Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:Transplant renal artery stenosis (TRAS) after renal transplantation is a common cause of graft dysfunction and failure. Endovascular intervention in the form of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) and stenting has rapidly become the dominant treatment modality for the TRAS. There is a paucity of clinical data on use of drug-eluting stent (DES) for TRAS. We investigated the outcomes of patients with clinically significant TRAS undergoing DES placement. METHODS:A retrospective review of patients with clinically significant TRAS undergoing PTA with DES placement from June 2014 to April 2021 was conducted. Patients treated for TRAS exhibited uncontrolled hypertension and/or unexplained allograft dysfunction. Patient demographics, procedural details, and follow-up outcomes were collected. Primary endpoints were the in-stent primary patency and graft survival. Secondary endpoints were freedom from reintervention, primary-assisted patency and access-related complications. RESULTS:Thirteen TRAS in twelve patients with graft function alteration were treated with DES. The median age was 57 years (interquartile range (IQR), 48-63 years), and nine (70%) patients were male (Table). The median follow-up was 9 months (IQR, 4-52 months). The most common comorbidity was hypertension (100%), coronary artery disease (83%) and diabetes. The median time from deceased donor transplant to intervention was 5.8 months (IQR, 3.5-6.7 months). TRAS was most commonly found at the juxta-ostial segment (77%). The procedure was performed with carbon dioxide angiography with minimal amount of iodinated contrast (median, 3 mL) under local anesthesia in nine (69%) and general anesthesia in four (31%) patients. The median stent diameter was 4.5 mm (IQR, 4-5 mm), and the median stent length was 15 mm (IQR, 15-18 mm). No intraoperative complications occurred. The rates of stenosis-free primary patency of the DES and graft survival were 76% and 100%, respectively. All three reinterventions for restenosis resulted from the kinking of the transplant renal artery proximal to the DES, which were treated by extending the stent more proximally 1-2 mm into the external iliac artery. There were no access-related complications. The median time to reintervention was 0.9 months (range, 0.23-2 months). Freedom from reintervention and primary-assisted patency were 76% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Our study demonstrates that DES is a safe and effective treatment modality in patients with TRAS at short to mid-term follow-up. As all reinterventions after DES were performed due to kinking of the transplant renal artery proximal to the stent, bridging of the DES 1-2 mm into the external iliac artery is recommended.

Transplanting hepatitis C viremic donor organs into hepatitis C virus (HCV)-negative recipients is becoming increasingly common; however, practices for posttransplant direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment vary widely. Protracted insurance authorization processes for DAA therapy often lead to treatment delays.

New regulations require living kidney donor (LKD) follow-up for 2 years, but donor retention remains poor. Electronic communication (eg, text messaging and e-mail) might improve donor retention. To explore the possible impact of electronic communication, we recruited LKDs to participate in an exploratory study of communication via telephone, e-mail, or text messaging postdonation; communication through this study was purely optional and did not replace standard follow-up. Of 69 LKDs recruited, 3% requested telephone call, 52% e-mail, and 45% text messaging. Telephone response rate was 0%; these LKDs were subsequently excluded from analysis. Overall response rates with e-mail or text messaging at 1 week, 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years were 94%, 87%, 81%, 72%, and 72%. Lower response rates were seen in African Americans, even after adjusting for age, sex, and contact method (incidence rate ratio (IRR) nonresponse _2.07 5.81_16.36 , P = .001). Text messaging had higher response rates than e-mail (IRR nonresponse _0.11 0.28_0.71 , P = .007). Rates of nonresponse were similar by sex (IRR 0.68, P = .4) and age (IRR 1.00, P > .9). In summary, LKDs strongly preferred electronic messaging over telephone and were highly responsive 2 years postdonation, even in this nonrequired, nonincentivized exploratory research study. These electronic communication tools can be automated and may improve regulatory compliance and postdonation care.

BACKGROUND:Despite numerous initiatives to increase solid organs for transplant, the gap between donors and recipients widens. There is little in the literature identifying socioeconomic predictors for donation. We evaluate the correlation between socioeconomic factors and familial authorization for donation. METHODS:A retrospective analysis of adult potential donor referrals between 2007 and 2012 to our organ procurement organization (OPO) was performed. Potential donor information was obtained from the OPO database, death certificates, and the US Census Report. Data on demographics, education, residence, income, registry status, cause and manner of death, as well as OPO assessments and approach for donation were collected. End point was familial authorization for donation. RESULTS:A total of 1059 potential donors were included, with an overall authorization rate of 47%. The majority was not on the donor registry (73%). Younger donors (18-39 y: odds ratio [OR] = 4.9, P < 0.001; 40-60 y: OR = 2.1, P < 0.001), higher levels of education (college: OR = 2.5, P = 0.005; graduate studies: OR = 3.9, P = 0.002), prior listing on the donor registry (OR = 10.3, P < 0.001), and residence in counties with lower poverty rates than the US rates (OR = 1.7, P = 0.02) were independently associated with higher authorization rates. Decoupling (OR = 3.1, P < 0.001) and donation first mentioned by the local health care provider (OR = 1.8, P = 0.01) were also independently associated with higher authorization rates. CONCLUSIONS:Donor registration correlated most strongly with the highest authorization rates. These results indicate that public educational efforts in populations with unfavorable socioeconomic considerations may be beneficial in improving donor registration. Collaborations with local providers as well as OPO in-hospital assessments and approach techniques can help with improving authorization rates.

Current studies of complications following donor hepatectomy may not be generalizable to all hospitals performing this procedure. To address this, live liver donors were identified in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2000-2008). Complications after donor hepatectomy were categorized using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes and risk factors for complications were tested using logistic regression. Negative binomial regression models were used to estimate the increase in length of stay and hospital charge associated with complications. Among 555 donors (representing 2783 donors nationwide), 23% had 1 or more complications and 5% had a major complication. The most common complications were ileus (27%) and atelectasis (26%). No patient or hospital factors were associated with complications. Having any complication was associated with increased length of stay (incidence rate ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.16-1.58; P < .001) and hospital charge (incidence rate ratio, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.44; P = .002). Approximately 25% of liver donors have complications immediately postoperatively but most are minor, lending support to current practices in live liver donation and donor selection.

BACKGROUND: Lack of education and reluctance to initiate a conversation about live donor kidney transplantation is a common barrier to finding a donor. Although transplant candidates are often hesitant to discuss their illness, friends or family members are often eager to spread awareness and are empowered by advocating for the candidates. We hypothesized that separating the advocate from the patient is important in identifying live donors. METHODS: We developed an intervention to train a live donor champion (LDC; a friend, family member, or community member willing to advocate for the candidate) for this advocacy role. We compared outcomes of 15 adult kidney transplant candidates who had no prospective donors and underwent the LDC intervention with 15 matched controls from our waiting list. RESULTS: Comfort in initiating a conversation about transplantation increased over time for LDCs. Twenty-five potential donors contacted our center on behalf of LDC participants; four participants achieved live donor kidney transplantation and three additional participants have donors in evaluation, compared with zero among matched controls (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Transplant candidates are ill equipped to seek live donors; by separating the advocate from the patient, understandable concerns about initiating conversations are reduced.

BACKGROUND: On average, African Americans attain living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) at decreased rates compared with their non-African American counterparts. However, center-level variations in this disparity or the role of center-level factors is unknown. STUDY DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 247,707 adults registered for first-time kidney transplants from 1995-2007 as reported by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. PREDICTORS: Patient-level factors (age, sex, body mass index, insurance status, education, blood type, and panel-reactive antibody level) were adjusted for in all models. The association of center-level characteristics (number of candidates, transplant volume, LDKT volume, median time to transplant, percentage of African American candidates, percentage of prelisted candidates, and percentage of LDKT) and degree of racial disparity in LDKT was quantified. OUTCOMES: Hierarchical multivariate logistic regression models were used to derive center-specific estimates of LDKT attainment in African American versus non-African American candidates. RESULTS: Racial parity was not seen at any of the 275 transplant centers in the United States. At centers with the least racial disparity, African Americans had 35% lower odds of receiving LDKT; at centers with the most disparity, African Americans had 76% lower odds. Higher percentages of African American candidates (interaction term, 0.86; P = 0.03) and prelisted candidates (interaction term, 0.80; P = 0.001) at a given center were associated with increased racial disparity at that center. Higher rates of LDKT (interaction term, 1.25; P < 0.001) were associated with less racial disparity. LIMITATIONS: Some patient-level factors are not captured, including a given patient's pool of potential donors. Geographic disparities in deceased donor availability might affect LDKT rates. Center-level policies and practices are not captured. CONCLUSIONS: Racial disparity in attainment of LDKT exists at every transplant center in the country. Centers with higher rates of LDKT attainment for all races had less disparity; these high-performing centers might provide insights into policies that might help address this disparity.

BACKGROUND: ABO incompatible (ABOi) kidney transplantation is an important modality to facilitate living donor transplant for incompatible pairs. To date, reports of the outcomes from this practice in the United States have been limited to single-center studies. METHODS: Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we identified 738 patients who underwent live-donor ABOi kidney transplantation between January 1, 1995, and March 31, 2010. These were compared with matched controls that underwent ABO compatible live-donor kidney transplantation. Subgroup analyses among ABOi recipients were performed according to donor blood type, recipient blood type, and transplant center ABOi volume. RESULTS: When compared with ABO compatible-matched controls, long-term patient survival of ABOi recipients was not significantly different between the cohorts (P=0.2). However, graft loss was significantly higher, particularly in the first 14 days posttransplant (subhazard ratio, 2.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.43-3.84; P=0.001), with little to no difference beyond day 14 (subhazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.54; P=0.058). In subgroup analyses among ABOi recipients, no differences in survival were seen by donor blood type, recipient blood type, or transplant center ABOi volume. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the use and dissemination of ABOi transplantation when a compatible live donor is not available, but caution that the highest period of risk is immediately posttransplant.

The ability to predict outcomes following a kidney transplant is limited by the complex physiologic decline of kidney failure, a latent factor that is difficult to capture using conventional comorbidity assessment. The frailty phenotype is a recently described inflammatory state of increased vulnerability to stressors resulting from decreased physiologic reserve and dysregulation of multiple physiologic systems. We hypothesized that frailty would be associated with delayed graft function, based on putative associations between inflammatory cytokines and graft dysfunction. We prospectively measured frailty in 183 kidney transplant recipients between December 2008 and April 2010. Independent associations between frailty and delayed graft function were analyzed using modified Poisson regression. Preoperative frailty was independently associated with a 1.94-fold increased risk for delayed graft function (95% CI, 1.13-3.36; P = .02). The assessment of frailty may provide further insights into the pathophysiology of allograft dysfunction and may improve our ability to preoperatively risk-stratify kidney transplant recipients.