Faculty Bibliography

Given the unique risk profile of kidney transplant recipients (KTRs), characterizing their cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk after COVID-19 remains critical for targeted management. We performed a retrospective analysis of 809 clinically diagnosed symptomatic COVID-19 events among 778 KTRs from one Maryland health system (3/2020-1/2024) to characterize incidence and risk factors of post-COVID-19 CVD. We followed KTRs until composite CVD (acute coronary syndrome (ACS), stroke, heart failure (HF), CVD death), non-CVD death, or one year after COVID-19 and identified risk factors using LASSO-based sub-distribution hazards regression. Incidence of post-COVID CVD was 8.7% at one-year (2.7% ACS, 1.4% stroke, 3.6% HF, and 1.0% CVD death). KTRs with CVD history had higher incidence than those without (19.1% vs 5.0%). Older age, Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, prior CVD, and COVID-19 hospitalization increased post-COVID CVD risk; BMI>30 and treatment with remdesivir decreased post-COVID CVD risk. COVID-19 hospitalization conferred equivalent risk to prior CVD: incidence was 11.2% among KTRs with prior CVD but no hospitalization, 12.0% among KTRs with hospitalization but no prior CVD, 25.2% among KTRs with both, and 1.8% among KTRs with neither. Post-COVID-19 CVD risk was high among KTRs and hospitalization for COVID-19 was as important as having had a prior cardiovascular event.

Kidney transplantation from donors with HIV has recently become standard clinical practice, but the plasma inflammatory profile is not well characterized. Thirty-two cytokines and chemokines were evaluated among donors with HIV (n = 63) and without HIV (n = 41). Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare cytokines between groups. Donors with and without HIV were generally similar in terms of characteristics, except those with HIV had a non-significantly lower kidney donor profile index, reflecting better graft survival, creatinine, and body mass index. Most cytokine and chemokine levels were similar between groups. However, median IL-8 levels were higher (p < 0.0015) in donors without HIV (32.6 pg/mL, IQR = 13.8-394.9) compared to donors with HIV (15.1 pg/mL, IQR = 8.4-35.5). There were no significant correlations between cytokine and chemokine concentrations and CD4 counts or HIV viral load. In summary, inflammatory profiles were similar or lower among donors with HIV compared to donors without HIV supporting the safety of this emerging kidney transplantation practice.

OBJECTIVE:Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is a common comorbidity among patients waitlisted for deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT). However, some centers consider PAD a contraindication for transplant given the higher risk of post-operative complications. We aimed to examine the survival benefit of DDKT among patients with and without PAD. METHODS:We used data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) from January 2003 to December 2022 to identify all DDK waitlist candidates. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare patient mortality for those who received a DDKT versus those remaining on the waitlist, stratified by PAD status. RESULTS:506,785 candidates were listed for adult kidney-only transplant during the study period, of which 8.7% had PAD and 36.0% received a DDKT. After a median follow-up time of 3.21 years from waitlist activation [interquartile range 1.11-7.03 years], mortality varied significantly according to DDKT and PAD status. After adjusting for baseline differences, DDKT was associated with a significantly lower hazard of death compared to remaining on the waitlist, regardless of PAD status [adjusted hazards ratio (aHR) 0.45-0.60, P<0.001]. Further stratifying by sex, race and ethnicity, and diabetes status did not substantially alter these results. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:PAD includes a spectrum of diseases with varying mortality risks. As captured and dichotomized in the SRTR database, DDKT conferred a similar long-term benefit relative to remaining on the waitlist for candidates with and without PAD. Therefore, PAD should not be an absolute contraindication to DDKT.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.lana.2024.100895.].

The benefits of bilateral lung transplantation (BLT) versus single lung transplantation (SLT) are still debated. One impediment to clinical recommendations is that BLT vs. SLT advantages may vary based on underlying disease. Since both options are clinically tenable in patients with emphysema, we conducted a comprehensive assessment of lung allograft survival in this population. Using U.S. registry data, we studied time to all-cause allograft failure in 8,092 patients 12 years or older transplanted from 2006 to 2022, adjusting for recipient, donor, and transplant factors by inverse propensity weighting. Median allograft survival was 6.6 years in BLT compared to 5.3 years in SLT, a 25% risk-adjusted survival advantage of _0.81.3_1.8 years. Risk-adjusted bilateral survival advantages varied between 0.9 and 2.4 years across eleven subgroups. Median allograft survival in BLT was 1.2 years greater than right SLT and 2.0 years greater than left SLT. During the 16-year study period, allograft survival steadily improved for BLT but not for SLT. Although the 25% BLT survival advantage pre-dated the pandemic, COVID-19 may have contributed to an apparent SLT survival decline. Recognizing the possible influence of residual confounding due to selection biases, these findings may aid offer decision-making when both donor lungs are available.

Transplantation of kidneys from donors with HIV to recipients with HIV (HIV D+/R+) has been shown to be safe and effective, but there is a unique risk of donor-derived HIV-superinfection (HIV-SI) in these recipients. Recipients from a multicenter observational HIV D+/R+ study were examined for HIV-SI using site-directed next-generation sequencing (Illumina). Eighteen HIV D+/R+ kidney transplant recipients had both baseline and follow-up samples that successfully amplified. One recipient was confirmed to have experienced donor-derived HIV-SI at week 26, but did not experience any clinically significant changes. HIV-SI in HIV D+/R+ transplant recipients is rare, and the clinical ramifications appear negligible.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE:Despite national efforts, the uptake of home dialysis (peritoneal dialysis or home hemodialysis) remains low. Characteristics of the built environment may differentially impact home dialysis use. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study (2010-2019). SETTING & PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:1,103,695 adults (aged≥18 years) initiating dialysis in the US Renal Data System. EXPOSURE/METHODS:We examined 3 built environment domains based on residential ZIP code: (1) medically underserved areas (MUAs), defined as neighborhoods with limited primary care access; (2) distance to the nearest dialysis facility; and (3) distribution of housing characteristics (structure and overcrowding). OUTCOME/RESULTS:Uptake of home dialysis modalities at dialysis initiation. ANALYTICAL APPROACH/METHODS:We quantified associations between built environment characteristics and home dialysis initiation using multilevel logistic regression stratified by urbanicity type (urban, suburban, small-town, and rural). RESULTS:Among adults initiating dialysis, 40.8% lived in MUAs. Across ZIP codes, the mean percentage of overcrowded housing was 4.2% (SD, 4.7%), and the percentage of detached housing was 61.1% (SD, 21.1%); mean distance to the nearest dialysis facility was 5.5km (SD, 9.1km). Living in MUAs was associated with reduced home dialysis use only in urban (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91-0.96) and suburban (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.89-0.94) areas. Similarly, housing overcrowding was associated with decreased home dialysis use only in urban (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.86-0.89) and suburban (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.90-0.93) areas. Longer distance to a dialysis facility was the most salient neighborhood factor associated with increased home dialysis use in small towns (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.12-1.16) and rural areas (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.15-1.19). LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:Housing characteristics were measured at the ZIP code level. CONCLUSIONS:Built environment characteristics associated with home dialysis uptake vary by urbanicity. Policies should address built environment barriers that are specific to urbanicity level. For example, increasing the frequency of dialysate delivery schedules could address housing space constraints in urban and suburban areas, and promoting home dialysis might be more effective for patients living far from dialysis centers in small-town and rural areas.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Dialysis social workers (DSWs) educate and advocate for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients during the kidney transplantation (KT) process. However, little is known about the barriers DSWs face as they help patients get waitlisted and how to best support their efforts. We interviewed DSWs across New York (NY) State to examine their experiences, supports, and challenges in helping dialysis patients progress through KT education, referral, and evaluation. METHODS:We conducted semi-structured interviews with DSWs in NY State who had participated or expressed interest in a program designed to educate DSWs about KT and used rapid qualitative analysis to identify themes. FINDINGS/RESULTS:We interviewed 17 DSWs. Seven themes emerged: (1) DSWs report involvement in KT interest assessment, education, referral, and evaluation support, (2) DSWs report varying nephrologist support in helping patients progress to KT, (3) DSWs perceive social support and adherence as key factors in KT centers' eligibility determinations, (4) DSWs have knowledge gaps around living donation and appreciate learning about KT from transplant centers and non-profit organizations, (5) Patients express KT concerns and DSWs counsel them about these concerns, (6) DSWs report solutions to help patients complete KT evaluation appointments, and (7) DSWs report communication deficiencies between dialysis centers and transplant centers, and patients. CONCLUSIONS:Education for DSWs, support from nephrologists, and resources to help patients complete KT evaluation steps facilitated DSW engagement throughout the pre-transplant process, underscoring the need for multi-level, cross-disciplinary programs to support these efforts.