Faculty Bibliography

Background/UNASSIGNED:Perioperative cardiovascular outcomes of transplant surgery are not well defined. We evaluated the incidence of perioperative major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) after non-cardiac transplant surgery from a large database of hospital admissions from the United States. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Patients ≥18 years of age undergoing non-cardiac solid organ transplant surgery from 2004 to 2014 were identified from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's (HCUP) National Inpatient Sample (NIS). The primary outcome was perioperative MACCE, defined as in-hospital death, myocardial infarction (MI), or ischemic stroke. Results/UNASSIGNED:A total of 49,978 hospitalizations for transplant surgery were identified. Renal (67.3%), liver (21.6%), and lung (6.7%) transplantation were the most common surgeries. Perioperative MACCE occurred in 1,539 transplant surgeries (3.1%). Recipients of organ transplantation were more likely to have perioperative MACCE in comparison to non-transplant, non-cardiac surgery (3.1% vs. 2.0%, p < 0.001; adjusted OR [aOR] 1.29, 95% CI 1.22-1.36). MACCE after transplant surgery were driven by increased mortality (1.7% vs. 1.1%, p < 0.001; aOR 1.15, 95% CI 1.07-1.23) and MI (1.2% vs. 0.6%, p < 0.001; aOR 2.26, 95% CI 2.09-2.46) versus non-transplant surgery, with lower rates of stroke (0.3% vs. 0.5%, p < 0.001; aOR 0.56, 95% CI 0.47-0.65). Among patients hospitalized for renal, liver, and lung transplantation, MACCE occurred in 1.7%, 5.6%, and 7.5%, respectively, with no difference in the frequency of MI by surgery type. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Cardiovascular outcomes of transplant surgery vary by surgical subtype and are largely driven by increased perioperative death and MI. Efforts to reduce cardiovascular risks of non-cardiac organ transplant surgery are necessary.

Background: Inheritance of two APOL1 risk variants accounts for the excess risk of non-diabetic ESRD in African Americans when compared to Caucasian, Hispanic and Asian Americans. African American living donors have a higher risk of ESRD than matched non-black donors. APOL1 genotyping in potential kidney donors of African descent may identify individuals at risk for progressive CKD following donation.
Method(s): We report the retrospective analysis of APOL1 genotyping in a cohort of African American potential kidney donors. In July 2016, we initiated targeted genotyping of all African American kidney donor candidates. African American candidates with two APOL1 risk variants were excluded from kidney donation.
Result(s): A total of 28 African American kidney donor candidates were evaluated between July 2016 and April 2018. 2 (7%) were found to have two APOL1 risk variants (high risk genotype). Low risk genotype was identified in 10 (36%) candidates who had one risk variant and 16 (57%) candidates who had none. To date, 15 candidates have completed their donor work-up. Of these, 7 (47%) have already undergone donor nephrectomy, and 4 (27%) were cleared for surgery and are awaiting operation. 4 (27%) of the candidates did not meet our center specific criteria for donation. 2 out these 4 candidates who were excluded from donation were ruled out expressly for having been found to have two APOL1 risk variants.
Conclusion(s): APOL1 genotyping led to the exclusion of two donors who might have previously been allowed to donate, possibly mitigating their risk of CKD/ESRD and suboptimal graft outcomes in recipients. (Table Presented)

Kidneys from donors with blood type A2 can be successfully transplanted into blood type B and O recipients without the need for desensitization if the recipient's starting anti-A hemagglutinin titer is within an acceptable range. National kidney allocation policy now offers priority for eligible B recipients to receive A2 or A2B deceased donor kidneys, and therefore, the frequency with which A2 or A2B to B transplants will occur is expected to increase. The precise mechanisms by which antibody-mediated rejection is averted in these cases despite the presence of both circulating anti-A antibody and expression of the A2 antigen on the graft endothelium are not known. Whether this process mirrors proposed mechanisms of accommodation, which can occur in recipients of ABO incompatible transplants, is also not known. Repeated exposure to mismatched antigens after retransplantation could elicit memory responses resulting in antibody rebound and accelerated antibody-mediated rejection. Whether this would occur in the setting of repeated A2 donor exposure was uncertain. Here we report the case of a patient with history of a prior A2 to B transplant which failed owing to nonimmunologic reasons; the patient successfully underwent a repeat A2 to B transplant. Neither rebound in anti-A2 antibody nor clinical evidence of antibody-mediated rejection were observed after the transplant. Current kidney allocation will likely enable more such transplants in the future, and this may provide a unique patient population in whom the molecular mechanisms of incompatible graft accommodation may be investigated.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The presence of a donor-specific positive crossmatch has been considered to be a contraindication to kidney transplantation because of the risk of hyperacute rejection. Desensitization is the process of removing hazardous preformed donor-specific antibody (DSA) in order to safely proceed with transplant. Traditionally, this involves plasmapheresis and intravenous immune globulin treatments that occur over days to weeks, and has been feasible when there is a living donor and the date of the transplant is known, allowing time for pre-emptive treatments. For sensitized patients without a living donor, transplantation has been historically difficult. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:IdeS (imlifidase) is an endopeptidase derived from Streptococcus pyogenes which has specificity for human IgG, and when infused intravenously results in rapid cleavage of IgG. METHODS:Here we present our single-center's experience with 7 highly sensitized (cPRA98-100%) kidney transplant candidates who had DSA resulting in positive crossmatches with their donors (5 deceased, 2 living) who received IdeS within 24 hours prior to transplant. RESULTS:All pre-IdeS crossmatches were positive and would have been prohibitive for transplantation. All crossmatches became negative post-IdeS and the patients underwent successful transplantation. Three patients had DSA rebound and antibody-mediated rejection, which responded to standard of care therapies. Three patients had delayed graft function, which ultimately resolved. No serious adverse events were associated with IdeS. All patients have functioning renal allografts at a median follow-up of 235 days. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:IdeS may represent a groundbreaking new method of desensitization for patients who otherwise might have no hope for receiving a lifesaving transplant.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Donor-specific antibodies (DSA) to human leukocyte antigen increase the risk of accelerated rejection and allograft damage and reduce the likelihood of successful transplantation. Patients with full-thickness facial burns may benefit from facial allotransplantation. However, they are at a high risk of developing DSA due to standard features of their acute care. Case Presentation/UNASSIGNED:A 41-year-old male with severe disfigurement from facial burns consented to facial allotransplantation in 2014; panel reactive antibody score was 0%. In August of 2015, a suitable donor was found. Complement-dependent cytotoxicity crossmatch was negative; flow cytometry crossmatch was positive to donor B cells. An induction immunosuppression strategy consisting of rabbit antithymocyte globulin, rituximab, tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), and methylprednisolone taper was designed. Total face, scalp, eyelid, ears, and skeletal subunit allotransplantation was performed without operative, immunological, or infectious complications. Maintenance immunosuppression consists of tacrolimus, MMF, and prednisone. As of posttransplant month 24, the patient has not developed acute rejection or metabolic or infectious complications. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:To our knowledge, this is the first report of targeted B cell agents used for induction immunosuppression in skin-containing vascularized composite tissue allotransplantation. A cautious approach is warranted, but early results are promising for reconstructive transplant candidates given the exceptionally high rate of acute rejection episodes, particularly in the first year, in this patient population.