Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:End-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients are living longer, often into older age, and commonly pursue kidney transplantation. Successful aging, a multidimensional construct of physical and social wellbeing, has been expanded and adapted for patients with chronic disease. However, perceptions of, barriers to, and experiences with successful aging among adults with ESKD are unclear and likely differ based on whether they have received a kidney transplant. METHODS:Ten focus groups were held with 39 total ESKD patients aged ≥50 years (19 transplant candidates, 20 transplant recipients). Transcriptions were analyzed thematically by 2 independent coders using an inductive, constant comparative approach. RESULTS:The mean age was 64.8 (SD = 7.5); 51% were African American and 64% were males. Six themes were identified: familiarity with successful aging, perceptions of successful aging after ESKD diagnosis, barriers to successful aging, experiences with successful aging among transplant candidates, experiences with successful aging among transplant recipients, and suggested interventions. While all participants sought to achieve successful aging while living with ESKD, experiences with successful aging differed between candidates and recipients. Candidates struggled with the limitations of dialysis; some viewed transplantation as an opportunity to age successfully, while others were resigned to the drawbacks of dialysis. In contrast, transplant recipients were optimistic about their ability to age successfully, believing their transplant facilitated successful aging. Participants believed support groups for adults with ESKD and more thoughtful health care for aging adults would promote successful aging. CONCLUSIONS:Adults with ESKD may benefit from discussions with their clinicians and caregivers about goals, barriers, and strategies regarding successful aging.

BACKGROUND:Given the potential utility of frailty, a clinical phenotype of decreased physiologic reserve and resistance to stressors, to predict postkidney transplant (KT) outcomes, we sought to understand the perceptions and practices regarding frailty measurement in US KT programs. METHODS:Surveys were emailed to American Society of Transplantation Kidney/Pancreas Community of Practice members and 202 US transplant programs (November 2017 to April 2018). Program characteristics were gleaned from Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. RESULTS:The 133 responding programs (response rate = 66%) represented 77% of adult KTs and 79% of adult KT candidates in the United States. Respondents considered frailty to be a useful concept in evaluating candidacy (99%) and endorsed a need to develop a frailty measurement specific to KT (92%). Frailty measurement was more common during candidacy evaluation (69%) than during KT admission (28%). Of the 202 programs, 38% performed frailty assessments in all candidates while 23% performed assessments only for older candidates. There was heterogeneity in the frailty assessment method; 18 different tools were utilized to measure frailty. The most common tool was a timed walk test (19%); 67% reported performing >1 tool. Among programs that measure frailty, 53% reported being less likely to list frail patients for KT. CONCLUSIONS:Among US KT programs, frailty is recognized as a clinically relevant construct and is commonly measured at evaluation. However, there is considerable heterogeneity in the tools used to measure frailty. Efforts to identify optimal measurement of frailty using either an existing or a novel tool and subsequent standardization of its measurement and application across KT programs should be considered.

BACKGROUND:Delayed graft function (DGF) is associated with inferior posttransplant outcomes in kidney transplantation. Given these adverse outcomes, we sought to determine the incidence, unique risk factors, and posttransplant outcomes for simultaneous liver kidney (SLK) transplant recipients developing DGF. METHODS:We studied 6214 adult SLK recipients from March 2002 to February 2017 using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. We determined associations between risk factors and DGF using Poisson multivariate regression and between DGF and graft failure and mortality using Cox proportional hazard analysis. RESULTS:The overall rate of DGF was 21.8%. Risk factors for DGF in the hepatitis C virus (HCV)-negative recipient population included pretransplant dialysis (adjusted incident rate ratio [aIRR] 3.26, P = 0.004), donor body mass index (aIRR 1.25 per 5 kg/m, P = 0.01), and transplantation with a donation after circulatory death (aIRR 5.38, P = 0.001) or imported donor organ (regional share aIRR 1.69, P = 0.03; national share aIRR 4.82, P < 0.001). DGF was associated with a 2.6-fold increase in kidney graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.63, P < 0.001), 1.6-fold increase in liver graft failure (aHR 1.62, P < 0.001), and 1.6-fold increase in mortality (aHR 1.62, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:In HCV-negative SLK recipients, recipient pretransplant dialysis and components of kidney graft quality comprise significant risk factors for DGF. Regardless of HCV status, DGF is associated with inferior posttransplant outcomes. Understanding these risk factors during clinical decision-making may improve prevention of DGF and may represent an opportunity to improve posttransplant outcomes.

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:Evidence about the reliability of pre-implantation biopsy is still conflicting, depending on both biopsy type and pathologist's expertise. Aim of the study is to evaluate the agreement of general v specialist pathologists and to compare scores on biopsy and whole organs in a set of discarded kidneys. METHODS:46 discarded kidneys were identified with their corresponding biopsies. The biopsies were reviewed by three general and two specialist pathologists, blinded to the original report, according to Remuzzi score. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated for both groups. Discarded kidneys were scored according to Remuzzi score by a single specialist pathologist. Biopsies and organs were compared by Wilcoxon signed rank test. Weighted κ coefficients between biopsy and organ scores were also calculated. RESULTS:Specialist pathologists achieved higher values of ICC, reaching excellent or good agreement in most of the parameters, while general pathologists values were mainly fair or good. On whole organs, scores were consistently lower than biopsies, with a significant difference in most of the parameters. Weighted κ coefficient was slight or fair for most of the parameters. CONCLUSIONS:Our data suggests that the creation of a pool of specialist pathologists would improve organ utilization. Moreover, biopsies are not representative of the whole organ. As the Remuzzi score on biopsy is a major reasons for discard, a quota of transplantable kidneys may be erroneously discarded. Refinement in Remuzzi cut-offs based on expert reporting and recognition of sampling error of biopsies in correlation with clinical outcome data should be undertaken.

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.

Steatotic donor livers (SDLs) (macrosteatosis ≥30%) represent a possible donor pool expansion, but are frequently discarded due to a historical association with mortality and graft loss. However, changes in recipient/donor demographics, allocation policy, and clinical protocols might have altered utilization and outcomes of SDLs. We used Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 2005 to 2017 and adjusted multilevel regression to quantify temporal trends in discard rates (logistic) and posttransplant outcomes (Cox) of SDLs, accounting for Organ Procurement Organization-level variation. Of 4346 recovered SDLs, 58.0% were discarded in 2005, versus only 43.1% in 2017 (P < .001). SDLs were always substantially more likely discarded versus non-SDLs, although this difference decreased over time (adjusted odds ratio in 2005-2007:_13.15 15.28_17.74 ; 2008-2011:_11.77 13.41_15.29 ; 2012-2014:_9.87 11.37_13.10 ; 2015-2017:_7.79 8.89_10.15 , P < .001 for all). Conversely, posttransplant outcomes of recipients of SDLs improved over time: recipients of SDLs from 2012 to 2017 had 46% lower risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: _0.43 0.54_0.68 , P < .001) and 47% lower risk of graft loss (aHR: _0.42 0.53_0.67 , P < .001) compared to 2005 to 2011. In fact, in 2012 to 2017, recipients of SDLs had equivalent mortality (aHR: _0.90 1.04_1.21 , P = .6) and graft loss (aHR: _0.90 1.04_1.20 , P = .6) to recipients of non-SDLs. Increasing utilization of SDLs might be a reasonable strategy to expand the donor pool.

Frailty, a measure of physiologic reserve, is associated with poor outcomes and mortality among kidney transplant (KT) candidates and recipients. There are no national estimates of frailty in this population, which may help patient counseling and resource allocation at transplant centers. We studied 4616 KT candidates and 1763 recipients in our multicenter prospective cohort of frailty from 2008-2018 with Fried frailty measurements. Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) data (KT candidates = 560 143 and recipients = 243 508), we projected the national prevalence of frailty (for KT candidates and recipients separately) using standardization through inverse probability weighting, accounting for candidate/recipient, donor, and transplant factors. In our multicenter cohort, 13.3% of KT candidates were frail at evaluation; 8.2% of LDKT recipients and 17.8% of DDKT recipients were frail at transplantation. Projected nationally, our modeling strategy estimated 91 738 KT candidates or 16.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.4%-18.4%) of all KT candidates during the study period were frail, and that 34 822 KT recipients or 14.3% (95% CI 12.3%-16.3%) of all KT recipients were frail (LDKT = 8.2%; DDKT = 17.8%). Given the estimated national prevalence of frailty, transplant programs should consider assessing the condition during KT evaluation to improve patient counseling and resource allocation along with identification of recipients at risk for poor outcomes.

BACKGROUND:Early steroid withdrawal (ESW) is associated with acceptable outcomes in kidney transplant (KT) recipients. Recipients with delayed graft function (DGF), however, often have a suboptimal allograft milieu, which may alter the risk/benefit equation for ESW. This may contribute to varying practices across transplant centers. METHODS:Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we studied 110,019 adult deceased-donor KT recipients between 2005 and 2017. We characterized the association of DGF with the use of ESW versus continued steroid maintenance across KT centers, and quantified the association of ESW with acute rejection, graft failure, and mortality using multivariable logistic and Cox regression with DGF-ESW interaction terms. RESULTS:=0.6). CONCLUSIONS:KT centers in the United States use ESW inconsistently in recipients with DGF. Our findings suggest ESW may lead to worse KT outcomes in recipients with DGF.