Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Falls occur in 28% of hemodialysis patients and increase the risk of physical impairment, morbidity, and mortality. Therefore, it is likely that kidney transplantation (KT) candidates with recurrent falls are less likely to access KT and more likely to experience adverse post-KT outcomes. METHODS:We used a 2-center cohort study of KT candidates (n = 3666) and recipients (n = 770) (January 2009 to January 2018). Among candidates, we estimated time to listing, waitlist mortality, and transplant rate by recurrent falls (≥2 falls) before evaluation using adjusted regression. Among KT recipients, we estimated risk of mortality, graft loss, and length of stay by recurrent falls before KT using adjusted regression. RESULTS:Candidates with recurrent falls (6.5%) had a lower chance of listing (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.83) but not transplant rate; waitlist mortality was 31-fold (95% CI, 11.33-85.93) higher in the first year and gradually decreased over time. Recipients with recurrent falls (5.1%) were at increased risk of mortality (aHR = 51.43, 95% CI, 16.00-165.43) and graft loss (aHR = 33.57, 95% CI, 11.25-100.21) in the first year, which declined over time, and a longer length of stay (adjusted relative ratio [aRR] = 1.13, 95% CI, 1.03-1.25). In summary, 6.5% of KT candidates and 5.1% of recipients experienced recurrent falls which were associated with adverse pre- and post-KT outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:While recurrent falls were relatively rare in KT candidates and recipients, they were associated with adverse outcomes. Transplant centers should consider employing fall prevention strategies for high-risk candidates as part of comprehensive prehabilitation.

BACKGROUND:Donor livers with ≥30% macrosteatosis (steatotic livers) represent a possible expansion to the donor pool, but are frequently discarded as they are associated with an increased risk of mortality and graft loss. We hypothesized that there are certain recipient phenotypes that would tolerate donor steatosis well, and are therefore best suited to receive these grafts. METHODS:Using national registry data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients between 2006 and 2017, we compared 2048 liver transplant recipients of steatotic livers with 69 394 recipients of nonsteatotic (<30%) livers. We identified recipient factors that amplified the impact of donor steatosis on mortality and graft loss using interaction analysis, classifying recipients without these factors as preferred recipients. We compared mortality and graft loss with steatotic versus nonsteatotic livers in preferred and nonpreferred recipients using Cox regression. RESULTS:Preferred recipients of steatotic livers were determined to be first-time recipients with a model for end-stage liver disease 15-34, without primary biliary cirrhosis, and not on life support before transplant. Preferred recipients had no increased mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.921.041.16; P = 0.5) or graft loss (HR: 0.931.031.15; P = 0.5) with steatotic versus nonsteatotic livers. Conversely, nonpreferred recipients had a 41% increased mortality risk (HR: 1.171.411.70; P < 0.001) and 39% increased risk of graft loss (HR: 1.161.391.66; P < 0.001) with steatotic versus nonsteatotic livers. CONCLUSIONS:The risks of liver transplantation with steatotic donor livers could be minimized by appropriate recipient matching.

BACKGROUND:Steatotic donor livers (SDLs, ≥30% macrosteatosis on biopsy) are often declined, as they are associated with a higher risk of graft loss, even though candidates may wait an indefinite time for a subsequent organ offer. We sought to quantify outcomes for transplant candidates who declined or accepted an SDL offer. METHODS:We used Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients offer data from 2009 to 2015 to compare outcomes of 759 candidates who accepted an SDL to 13 362 matched controls who declined and followed candidates from the date of decision (decline or accept) until death or end of study period. We used a competing risk framework to understand the natural history of candidates who declined and Cox regression to compare postdecision survival after declining versus accepting (ie, what could have happened if candidates who declined had instead accepted). RESULTS:Among those who declined an SDL, only 53.1% of candidates were subsequently transplanted, 23.8% died, and 19.4% were removed from the waitlist. Candidates who accepted had a brief perioperative risk period within the first month posttransplant (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 2.493.494.89, P < 0.001), but a 62% lower mortality risk (aHR: 0.310.380.46, P < 0.001) beyond this. Although the long-term survival benefit of acceptance did not vary by candidate model for end-stage liver disease (MELD), the short-term risk period did. MELD 6-21 candidates who accepted an SDL had a 7.88-fold higher mortality risk (aHR: 4.807.8812.93, P < 0.001) in the first month posttransplant, whereas MELD 35-40 candidates had a 68% lower mortality risk (aHR: 0.110.320.90, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS:Appropriately selected SDLs can decrease wait time and provide substantial long-term survival benefit for liver transplant candidates.

The construct of frailty was first developed in gerontology to help identify older adults with increased vulnerability when confronted with a health stressor. This article is a review of studies in which frailty has been applied to pre- and post-kidney transplantation (KT) populations. Although KT is the optimal treatment for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), KT candidates often must overcome numerous health challenges associated with ESKD before receiving KT. After KT, the impacts of surgery and immunosuppression represent additional health stressors that disproportionately impact individuals with frailty. Frailty metrics could improve the ability to identify KT candidates and recipients at risk for adverse health outcomes and those who could potentially benefit from interventions to improve their frail status. The Physical Frailty Phenotype (PFP) is the most commonly used frailty metric in ESKD research, and KT recipients who are frail at KT (~20% of recipients) are twice as likely to die as nonfrail recipients. In addition to the PFP, many other metrics are currently used to assess pre- and post-KT vulnerability in research and clinical practice, underscoring the need for a disease-specific frailty metric that can be used to monitor KT candidates and recipients. Although frailty is an independent risk factor for post-transplant adverse outcomes, it is not factored into the current transplant program risk-adjustment equations. Future studies are needed to explore pre- and post-KT interventions to improve or prevent frailty.

BACKGROUND:Disability in general has been associated with poor outcomes in kidney transplant (KT) recipients. However, disability can be derived from various components, specifically visual, hearing, physical and walking impairments. Different impairments may compromise the patient through different mechanisms and might impact different aspects of KT outcomes. METHODS:In our prospective cohort study (June 2013-June 2017), 465 recipients reported hearing, visual, physical and walking impairments before KT. We used hybrid registry-augmented Cox regression, adjusting for confounders using the US KT population (Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, N = 66 891), to assess the independent association between impairments and post-KT outcomes [death-censored graft failure (DCGF) and mortality]. RESULTS:In our cohort of 465 recipients, 31.6% reported one or more impairments (hearing 9.3%, visual 16.6%, physical 9.1%, walking 12.1%). Visual impairment was associated with a 3.36-fold [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17-9.65] higher DCGF risk, however, hearing [2.77 (95% CI 0.78-9.82)], physical [0.67 (95% CI 0.08-3.35)] and walking [0.50 (95% CI 0.06-3.89)] impairments were not. Walking impairment was associated with a 3.13-fold (95% CI 1.32-7.48) higher mortality risk, however, visual [1.20 (95% CI 0.48-2.98)], hearing [1.01 (95% CI 0.29-3.47)] and physical [1.16 (95% CI 0.34-3.94)] impairments were not. CONCLUSIONS:Impairments are common among KT recipients, yet only visual impairment and walking impairment are associated with adverse post-KT outcomes. Referring nephrologists and KT centers should identify recipients with visual and walking impairments who might benefit from targeted interventions pre-KT, additional supportive care and close post-KT monitoring.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Caring for dialysis patients is difficult, and this burden often falls on a spouse or cohabiting partner (henceforth referred to as caregiver-partners). At the same time, these caregiver-partners often come forward as potential living kidney donors for their loved ones who are on dialysis (henceforth referred to as patient-partners). Caregiver-partners may experience tangible benefits to their well-being when their patient-partner undergoes transplantation, yet this is seldom formally considered when evaluating caregiver-partners as potential donors. Methods/UNASSIGNED:To quantify these potential benefits, we surveyed caregiver-partners of dialysis patients and kidney transplant (KT) recipients (N = 99) at KT evaluation or post-KT. Using validated tools, we assessed relationship satisfaction and caregiver burden before or after their patient-partner's dialysis initiation and before or after their patient-partner's KT. Results/UNASSIGNED: = 0.3). Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:These benefits in caregiver burden and relationship quality support special consideration for spouses and partners in risk-assessment of potential kidney donors, particularly those with risk profiles slightly exceeding center thresholds.

BACKGROUND:There is concern in the transplant community that outcomes for the most highly sensitized recipients might be poor under Kidney Allocation System (KAS) high prioritization. METHODS:To study this, we compared posttransplant outcomes of 525 pre-KAS (December 4, 2009, to December 3, 2014) calculated panel-reactive antibodies (cPRA)-100% recipients to 3026 post-KAS (December 4, 2014, to December 3, 2017) cPRA-100% recipients using SRTR data. We compared mortality and death-censored graft survival using Cox regression, acute rejection, and delayed graft function (DGF) using logistic regression, and length of stay (LOS) using negative binomial regression. RESULTS:Compared with pre-KAS recipients, post-KAS recipients were allocated kidneys with lower Kidney Donor Profile Index (median 30% versus 35%, P < 0.001) but longer cold ischemic time (CIT) (median 21.0 h versus 18.6 h, P < 0.001). Compared with pre-KAS cPRA-100% recipients, those post-KAS had higher 3-year patient survival (93.6% versus 91.4%, P = 0.04) and 3-year death-censored graft survival (93.7% versus 90.6%, P = 0.005). The incidence of DGF (29.3% versus 29.2%, P = 0.9), acute rejection (11.2% versus 11.7%, P = 0.8), and median LOS (5 d versus 5d, P = 0.2) were similar between pre-KAS and post-KAS recipients. After accounting for secular trends and adjusting for recipient characteristics, post-KAS recipients had no difference in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.861.623.06, P = 0.1), death-censored graft failure (aHR: 0.521.001.91, P > 0.9), DGF (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.580.861.27, P = 0.4), acute rejection (aOR: 0.610.941.43, P = 0.8), and LOS (adjusted LOS ratio: 0.981.161.36, P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS:We did not find any statistically significant worsening of outcomes for cPRA-100% recipients under KAS, although longer-term monitoring of posttransplant mortality is warranted.

Background/UNASSIGNED:The early effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on transplantation are dramatic: >75% of kidney and liver programs are either suspended or operating under major restrictions. To resume transplantation, it is important to understand the prevalence of COVID-19 among transplant recipients, donors, and healthcare workers (HCWs) and its associated mortality. Methods/UNASSIGNED:To investigate this, we studied severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 diagnostic test results among patients with end-stage renal disease or kidney transplants from the Johns Hopkins Health System (n = 235), and screening test results from deceased donors from the Southwest Transplant Alliance Organ Procurement Organization (n = 27), and donors, candidates, and HCWs from the National Kidney Registry and Viracor-Eurofins (n = 253) between February 23 and April 15, 2020. Results/UNASSIGNED:We found low rates of COVID-19 among donors and HCWs (0%-1%) who were screened, higher rates of diagnostic tests among patients with end-stage renal disease or kidney transplant (17%-20%), and considerable mortality (7%-13%) among those who tested positive. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:These findings suggest the threat of COVID-19 for the transplant population is significant and ongoing data collection and reporting is critical to inform transplant practices during and after the pandemic.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE:Intact cognition is generally a prerequisite for navigating through and completing evaluation for kidney transplantation. Despite kidney transplantation being contraindicated for those with severe dementia, screening for more mild forms of cognitive impairment before referral is rare. Candidates may have unrecognized cognitive impairment, which may prolong evaluation, elevate mortality risk, and hinder access to kidney transplantation. We estimated the burden of cognitive impairment and its association with access to kidney transplantation and waitlist mortality. STUDY DESIGN:Prospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS:3,630 participants (January 2009 to June 2018) with cognitive function measured (by the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination [3MS]) at kidney transplantation evaluation at 1 of 2 transplantation centers. PREDICTORS:Cognitive impairment (3MS score<80). OUTCOMES:Listing, waitlist mortality, and kidney transplantation. ANALYTICAL APPROACH:We estimated the adjusted chance of listing (Cox regression), risk for waitlist mortality (competing-risks regression), and kidney transplantation rate (Poisson regression) by cognitive impairment. Given potential differences in cause of cognitive impairment among those with and without diabetes, we tested whether these associations differed by diabetes status using a Wald test. RESULTS:=0.02). Among candidates without diabetes, those with cognitive impairment were at 2.47 (95% CI, 1.31-4.66) times greater risk for waitlist mortality; cognitive impairment was not associated with this outcome among candidates with diabetes. LIMITATIONS:Single measure of cognitive impairment. CONCLUSIONS:Cognitive impairment is associated with a lower chance of being placed on the waitlist, and among patients without diabetes, with increased mortality on the waitlist. Future studies should investigate whether implementation of screening for cognitive impairment improves these outcomes.

COVID-19 is a novel, rapidly changing pandemic: consequently, evidence-based recommendations in solid organ transplantation (SOT) remain challenging and unclear. To understand the impact on transplant activity across the United States, and center-level variation in testing, clinical practice, and policies, we conducted a national survey between March 24, 2020 and March 31, 2020 and linked responses to the COVID-19 incidence map. Response rate was a very high 79.3%, reflecting a strong national priority to better understand COVID-19. Complete suspension of live donor kidney transplantation was reported by 71.8% and live donor liver by 67.7%. While complete suspension of deceased donor transplantation was less frequent, some restrictions to deceased donor kidney transplantation were reported by 84.0% and deceased donor liver by 73.3%; more stringent restrictions were associated with higher regional incidence of COVID-19. Shortage of COVID-19 tests was reported by 42.5%. Respondents reported a total of 148 COVID-19 recipients from <1 to >10 years posttransplant: 69.6% were kidney recipients, and 25.0% were critically ill. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was used by 78.1% of respondents; azithromycin by 46.9%; tocilizumab by 31.3%, and remdesivir by 25.0%. There is wide heterogeneity in center-level response across the United States; ongoing national data collection, expert discussion, and clinical studies are critical to informing evidence-based practices.