Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:We sought to identify factors that are associated with LOS following pediatric (<18 years) liver transplantation in order to provide personalized counseling and discharge planning for recipients and their families. METHODS:We identified 2726 infants (≤24 months) and 3210 children (>24 months) who underwent pediatric liver-only transplantation from 2002-2017 using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. We used multilevel multivariable negative binomial regression to analyze associations between LOS and recipient and donor characteristics and calculated the MLOSR to quantify heterogeneity in LOS across centers. RESULTS:) were associated with a longer LOS. The MLOSR was 1.25 in infants and 1.26 in children, meaning if an infant received a transplant at another center with a longer LOS, we would expect a 1.25-fold difference in LOS driven by center practices alone. CONCLUSIONS:While center-level practices account for substantial variation in LOS, consideration of donor and recipient factors can help clinicians provide more personalized counseling for families of pediatric liver transplant candidates.

BACKGROUND:Hepatitis C virus-positive (HCV+) kidney transplant (KT) recipients are at increased risks of rejection and graft failure. The optimal induction agent for this population remains controversial, particularly regarding concerns that antithymocyte globulin (ATG) might increase HCV-related complications. METHODS:Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and Medicare claims data, we studied 6780 HCV+ and 139 681 HCV- KT recipients in 1999-2016 who received ATG or interleukin-2 receptor antagonist (IL2RA) for induction. We first examined the association of recipient HCV status with receiving ATG (versus IL2RA) using multilevel logistic regression. Then, we studied the association of ATG (versus IL2RA) with KT outcomes (rejection, graft failure, and death) and hepatic complications (liver transplant registration and cirrhosis) among HCV+ recipients using logistic and Cox regression. RESULTS:HCV+ recipients were less likely to receive ATG than HCV- recipients (living donor, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.640.770.91; deceased donor, aOR = 0.710.810.92). In contrast, HCV+ recipients who received ATG were at lower risk of acute rejection compared to those who received IL2RA (1-y crude incidence = 11.6% versus 12.6%; aOR = 0.680.820.99). There was no significant difference in the risks of graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.861.001.17), death (aHR = 0.850.951.07), liver transplant registration (aHR = 0.580.971.61), and cirrhosis (aHR = 0.730.921.16). CONCLUSIONS:Our findings suggest that ATG, as compared to IL2RA, may lower the risk of acute rejection without increasing hepatic complications in HCV+ KT recipients. Given the higher rates of acute rejection in this population, ATG appears to be safe and reasonable for HCV+ recipients.

OBJECTIVE:To determine if the association of frailty and waitlist mortality varies by candidate age. BACKGROUND:Frailty, a construct developed in geriatrics, is a state of decreased physiologic reserve, and is associated with mortality while awaiting liver transplantation (LT). However, older candidates have high comorbidity burden and less physiologic reserve, so the relationship between frailty and waitlist mortality may vary by candidate age. METHODS:We studied adults listed for LT at 2 transplant centers. The liver frailty index (grip strength, chair stands, balance) was measured at evaluation, with frailty defined as liver frailty index  ≥ 4.5. We compared the prevalence of frailty in older (≥65 yr) and younger (18-64 yr) candidates. We studied the association between frailty, age, interaction between the 2, and waitlist mortality using competing risks regression adjusted for sex, BMI, and MELDNa. RESULTS:Among 882 LT candidates, 16.6% were ≥ 65 years. Older candidates were more likely to be frail (33.3% vs 21.7%, P = 0.002). Older age [adjusted subhazard ratio (aSHR): 2.16, 95% CI: 1.51-3.09, P < 0.001] and frailty (aSHR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.38-2.67, P < 0.001) were independently associated with higher risk of waitlist mortality. However, the association between waitlist mortality and frailty did not vary by candidate age (aSHR of frailty for younger patients: 1.90, 95% CI: 1.28-2.80, P = 0.001; aSHR of frailty for older patients: 1.98, 95% CI: 1.07-3.67, P = 0.03; P interaction = 0.9). CONCLUSIONS:Older candidates experienced higher rates of frailty than younger candidates. However, regardless of age, frailty was associated with nearly 2-fold increased risk of waitlist mortality. Our data support the applicability of the frailty concept to the whole LT population and can guide the development of prehabilitation programs targeting frailty in LT patients of all ages.

It has been hypothesized that transplanting simultaneous pancreas kidney (SPK) grafts from donors with a history of cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CACPR) leads to inferior posttransplant outcomes due to organ hypoperfusion during cardiac arrest and mechanical trauma during resuscitation. Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data, we identified 13 095 SPK transplants from 2000-2018, of which 810 (6.2%) were from donors with a history of CACPR. After inverse probability of treatment weighting on donor and recipient characteristics, we found that 1-, 5-, and 10-year patient (CACPR: 96.4%, 89.9%, and 78.9%; non-CACPR: 96.3%, 88.9%, and 76.0%; P = .3), death-censored pancreas graft survival (CACPR: 89.3%, 82.7%, 75.0%; non-CACPR: 89.9%, 82.7%, 76.3%; P = .7), and death-censored kidney graft survival (CACPR: 97.0%, 89.5%, 78.2%; non-CACPR: 96.9.9%, 88.7%, 80.0%; P = .4) were comparable between the two groups. There were no differences in the risk of pancreatitis (CACPR: 2.9%, non-CACPR: 2.4%; weighted OR = _0.74 1.22 _2.02 ; P = .4), anastomotic leak (CACPR: 1.6%, non-CACPR: 2.0%; weighted OR = _0.54 1.02 _1.93 ; P > .9), or median length of hospital stay (CACPR: 8 days, non-CACPR: 9 days; P = .6) for recipients of CACPR vs non-CACPR donors. Our findings suggest that CACPR donors could be used to expand the SPK donor pool without compromising short- or long-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND:Approximately half of the patients who progress to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and undergo dialysis develop difficulties carrying out essential self-care activities, leading to institutionalization and mortality. It is unclear what percentage of kidney transplant (KT) candidates, a group of ESKD patients selected to be healthy enough to withstand transplantation, are functionally independent and whether independence is associated with better access to KT and reduced waitlist mortality. METHODS:We studied a prospective cohort of 3168 ESKD participants (January 2009 to June 2018) who self-reported functional independence in more basic self-care Activities of Daily Living (ADL) (needing help with eating, dressing, walking, grooming, toileting and bathing) and more complex instrumental ADL (IADL) (needing help using a phone, shopping, cooking, housework, washing, using transportation, managing medications and managing money). We estimated adjusted associations between functional independence (separately) and listing (Cox), waitlist mortality (competing risks) and transplant rates (Poisson). RESULTS:At KT evaluation, 92.4% were independent in ADLs, but only 68.5% were independent in IADLs. Functionally independent participants had a higher chance of listing for KT [ADL: adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30-1.87; IADL: aHR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.26-1.52]. Among KT candidates, ADL independence was associated with lower waitlist mortality risk [adjusted subdistribution HR (aSHR) = 0.66, 95% CI 0.44-0.98] and higher rate of KT [adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) = 1.58, 95% CI 1.12-2.22]; the same was not observed for IADL independence (aSHR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.65-1.12; aIRR = 1.01, 95% CI 0.97-1.19). CONCLUSIONS:Functional independence in more basic self-care ADL was associated with better KT access and lower waitlist mortality. Nephrologists, geriatricians and transplant surgeons should screen KT candidates for ADLs, and identify interventions to promote independence and improve waitlist outcomes.

Cooperative kidney paired donation (KPD) networks account for an increasing proportion of all living donor kidney transplants in the United States. There are sparse data on the rate of primary nonfunction (PNF) losses and their consequences within KPD networks. We studied National Kidney Registry (NKR) transplants (February 14, 2009 to December 31, 2017) and quantified PNF, graft loss within 30 days of transplantation, and graft losses in the first-year posttransplant and assessed potential risk factors. Of 2364 transplants, there were 38 grafts (1.6%) lost within the first year, 13 (0.5%) with PNF. When compared to functioning grafts, there were no clinically significant differences in blood type compatibility, degree of HLA mismatch, number of veins/arteries, cold ischemia, and travel times. Of 13 PNF cases, 2 were due to early venous thrombosis, 2 to arterial thrombosis, and 2 to failure of desensitization and development of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR). Given the low rate of PNF, the NKR created a policy to allocate chain-end kidneys to recipients with PNF following event review and attributable to surgical issues of donor nephrectomy. It is expected that demonstration of low incidence of poor early graft outcomes and the presence of a "safety net" would further encourage program participation in national KPD.

Understanding the economic implications of induction and maintenance immunosuppression (ISx) is important in developing personalized kidney transplant (KTx) care. Using data from a novel integrated data set including financial records from the University Health System Consortium, Medicare, and pharmacy claims (2007-2014), we estimated the differences in the impact of induction and maintenance ISx regimens on transplant hospitalization costs and Medicare payments from KTx to 3 years. Use of thymoglobulin (TMG) significantly increased transplant hospitalization costs ($12 006; P = .02), compared with alemtuzumab and basiliximab. TMG resulted in lower Medicare payments in posttransplant years 1 (-$2058; P = .05) and 2 (-$1784; P = .048). Patients on steroid-sparing ISx incurred relatively lower total Medicare spending (-$10 880; P = .01) compared with patients on triple therapy (tacrolimus, antimetabolite, and steroids). MPA/AZA-sparing, mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors-based, and cyclosporine-based maintenance ISx regimens were associated with significantly higher payments. Alternative ISx regimens were associated with different KTx hospitalization costs and longer-term payments. Future studies of clinical efficacy should also consider cost impacts to define the economic effectiveness of alternative ISx regimens.

The 2020 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Candidates for Kidney Transplantation is intended to assist health care professionals worldwide who evaluate and manage potential candidates for deceased or living donor kidney transplantation. This guideline addresses general candidacy issues such as access to transplantation, patient demographic and health status factors, immunological and psychosocial assessment. The roles of various risk factors and comorbid conditions governing an individual's suitability for transplantation such as adherence, tobacco use, diabetes, obesity, perioperative issues, causes of kidney failure, infections, malignancy, pulmonary disease, cardiac and peripheral arterial disease, neurologic disease, gastrointestinal and liver disease, hematologic disease, and bone and mineral disorder are also addressed. This guideline provides recommendations for evaluation of individual aspects of a candidate's profile such that each risk factor and comorbidity are considered separately. The goal is to assist the clinical team to assimilate all data relevant to an individual, consider this within their local health context, and make an overall judgment on candidacy for transplantation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Guideline recommendations are primarily based on systematic reviews of relevant studies and our assessment of the quality of that evidence. The strengths of recommendations are provided in the full report. Limitations of the evidence are discussed with differences from previous guidelines noted and suggestions for future research are also provided.

The 2020 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Candidates for Kidney Transplantation is intended to assist health care professionals worldwide who evaluate and manage potential candidates for deceased or living donor kidney transplantation. This guideline addresses general candidacy issues such as access to transplantation, patient demographic and health status factors, and immunological and psychosocial assessment. The roles of various risk factors and comorbid conditions governing an individual's suitability for transplantation such as adherence, tobacco use, diabetes, obesity, perioperative issues, causes of kidney failure, infections, malignancy, pulmonary disease, cardiac and peripheral arterial disease, neurologic disease, gastrointestinal and liver disease, hematologic disease, and bone and mineral disorder are also addressed. This guideline provides recommendations for evaluation of individual aspects of a candidate's profile such that each risk factor and comorbidity are considered separately. The goal is to assist the clinical team to assimilate all data relevant to an individual, consider this within their local health context, and make an overall judgment on candidacy for transplantation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Guideline recommendations are primarily based on systematic reviews of relevant studies and our assessment of the quality of that evidence, and the strengths of recommendations are provided. Limitations of the evidence are discussed with differences from previous guidelines noted and suggestions for future research are also provided.