Abstract
Background and objectives: Simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (SPK) is regarded as the treatment of choice for type 1 diabetes (T1DM) and kidney dysfunction, despite the morbidity associated with pancreas transplantation. These morbidities often influence selection of SPK versus living-donor kidney alone (LD KA) transplant. This study quantifies the impact of pancreas graft function on outcomes following SPK.
Design, setting, participants, & measurements: Using the SRTR database, SPK wait-listed patients transplanted from 1997 to 2005 were evaluated and segregated as: (1) SPK recipients with functioning pancreas graft 12 mo posttransplant (SPK, P+); (2) SPK recipients with loss of pancreas graft function within 12 mo posttransplant (SPK, P-); (3) recipients of deceased donor (DD) KA; (4) recipients of LD KA. The study compared patient and kidney graft survival to 84 mo posttransplant.
Results: Patient survival for SPK, P+ was significantly better than the LD KA; SPK, P-; and DD KA cohorts (88.6% versus 80.0%, 73.9% and 64.8%, respectively [P < 0.001]), a finding confirmed by multivariate analysis and not influenced by pancreas-after-kidney transplantation (PAK) rates and outcomes. Unadjusted graft survival was also highest in the SPK, P+ cohort (72.0% versus 63.6%, 59.8%, 49.7%, P = 0.015 versus LD KA).
Conclusions: SPK recipients with functioning pancreas grafts have superior survival compared with LD KA and DD KA, including in the setting of PAK. Early pancreas graft failure results in kidney and patient survival rates similar to KA. These data help further clarify the decision-making of SPK versus KA transplant options for patients and providers.
Transplant options for the patient with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) and severe renal dysfunction include simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (SPK), living donor kidney transplant alone (LD KA), or deceased donor kidney transplant alone (DD KA). The selection of one option over another is generally dependent on the patient's candidacy for pancreas transplant and the availability of a living donor. While it is generally accepted that SPK or LD KA is superior to DD KA for these patients, questions continue to arise regarding the relative benefit of SPK over LD KA. This, in turn, creates challenges to the clinician in advising which option may be best suited for an individual patient. For a patient who may have a potential living donor, one must balance the potential benefits of euglycemia provided by SPK versus the waiting time accrual and the risks of a larger surgery that are inherent to SPK.
SPK has been proposed to be the treatment of choice for patients with T1DM and severe renal dysfunction, due to potential reductions in microvascular and macrovascular complications, an improved quality of life, and prolonged kidney graft and patient survival (1–8). However, pancreas transplantation is not without risk. Compared with patients receiving DD KA, patients who receive an SPK have increased peri-operative mortality, higher rates of technical graft failure, re-laparotomy rates, and increased infection rates (9–11) contributing to an approximately 15% 1-yr pancreas graft loss rate in SPK (12). Because of the increased risk of pancreas transplantation, an important question to consider for patients with potential living donors is what the “cost” of a failed pancreas transplant would be in terms of kidney graft and patient survival if SPK was selected over LD KA.
This question becomes more ambiguous when the possibility of a pancreas-after-kidney transplant (PAK) is considered for patients with living donors. Database and single-center analyses indicate that SPK provides superior patient survival compared with DD KA, but may be equivalent to living donor KA (LD KA) (13,14). However, questions remain regarding the “added benefit” of PAK. Venstrom et al. demonstrated that in the setting of preserved renal function, pancreas transplant following kidney transplant (PAK) did not improve patient survival at 4 yr, with an increased relative risk of death of 42% following PAK compared with those receiving a kidney transplant alone (KA)(15). To date, no direct comparison of SPK recipients versus LD KA/ PAK recipients has been reported.
Given the lack of a concerted study to assist in evaluating the hazards of pancreas graft loss when advising patients regarding an SPK versus LD KA transplant, the authors sought to quantify the impact of early pancreas graft loss on kidney graft and patient survival following SPK. The potential impact of PAK transplant for KA recipients to determine if a later pancreas transplant was comparable to a successful SPK in recipients with type 1 diabetes also was assessed.
Materials and Methods
Standard Analysis Files (SAF) were utilized and supplied by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) to perform a retrospective database analysis of all patients on the SPK wait-list who were transplanted January 1997 through December 2005. Surviving recipients with kidney graft function at 12 mo posttransplant were separated into four groups: (1) SPK recipients with functioning pancreas graft at 12 mo posttransplant (SPK, P+); (2) SPK recipients with loss of pancreas graft function within 12 mo posttransplant (SPK, P-); (3) recipients of deceased donor (DD) KA; (4) recipients of living donor (LD) KA. Exclusion criteria included death or kidney graft loss before 12 mo posttransplant or follow-up less than 12 mo at the time of analysis. Figure 1 shows the distribution of the recipients that were analyzed for this study. Of 9630 patients transplanted from the SPK wait-list from January 1997 to December 2005, 7952 were SPK, 1062 were LD KA, and 616 were DD KA. Eighty-six percent, 85% and 84% of SPK, LD KA, and DD KA, respectively, survived to 12 mo with functioning kidney grafts. At 12 mo, 6486 SPKs with functioning kidney and pancreas grafts (SPK, P+), 371 SPKs with kidney function but nonfunctioning pancreas grafts (SPK, P-), 520 DD KA, and 904 LD KA were available for analysis (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Conceptual model.
Primary end points were patient survival and kidney allograft survival, followed to 84 mo. For patient survival, patients were followed until death or kidney graft loss. For unadjusted graft survival, patient death was included as graft loss regardless of the functional status of the kidney graft at the time of death.
Statistical analysis of baseline characteristics included the Wilcoxon rank sum test for comparison of continuous variables and the Chi-square test for association for comparison of categorical variables. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier (product-limit) estimator of survival and the log-rank test to compare survival curves. Univariate analysis and subsequent multivariate analysis using Cox regression was performed to control for variables shown to contribute to the primary end points.
Results
Baseline characteristics of the four groups are shown in Table 1. Significant differences between SPK and KA recipient cohorts were present despite limiting the analysis to SPK wait-listed candidates. Notably, wait-list time, pretransplant dialysis time, peak PRA, 0HLA mismatch, and prior kidney transplant were all higher in the DD KA cohort, while the rates of PAK and the era of transplant were more prevalent, and acute rejection less prevalent in the LD KA cohort compared with SPK recipients.
Table 1.
Baseline characteristics
| Group 1 (SPK, P+) | Group 2 (SPK, P-) | Group 3 DD KA | Group 4 LD KA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deceased Donor Factors: | ||||
| Age (year)b | 29.8 | 32.6 | 35.8 | NA |
| BMIb | 23.9 | 24.6 | 25.8 | NA |
| Race %a | – | – | – | NA |
| White | 73.6 | 75.1 | 82.2 | – |
| Black | 12.7 | 2.7 | 6.1 | – |
| Hispanic | 11.6 | 10.7 | 9.7 | – |
| Other | 2.0 | 2.7 | 2.0 | – |
| Gender (% male) | 66.9 | 67.3 | 65.5 | NA |
| Death %b | – | – | – | NA |
| Head Trauma | 68.8 | 59.6 | 51.9 | – |
| CVA | 20.6 | 31.2 | 30.7 | – |
| Other | 10.7 | 9.2 | 17.4 | – |
| Recipient Factors: | ||||
| Age (year)b | 39.9 | 39.5 | 42.5 | 40.3 |
| BMIb | 24.6 | 25.1 | 26.0 | 25.0 |
| Race:a | ||||
| White | 79.7 | 82.6 | 83.3 | 83.3 |
| Black | 11.9 | 10.2 | 10.4 | 8.3 |
| Hispanic | 6.9 | 5.3 | 5.2 | 6.6 |
| Other | 1.5 | 1.9 | 1.1 | 1.9 |
| Gender (% male)b | 60.1 | 52.8 | 58.3 | 54.3 |
| Wait-list Daysb | 344.8 | 351.8 | 562.1 | 251.8 |
| Dialysis Pretransplantb | ||||
| None | 21.7 | 22.0 | 16.5 | 31.1 |
| %≤6 months | 9.6 | 9.0 | 7.4 | 18.1 |
| %>6 ≤ 12 months | 13.4 | 13.1 | 10.6 | 20.7 |
| %>12 ≤ 24 months | 26.5 | 25.9 | 18.6 | 18.7 |
| %>24 months | 28.9 | 30.0 | 46.8 | 11.4 |
| Peak PRA %b | 8.1 | 8.3 | 19.5 | 9.3 |
| Previous Kidney Tx %b | 6.5 | 4.8 | 10.9 | 6.6 |
| Subsequent Pancreas Transplant% (PAK)b | 2.7 | 32.1 | 33.9 | 53.7 |
| Transplant Factors: | ||||
| Zero HLA Mismatch %b | 3.6 | 2.9 | 31.3 | 13.4 |
| CITb | ||||
| %≤12 h | 43.4 | 40.7 | 23.3 | 97.0 |
| %>12 ≤ 24 h | 51.4 | 50.0 | 56.0 | 1.5 |
| %>24 ≤ 36 h | 4.9 | 9.0 | 19.2 | 0.9 |
| %>36 h | 0.2 | 0.3 | 1.5 | 0.7 |
| DGF %b | 6.5 | 16.3 | 21.2 | 3.8 |
| Acute Rejection %b | 18.8 | 17.7 | 7.0 | 3.2 |
| Era of Transplant:% (2001-2005 versus 1997-2000)b | 53.4 | 48.5 | 82.3 | 81.1 |
P < 0.05;
P < 0.001.
Figure 2 shows 12-mo a) patient and b) kidney graft survival for SPK, LD KA and DD KA before separation into study arms (Figure 1). Patient survival for SPK, LD KA, and DD KA was 95.9%, 97.2%, 95.6% (LD KA versus SPK, P = 0.04 and LD KA versus DD KA, P = 0.1). Kidney graft survival was 92.0%, 94.8%, and 90.3%, respectively (LD KA versus SPK, P = 0.001, LD KA versus DD KA P < 0.001). As Figure 2 demonstrates, initial 12-mo graft and patient survival was significantly higher following LD KA than SPK.
Figure 2.
Patient and kidney graft survival to 12 mo in patients following simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (SPK), living-donor kidney alone (LD KA), or recipients of deceased donor (DD KA). Figure 2a: Kaplan-Meier 12-mo patient survival. SPK = 95.9%, DD KA = 95.6%, LD KA = 97.2% (P = 0.04 versus SPK, P = 0.10 versus DD KA). Figure 2b: Kaplan-Meier 12-mo kidney graft survival. SPK = 92.0%, DD KA = 90.3%, LD KA = 94.8% (P = 0.001 versus SPK, P < 0.001 versus DD KA).
Figures 3a, b, and c represent censored 84-mo Kaplan-Meier patient, unadjusted kidney graft, and death censored kidney graft survival in 12-mo survivors with kidney graft function. Patient survival (Figure 3a) was highest in the SPK, P+ group (88.6%) compared with LD KA (80.0%, P < 0.001). Loss of pancreas graft function within 12 mo of transplantation (SPK, P-) resulted in significantly worse patient survival compared with SPK, P+ (73.9%, P < 0.001), while DD KA recipients had the lowest patient survival (64.8% P < 0.001 versus SPK, P+). Unadjusted kidney graft survival (Figure 3b) again was highest in the SPK, P+ group compared with the remaining groups, but when kidney graft survival was censored for death with a functioning graft (Figure 3c), it was apparent that the differences noted between the groups could be entirely ascribed to differences in patient death. Table 2 demonstrates the between group log-rank comparisons and shows that the improved unadjusted kidney graft and patient survival seen in the SPK, P+ compared with the LD KA, SPK, P- and DD KA groups was statistically significant. For those SPK recipients who lost their pancreas graft within 12 mo posttransplant (SPK, P-), there was no statistically significant difference in either kidney graft or patient survival compared with LD KA or DD KA recipients.
Figure 3.
Patient, and Kidney Graft Survival to 84 mo (unadjusted and death-censored graft survival) in patients surviving 12 mo with kidney function. Figure 3a: Kaplan-Meier 84-mo patient survival. SPK, P+ = 88.6%,a LD KA = 80.0%, SPK,P- = 73.9%, DD KA = 64.8% (aP < 0.001 versus each group individually and collectively). Figure 3b: Kaplan-Meier 84-mo unadjusted kidney graft survival. SPK, P+ = 72.0%,a LD KA = 63.6%, SPK,P- = 59.8%, DD KA = 49.7% (aP < 0.001 versus SPK,P- and DD KA, P = 0.015 versus LD KA). Figure 3c: Kaplan-Meier 84-mo death-censored kidney graft survival (p = ns for all groups/comparisons).
Table 2.
84 Month Between-Group Log-Rank Comparisons
| 12 Month | 84 Month Unadjusted | P value | 84 Month | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Survivors | Graft Survival % | versus 1a | Patient Survival % | versus 1a |
| versus 4b | versus 4b | |||
| 1) SPK, P+ | 72.0 | — | 88.6 | — |
| 2) SPK, P- | 59.8 | <0.001a | 73.9 | <0.001a |
| NSb | NSb | |||
| 3) DD KA | 49.7 | <0.001a | 64.8 | <0.001a |
| 0.063b | 0.085b | |||
| 4) LD KA | 63.6 | 0.015a | 80.0 | <0.001a |
SPK, P+, pancreas-kidney transplantation recipients with functioning pancreas graft function within 12 mo posttransplant; SPK, P-, recipients with loss of pancreas graft function within 12 mo posttransplant; LD KA, living-donor kidney alone; DD KA, deceased donor kidney alone.
To identify factors contributing to these unadjusted findings, univariate analysis was performed for risk factors influencing graft and patient survival (Table 3). Risk factors significantly increasing risk of kidney graft loss included donor age, donor race, donor BMI, cause of donor death, recipient age, recipient race, pretransplant dialysis >24 mo, delayed graft function, era of transplant before 2001, and acute rejection. Factors significantly increasing the risk of patient death included donor race, recipient age, pretransplant dialysis >24 mo, delayed graft function, era of transplant before 2001, and zero HLA mismatch. We then performed a multivariate regression analysis controlling for the recipient and transplant factors, not including donor factors due to the inherent differences that exist between living donors and deceased donors and including PAK in the multivariate analysis given its strong correlation with LD KA status and potential for co-segregation (Table 4). Loss of the pancreas graft within the first 12 mo posttransplant conferred a 64% increased risk of kidney graft failure and 2.66-fold increased risk of patient death compared with SPK recipients with preserved pancreas graft function. Similarly, LD KA and DD KA both had >50% increased risk of graft loss and a twofold higher risk of death compared with SPK, P+ when controlling for known recipient and transplant differences that impact patient and graft survival.
Table 3.
Univariate Analysis of Risk Factors for Graft and Patient Survival
| HR Graft loss (95% CI) | HR Death (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Deceased Donor Factors | ||
| Age: | ||
| ≥35 versus <35 | 1.27 (1.12–1.44)b | 1.07 (0.88–1.31) |
| ≥50 versus <35 | 1.45 (1.09–1.92)a | 0.79 (0.45–1.38) |
| Race: | ||
| AA versus White | 1.40 (1.21–1.63)b | 1.52 (1.21–1.91)b |
| Other versus White | 0.99 (0.84–1.17) | 1.09 (0.84–1.40) |
| BMI: | ||
| >25–30 versus 20–25 | 1.13 (1.00–1.28)a | 1.54 (0.96–1.39) |
| >30 versus 20–25 | 1.03 (0.84–1.27) | 1.08 (0.79–1.48) |
| Gender: Male | 0.95 (0.85–1.06) | 1.11 (0.93–1.32) |
| Death: | ||
| CVA versus Head Trauma | 1.23 (1.09–1.40)a | 1.16 (0.96–1.41) |
| Other versus Head Trauma | 1.32 (1.11–1.58)a | 1.25 (0.96–1.63) |
| Recipient/Transplant Factors: | ||
| Age: | ||
| ≥35 versus <35 | 0.77 (0.69–0.87)b | 1.21 (1.00–1.47)a |
| ≥50 versus <35 | 1.00 (0.85–1.18) | 2.13 (1.67–2.71)b |
| Race: AA versus White | 1.52 (1.31–1.76)b | 1.14 (0.89–1.45) |
| Other versus White | 0.96 (0.78–1.78) | 0.74 (0.52–1.04) |
| Previous Kidney Transplant | 1.22 (0.98–1.51) | 1.23 (0.89–1.70) |
| Subsequent Pancreas Transplant (PAK) | 0.96 (0.81–1.15) | 1.23 (0.96–1.59) |
| Peak PRA >0 | 1.02 (0.92–1.13) | 1.23 (0.89–1.70) |
| Pre-Transplant Dialysis: | ||
| <12m versus None | 1.15 (0.99–1.34) | 1.11 (0.88–1.40) |
| >12–24m versus None | 1.17 (1.01–1.36)a | 1.14 (0.90–1.43) |
| >24m versus None | 1.41 (1.22–1.63)b | 1.49 (1.20–1.86)b |
| CIT | ||
| 12–23 h versus <12 h | 0.97 (0.86–1.10) | 0.90 (0.75–1.07) |
| 24 ≤ 36 h versus <12 h | 1.15 (0.91–1.44) | 1.23 (0.88–1.71) |
| Zero HLA Mismatch | 1.09 (0.88–1.34) | 1.50 (1.34–1.98)a |
| Delayed Graft Function | 1.72 (1.45–2.03)b | 1.77 (1.38–2.28)b |
| Acute Rejection | 1.22 (1.08–1.37)a | 0.89 (0.74–1.09) |
| Era of Transplant:2001–2005 versus 1997–2000 | 0.79 (0.70–0.89)b | 0.60 (0.50–0.73)b |
P < 0.05;
P < 0.001.
Table 4.
Multivariate Analysis of Risk Factors for Graft and Patient Survivala
| HR Graft Loss (95% CI) | HR Death (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| SPK, P+ | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| SPK, P- | 1.64 (1.31–2.05)b | 2.66 (1.98–3.57)b |
| DD KA | 1.63 (1.28–2.06)b | 2.05 (1.48–2.83)b |
| LD KA | 1.51 (1.22–1.88)b | 1.98 (1.47–2.67)b |
Included significant variables in stepwise backward regression: Recipient age, recipient race, pretransplant dialysis time, delayed graft function, acute rejection, 0HLA mismatch, PAK status, transplant era (>2000).
P < 0.001 for all comparisons
It was then determined if the addition of a PAK provided a benefit to those patients receiving KA (LD or DD) or to SPK recipients who suffered early loss of the pancreas (Table 5). While numerically those patients that underwent subsequent PAK had higher graft and patient survival rates in each subset, this only reached statistical significance for kidney graft survival in the LD KA cohort. Furthermore, patient survival (but not kidney graft survival) remained statistically higher for the SPK,P+ group compared with all other subsets, indicating that while PAK offered a nominal improvement in outcomes, this did not overcome the survival advantages of a successful SPK.
Table 5.
Five-YearActuarial Patient and Kidney Graft Survival Rates in Patients Surviving with Kidney Function at One Year: Influence of PAK
| 12-Month Survivors | n | Unadjusted Kidney Graft Survival (%) | Patient Survival (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| SPK, P- | 252 | 72.4 | 81.8 |
| SPK, P- (PAK) | 119 | 81.2 | 87.6 |
| LD KA | 419 | 75.9 | 85.6 |
| LD KA (PAK) | 485 | 83.0c | 89.6 |
| DD KA | 344 | 69.1 | 80.2 |
| DD KA (PAK) | 176 | 76.0 | 87.2 |
| SPK, P+ | 6486 | 83.1b | 93.6ab |
P = 0.03 versus DD KA (PAK), P = 0.005 versus LD KA (PAK), P = 0.02 versus SPK,P- (PAK), P < 0.0001 versus all non-PAK groups.
P = 0.0001 versus SPK, P-, LD KA, and DD KA.
P = 0.006 versus LD KA.
No other significant differences between groups, PAK versus no PAK.
Discussion
The results of this study help clarify the risks and benefits of SPK versus KA (both LD KA and DD KA) when discussing these treatment options with patients. First, consistent with prior reports (13,15,16), an increased rate of death and graft loss of approximately 2% to 3%, when comparing SPK to LD KA within the first 12 mo following transplant, was shown. Second, for the first time it was demonstrated that for patients who survive the first year after transplant with a functioning kidney, SPK recipients with a functional pancreas enjoy a survival advantage when compared with LD KA. Third, for SPK survivors who lose function of the pancreas graft within the first year, it was shown than the survival advantage of this treatment option is eliminated and has outcomes parallel to those achieved with DD KA outcomes. Fourth, the study demonstrates that KA recipients who subsequently undergo PAK benefit nominally from the additional surgery, but still do not achieve similar survival as those with a functioning SPK.
Registry data demonstrates that for the period 1999 to 2004, the one-year pancreas survival rate for SPK recipients was approximately 85% (12), a success rate that has improved over time (17,18). Given these data in combination with the results of this study, one could estimate that approximately 80% of SPK recipients overall would be expected to enjoy better patient survival compared with LD KA, while 20% of SPK recipients would fare slightly worse than LD KA. These survival differences persist even in the setting of subsequent PAK. For patients and providers who are considering the options of LD KA versus SPK, these results can be summarized as follows: there is an increased perioperative risk of death and kidney graft loss with SPK versus LD KA of approximately 2% to 3%, plus an additional chance that the pancreas will fail within the first year (approximately 15% to 20%), which then influences outcomes. In the approximately 80% of patients who survive with a functional kidney and pancreas, patient survival of SPK recipients is superior, while in the remainder who suffer pancreas graft loss, the outcomes following SPK are nominally worse than LD KA.
There are a number of potential reasons for improved patient survival with a functional SPK. While it is clear that intensive glucose control results in reduction in both microvascular and macrovascular complications in T1DM, (19,20), the impact of pancreas transplantation on complications of diabetes, including nephropathy, retinopathy, and neuropathy, is more subtle (1,7,8). One potential explanation is that stabilization of diabetes control may lead to a reduction in cardiac events, a hypothesis supported by others (21–25). However, since 5-yr pancreas graft survival following SPK is only 71% (12), explanations other than euglycemia must be considered to account for the improved outcomes. Inherent differences in donor, recipient and transplant characteristics between SPK and KA cohorts (Table 1) might be expected to favor the SPK group regardless of beta cell function. When controlling for these differences in regression analysis, SPK,P-; LD KA; and DD KA all performed poorly when compared with SPK,P+ (Table 4), consistent with findings in some (26), but not all (27), studies. The inconsistency in the literature suggests that it is difficult to fully control for these baseline differences. Analysis was limited to patients listed for SPK in an effort to minimize these inherent differences, both measured and unmeasured.
A number of potential explanations for the worse outcomes of the SPK, P- group should also be considered. One could hypothesize that donor quality was different in those with failed versus surviving pancreas grafts. From available baseline characteristics, only donor death by cerebrovascular accident incidence and recipient delayed graft function rates (defined by dialysis within the first week) were different in those with pancreas graft loss compared with those without pancreas graft loss. Given these differences, it is possible that unaccounted-for donor factors may have contributed to pancreas loss in the SPK,P- cohort and contributed to additional comorbidities (infection, repeated operations, rejection) that not only impacted pancreas graft survival within the first year, but also patient survival in subsequent years. Since the incidence of rejection was not different between the SPK,P- and SPK,P+ groups, and the graft loss due to rejection formed only a small percentage (3.2%) of causes of pancreas graft loss, rejection is an unlikely distinguishing feature between the SPK,P+ and SPK,P- groups. Another potential explanation for the differences between SPK,P+ and SPK,P- outcomes is that if pancreas graft loss was associated with diminished kidney function at 12 mo (e.g., due to prolonged acute kidney injury or concurrent acute rejection episodes), both patient and kidney graft survival may be diminished. Unfortunately, kidney function data were not captured reliably at 12 mo in our dataset to stratify patients by degree of renal function, but given the similar death-censored kidney graft loss data for all four cohorts (Figure 3c), it is less likely that significant differences in renal function were present at the 12-mo time point.
A novel finding within this study is that SPK recipients with function at 12 mo had greater patient survival than LD KA cohorts, regardless of whether the LD KA recipient underwent a subsequent PAK. This difference was noted on unadjusted analysis, was present despite a very low acute rejection rate in the LD KA cohort, and persisted after multivariate analysis. These findings add to the ongoing debate regarding the benefit of LD KA/PAK versus SPK (15,16) and support the concept that SPK transplant may be superior to PAK. While it was shown that the cohort of LD KA recipients who undergo PAK have better kidney graft survival, but a nonstatistically significant improvement in patient survival compared with LD KA alone, the possibility of selection bias in the selection of patients who ultimately receive PAK must be taken into consideration.
This study provides novel findings that are distinct from the current literature. Other studies have shown that pancreas graft function contributes to improved patient and kidney graft survival, but fail to quantify this degree of benefit (or cost) compared with LD KA. SPK recipients without pancreas function at 90 d(28) or 12 mo (29) posttransplant suffer worse kidney (28) and patient (29) survival when compared with SPK recipients with preserved pancreas function. Notably, these studies were hindered by the single-center nature of one trial (28) and the outcomes reported from an earlier era (1987 to 1996) in the other (29). Neither study compares the outcomes of the SPK recipient with a failed pancreas to a KA cohort with or without PAK. Recently, another study of SPK and KA recipients who had maintained kidney function 10 yr posttransplant demonstrated greater 18-yr patient survival with SPK versus LD KA, further noting that SPK recipients had greater survival if their pancreas was also functional at 10 yr (30). Like the authors’ study, this study provided evidence of the long-term benefit of a functional pancreas, but no comparison of SPK recipients with a failed pancreas to a KA cohort was made, and thus the authors’ study is the only one of its kind to quantify both the “benefit” of a successful SPK transplant and “cost” of a failed pancreas versus the option of KA transplant.
While this information may assist in the ongoing comparison of the relative benefits of SPK compared with LD KA, a number of limitations of this study deserve mention. This study is retrospective and observational in nature, and, therefore, the authors are unable to specifically describe why patients with preserved pancreas graft function benefit from improved patient survival. In addition, because of its retrospective design, the researchers were only able to analyze and report the variables available through the Standard Analysis Files from SRTR, in which certain variables are universally collected, while others are less complete. In particular, acute rejection reporting is complicated by various definitions and is underreported in database formats. The differences in acute rejection between KA cohorts and SPK cohorts should therefore be interpreted with caution. Analysis was limited to the period 1997 to 2005 to account for the implementation of newer immunosuppressive agents (tacrolimus, mycophenolate) rather than relying on initial immunosuppression medications reported to United Network for Organ Sharing/Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients, given the frequency that these medications are altered posttransplant (31,32) and the recent data-reduction plans to eliminate these data from collection.
In conclusion, the status of the pancreas graft at one year is a significant determinant to the SPK recipient's long-term outcomes, both in terms of kidney graft function and survival. When comparing these outcomes to LD KA transplantation, an SPK with a functional pancreas is associated with improved survival, and a failed pancreas is associated with worse comparative outcomes. This information can readily be used when discussing transplant options for patients with Type 1 Diabetes and advanced kidney disease.
Disclosures
None.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients for providing Standard Analysis Files of donors and recipients for this study and for providing valuable technical support. The abstract for this manuscript was presented as an oral presentation at the 2008 American Transplant Congress in Toronto, ON, on June 1, 2008. The authors thank the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients.
Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.cjasn.org.
References
- 1.Fioretto P, Steffes MW, Sutherland DE, Goetz FC, Mauer M: Reversal of lesions of diabetic nephropathy after pancreas transplantation. N Engl J Med 339: 69–75, 1998 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Wilczek HE, Jaremko G, Tyden G, Groth CG: Evolution of diabetic nephropathy in kidney grafts. Evidence that a simultaneously transplanted pancreas exerts a protective effect. Transplantation 59: 51–57, 1995 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Wang Q, Klein R, Moss SE, Klein BE, Hoyer C, Burke K, Sollinger HW: The influence of combined kidney-pancreas transplantation on the progression of diabetic retinopathy. A case series. Ophthalmology 101: 1071–1076, 1994 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Koznarová R, Saudek F, Sosna T, Adamec M, Jedináková T, Boucek P, Bartos V, Lánská V: Beneficial effect of pancreas and kidney transplantation on advanced diabetic retinopathy. Cell Transplant 9: 903–908, 2000 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Sureshkumar KK, Mubin T, Mikhael N, Kashif MA, Nghiem DD, Marcus RJ: Assessment of quality of life after simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation. Am J Kidney Dis 39: 1300–1306, 2002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Navarro X, Sutherland DE, Kennedy WR: Long-term effects of pancreatic transplantation on diabetic neuropathy. Ann Neurol 42: 727–736, 1997 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Allen RD, Al-Harbi IS, Morris JG, Clouston PD, O'Connell PJ, Chapman JR, Nankivell BJ: Diabetic neuropathy after pancreas transplantation: Determinants of recovery. Transplantation 63: 830–838, 1997 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Pearce IA, Ilango B, Sells RA, Wong D: Stabilisation of diabetic retinopathy following simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplant. Br J Ophthalmol 84: 736–740, 2000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Steurer W, Bonatti H, Obrist P, Spechtenhauser B, Ladurner R, Mark W, Gardetto A, Margreiter R, Königsrainer A: Incidence of intraabdominal infection in a consecutive series of 40 enteric-drained pancreas transplants with FK506 and MMF immunosuppression. Transpl Int 13 Suppl 1: S195–S198, 2000 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Berger N, Wirmsberger R, Kafka R, Margreiter C, Ebenbichler C, Stelzmueller I, Margreiter R, Steurer W, Mark W, Bonatti H: Infectious complications following 72 consecutive enteric-drained pancreas transplants. Transpl Int 19: 549–557, 2006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Monroy-Cuadros M, Salazar A, Yilmaz S, McLaughlin K: Bladder vs enteric drainage in simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 21: 483–487, 2006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Port FK, Merion RM, Finley MP, Goodrich NP, Wolfe RA: Trends in organ donation and transplantation in the United States, 1996–2005. Am J Transplant 7: 1319–1326, 2007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Ojo AO, Meier-Kriesche HU, Hanson JA, Leichtman A, Magee JC, Cibrik D, Wolfe RA, Port FK, Agodoa L, Kaufman DB, Kaplan B: The impact of simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation on long-term patient survival. Transplantation 71: 82–90, 2001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Rayhill SC, D'Alessandro AM, Odorico JS, Knechtle SJ, Pirsch JD, Heisey DM, Kirk AD, Van der Werf W, Sollinger HW: Simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation and living related donor renal transplantation in patients with diabetes: Is there a difference in survival? Ann Surg 231: 417–423, 2000 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Venstrom JM, McBride MA, Rother KI, Hirshberg B, Orchard TJ, Harlan DM: Survival after pancreas transplantation in patients with diabetes and preserved kidney function. JAMA 290: 2817–2823, 2003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Gruessner RW, Sutherland DE, Gruessner AC: Mortality assessment for pancreas transplants. Am J Transplant 4: 2018–2026, 2004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Sutherland DE, Gruessner RW, Dunn DL, Matas AJ, Humar A, Kandaswamy R, Mauer SM, Kennedy WR, Goetz FC, Robertson RP, Gruessner AC, Najarian JS: Lessons learned from more than 1,000 pancreas transplants at a single institution. Ann Surg 233: 463–501, 2001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Gruessner AC, Sutherland DE: Pancreas transplant outcomes for United States (US) and non-US cases as reported to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) and the International Pancreas Transplant Registry (IPTR) as of June 2004. Clin Transplant 219: 433–455, 2005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. N Engl J Med 329: 977–986, 1993 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Nathan DM, Cleary PA, Backlund JY, Genuth SM, Lachin JM, Orchard TJ, Raskin P, Zinman B; Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) Study Research Group: Intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 353: 2643–2653, 2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.La Rocca E, Fiorina P, di Carlo V, Astorri E, Rossetti C, Lucignani G, Fazio F, Giudici D, Cristallo M, Bianchi G, Pozza G, Secchi A: Cardiovascular outcomes after kidney-pancreas and kidney-alone transplantation. Kidney Int 60: 1964–1971, 2001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Luan FL, Miles CD, Cibrik DM, Ojo AO: Impact of simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation on cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Transplantation 84: 541–544, 2007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Larsen JL, Colling CW, Ratanasuwan T, Burkman TW, Lynch TG, Erickson JM, Lyden ER, Lane JT, Mack-Shipman LR: Pancreas transplantation improves vascular disease in patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 27: 1706–1711, 2004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Fiorina P, Folli F, D'Angelo A, Finzi G, Pellegatta F, Guzzi V, Fedeli C, Della Valle P, Usellini L, Placidi C, Bifari F, Belloni D, Ferrero E, Capella C, Secchi A: Normalization of multiple hemostatic abnormalities in uremic type 1 diabetic patients after kidney-pancreas transplantation. Diabetes 53: 2291–2300, 2004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Fiorina P, La Rocca E, Venturini M, Minicucci F, Fermo I, Paroni R, D'Angelo A, Sblendido M, Di Carlo V, Cristallo M, Del Maschio A, Pozza G, Secchi A: Effects of kidney-pancreas transplantation on atherosclerotic risk factors and endothelial function in patients with uremia and type 1 diabetes. Diabetes 50: 496–501, 2001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Israni AK, Feldman HI, Propert KJ, Leonard M, Mange KC: Impact of simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplant and timing of transplant on kidney allograft survival. Am J Transplant 5: 374–382, 2005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Bunnapradist S, Cho YW, Cecka JM, Wilkinson A, Danovitch GM: Kidney allograft and patient survival in type I diabetic recipients of cadaveric kidney alone versus simultaneous pancreas kidney transplants: A multivariate analysis of the UNOS database. J Am Soc Nephrol 14: 208–213, 2003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Hill M, Garcia R, Dunn T, Kandaswamy R, Sutherland DE, Humar A: What happens to the kidney in an SPK transplant when the pancreas fails due to a technical complication? Clin Transplant 22: 456–461, 2008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Reddy KS, Stablein D, Taranto S, Stratta RJ, Johnston TD, Waid TH, McKeown JW, Lucas BA, Ranjan D: Long-term survival following simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplantation versus kidney transplantation alone in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and renal failure. Am J Kidney Dis 41: 464–470, 2003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Morath C, Zeier M, Dohler B, Schmidt J, Nawroth PP, Opelz G: Metabolic control improves long-term renal allograft and patient survival in type 1 diabetes. J Am Soc Nephrol 19: 1557–1563, 2008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Meier-Kriesche HU, Li S, Gruessner RW, Fung JJ, Bustami RT, Barr ML, Leichtman AB: Immunosuppression: Evolution in practice and trends, 1994–2004. Am J Transplant 6: 1111–1131, 2006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Yang H: Maintenance immunosuppression regimens: Conversion, minimization, withdrawal, and avoidance. Am J Kidney Dis 47: S37–S51, 2006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]