Faculty Bibliography

Purpose of Review/UNASSIGNED:To summarize the research on post-operative delirium among patients undergoing solid organ transplantation in efforts to improve recognition, evaluation, and management, as well as highlight areas for future research. Recent Findings/UNASSIGNED:Delirium is a common complication in patients with organ failure before and after undergoing solid organ transplant (range: 4.7-47%). However, it is frequently unrecognized and underdiagnosed-even among those closely monitored after major surgery-given that its manifestation is often variable and inconsistent. Delirium has multifactorial etiologies comprising of a complex mix of predisposing recipient, donor, and transplant factors, as well as intraoperative and perioperative factors. Evidence suggests that delirium risk increases with presence of a greater number of such risk factors, and can lead to adverse outcomes such as increased hospital length of stay, time in the ICU, time on mechanical ventilators, graft dysfunction, graft loss, and mortality. Though no trials have been conducted among transplant populations specifically, delirium has been shown to be preventable among hospitalized older adults generally. Multicomponent, primary prevention strategies designed to target multiple risk factors of delirium, such as cognitive impairment, sleep deprivation, immobility, visual impairment, hearing impairment, and dehydration, have been identified as most effective. Whether these approaches translate to improvements in quality of life and long-term health outcomes among patients with organ failure before and after transplantation is yet to be determined. Summary/UNASSIGNED:Delirium is an important, common, yet potentially preventable complication among patients with organ failure. Future studies are needed to test the efficacy of multicomponent, primary prevention strategies on long-term health outcomes among these vulnerable populations.

Organ procurement organizations (OPOs) evaluate referrals for deceased organ donation in the United States. Efforts to expand the donor pool, such as the HIV organ policy equity (HOPE) Act that permits transplants from HIV-positive donors to HIV-positive recipients, can only succeed if OPOs pursue referrals. However, relatively little is known about how OPO staff evaluate referrals. To better understand this process, OPO staff completed a discrete choice experiment to quantify the relative importance of seven donor characteristics on the decision to pursue a theoretical donor. Relative importance was defined by Partworth utility using a hierarchical Bayesian conditional logit model. There were 51 respondents from 36 of 58 OPOs in the United States. Of the seven attributes, organ and tissue potential were the most influential, followed by age, type of death, HIV status, donor registration, and Hepatitis C status. To be preferred to an HIV-negative donor, an HIV-positive donor needed to have the potential to donate two additional organs. These data provide insight into the preferences of OPO referral staff and may help explain the lower than expected number of HIV-positive transplants performed since the passage of the HOPE Act.

BACKGROUND:Younger kidney transplant (KT) candidates and recipients may have cognitive impairment due to chronic diseases and reliance on dialysis. METHODS:To quantify cognitive impairment burden by age across the KT care continuum, we leveraged a two-center cohort study of 3854 KT candidates at evaluation, 1114 recipients at admission, and 405 recipients at 1-year post-KT with measured global cognitive performance (3MS) or executive function (Trail Making Test). We also estimated burden of severe cognitive impairment that affects functional dependence (activities of daily living [ADL] < 6 or instrumental activities of daily living [IADL] < 8). RESULTS:Among KT candidates, global cognitive impairment (18-34 years: 11.1%; 35-49 years: 14.0%; 50-64 years: 19.5%; ≥65 years: 22.0%) and severe cognitive impairment burden (18-34 years: 1.1%; 35-49 years: 3.0%; 50-64 years: 6.2%; ≥65 years: 7.7%) increased linearly with age. Among KT recipients at admission, global cognitive impairment (18-34 years: 9.1%; 35-49 years: 6.1%; 50-64 years: 9.3%; ≥65 years: 15.7%) and severe cognitive impairment burden (18-34 years: 1.4%; 35-49 years: 1.4%; 50-64 years: 2.2%; ≥65 years: 4.6%) was lower. Despite lowest burden of cognitive impairment among KT recipients at 1-year post-KT across all ages (18-34 years: 1.7%; 35-49 years: 3.4%; 50-64 years: 4.3%; ≥65 years: 6.5%), many still exhibited severe cognitive impairment (18-34 years: .0%; 35-49 years: 1.9%; 50-64 years: 2.4%; ≥65 years: 3.5%). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Findings were consistent for executive function impairment. While cognitive impairment increases with age, younger KT candidates have a high burden comparable to community-dwelling older adults, with some potentially suffering from severe forms. Transplant centers should consider routinely screening patients during clinical care encounters regardless of age.

Performing third or fourth kidney transplantation (3KT and 4KT) in older patients is rare due to surgical and immunologic challenges. We aimed to analyze and compare the outcomes of younger (18-64 years) and older (≥65 years) recipients of 3KT and 4KT. Between 1990 and 2016, we identified 5816 recipients of 3KTs (153 were older) and 886 recipients of 4KTs (18 were older). The incidences of delayed graft function (24.3% vs. 24.8%, p = .89), primary non-function (3.2% vs. 1.3%, p = .21), 1-year acute rejection (18.6% vs. 14.8%, p = .24), and 5-year death censored graft failure (DCGF) (24.8% vs. 17.9%, p = .06) were not different between younger and older recipients of 3KT. However, 5-year mortality was higher in older recipients (14.0% vs. 33.8%, p < .001) which remained significant after adjustment (aHR = 3.21, 95% CI: 2.59-3.99). Similar patterns were noted in the 4KT cohort. When compared with waitlisted patients, 3KT and 4KT are associated with a lower risk of mortality; aHR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.33-0.41 and aHR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.24-0.41, respectively. This survival benefit did not differ by recipient age (younger vs. older, p for interaction = 3KT: .49 and 4KT: .58). In the largest cohort described to date, we report that there is a survival benefit of 3KT and 4KT even among older patients. Although a highly selected cohort, our results support improving access to 3KT and 4KT.

Importance:Traditionally, liver transplant (LT) for alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) requires 6 months of abstinence. Although early LT before 6 months of abstinence has been associated with decreased mortality for decompensated ALD, this practice remains controversial and concentrated at a few centers. Objective:To define patient, allograft, and relapse-free survival in early LT for ALD, and to investigate the association between these survival outcomes and early vs standard LT. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cohort study analyzed all patients with ALD who underwent their first LT at a single academic referral center between October 1, 2012, and November 13, 2020. Patients with known pretransplant hepatocellular carcinoma, hepatitis B or C, or an alternative cause of liver failure were excluded. Follow-up period was defined as the time from LT to the most recent encounter with a transplant center or death. Exposures:The exposure of interest was early LT, which was defined as less than 180 days of pre-LT abstinence. Standard LT was defined as 180 days or more of pre-LT abstinence. Patients were separated into early LT and standard LT by time from abstinence to LT. Main Outcomes and Measures:The outcomes were patient, allograft, relapse-free, and hazardous relapse-free survival for patients who underwent early LT or standard LT. These groups were compared by log-rank testing of Kaplan-Meier estimates. Hazardous relapse was defined as binge, at-risk, or frequent drinking. Abstinence was reassessed at the most recent follow-up visit for all patients. Results:Of the 163 patients with ALD included in this study, 88 (54%) underwent early LT and 75 (46%) underwent standard LT. This cohort had a mean (SD) age at transplant of 52 (10) years and was predominantly composed of 108 male patients (66%). Recipients of early LT vs standard LT were younger (median [interquartile range (IQR)] age, 49.7 [39.0-54.2] years vs 54.6 [48.7-60.0] years; P < .001) and had a higher median (IQR) Model for End-stage Liver Disease score at listing (35.0 [29.0-39.0] vs 20.0 [13.0-26.0]; P < .001). Both recipients of early LT and standard LT had similar 1-year patient survival (94.1% [95% CI, 86.3%-97.5%] vs 95.9% [95% CI, 87.8%-98.7%]; P = .60), allograft survival (92.7% [95% CI, 84.4%-96.7%] vs 90.5% [95% CI, 81.0%-95.3%]; P = .42), relapse-free survival (80.4% [95% CI, 69.1%-88.0%] vs 83.5% [95% CI, 72.2%-90.6%]; P = .41), and hazardous relapse-free survival (85.8% [95% CI, 75.1%-92.2%] vs 89.6% [95% CI, 79.5%-94.9%]; P = .41). Conclusions and Relevance:Adherence to the 6-month rule was not associated with superior patient survival, allograft survival, or relapse-free survival among selected patients. This finding suggests that patients with ALD should not be categorically excluded from LT solely on the basis of 6 months of abstinence, but rather alternative selection criteria should be identified that are based on need and posttransplant outcomes.

This study of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination in 14 persons with HIV (PWH) demonstrated uniformly high anti-SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD) antibody titres after two doses, despite varied titres after a single dose. The majority of vaccine reactions were mild and no adverse events occurred.

Background/UNASSIGNED:) transplantation involves ethical considerations related to safety, consent, stigma, and privacy, which could be better understood through studying patients' actual experiences. Methods/UNASSIGNED:transplantation at 4 centers regarding their decision-making process, the informed consent process, and posttransplant experiences. Participants were interviewed at-transplant (≤3 wk after transplant), posttransplant (≥3 mo after transplant), or both time points. Interviews were analyzed thematically using constant comparison of inductive and deductive coding. Results/UNASSIGNED:transplant candidates were unable to receive HIV-noninfected donor organs. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:transplant candidates regarding available treatment options and for transplant teams regarding privacy and stigma concerns would be beneficial.