P1633STANDARDIZED REVIEW OF DONOR AFTER BRAIN DEATH KIDNEY OFFERS; A QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Authors: Riddell Amy , Munro Deborah , Varughese Lins , Edwards Anusha , Turner Samuel , Taylor Dominic 
Published: June 2020

Abstract

Background and Aims
Transplanting renal centres have a duty to use the finite resource of the deceased-donor kidney pool to benefit potential recipients without exposing them to excessive risk. However, there is known variation in centre and clinician practice. This may relate to clinicians’ attitude to risk, knowledge of the recipient and unit culture. Centre differences in acceptability of donor organs is evidenced by variation in NHS blood and transplant registry data. Use of marginal donors has become more frequent, especially for older recipients with higher comorbidity. In the UK this year we will see whether switching to an ‘opt out’ donation law further increases this proportion of donors.
We developed a systematic method to retrospectively review donation after brain death (DBD) kidney offers declined by our centre, with the intention of reducing variation in practice between clinicians, and identifying cases where offer acceptance may have been appropriate

Method
All DBD kidney offers declined by the Richard Bright Renal Service between June 2018 and May 2019 were reviewed. Data were collected by casenotes review and by contact with other transplanting units to establish the outcome of donor kidneys and recipient progress. Reasons for offer decline were recorded. Donor and recipient risk indices (DRI and RRI) were calculated. For patients now transplanted, the DRI of the declined offer was compared to the DRI of the transplanted kidney.

Results
During the study period, 98 DBD kidneys were declined. A donor organ identifier was not available in 8 cases, so 90 are considered here. Average donor age was 57 years with 52% having a Donor Risk Index (DRI) score of 4, and 74.7% a DRI score ≥3. The most common reasons for organ decline were donor related (65%), of which 27% were due to poor kidney function and 22% age mismatch; or recipient related (35%), where 30% were deemed inadequate quality for the recipient and 30% were unavailable or unwell. Of those kidneys which were transplanted elsewhere, 88% were functioning at 6 months with a median creatinine of 119 (IQR 106-148).
There were 60 potential recipients, 61% of whom had a RRI score ≥3; 44% had a RRI equal to or less than the DRI of the declined organ. Those who have still not been transplanted have accrued a median of 352 extra days on dialysis. 31 recipients (52%) have been transplanted since their declined offer. The median change in DRI score from the declined offer to the accepted offer was -1 (IQR -2 to 1), and offers were accepted after a median of 45 (IQR 14-143) additional dialysis days. Of those who were transplanted after declining a donor offer, 11 (39%) received a kidney from a donor with equal or worse DRI than the original offer, after a median of 49 further days on dialysis.

Conclusion
This review process highlights the effect of kidney offer decline on future progress of the potential recipient, as well as differences in our centre practice compared to other centres. Key to this review is to highlight the risks involved with DBD organ decline- 18% of recipients ultimately received an equal or inferior kidney while accruing additional time on dialysis. Alongside this review we have implemented strategies including a policy on AKI in donors and monthly multidisciplinary meetings to discuss individual DBD decline cases. We aim to standardize decision making and increase our utilization of all as well as marginal DBD organs, and expect to show a reduction in variation in practice in future reviews. Use of this process in other units or at a national level could reduce unwarranted variation in the utilization of the donor organ pool.