Am J Transplant. 2007;7:1797–1807. - PubMed
    1. Opelz G, Döhler B. Multicenter analysis of kidney preservation. Transplantation. 2007;83:247–253. - PubMed