Faculty Bibliography

Desensitization has enabled incompatible living donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) across HLA/ABO barriers, but added immunomodulation might put patients at increased risk of infections. We studied 475 recipients from our center from 2010 to 2015, categorized by desensitization intensity: none/compatible (n = 260), low (0-4 plasmaphereses, n = 47), moderate (5-9, n = 74), and high (≥10, n = 94). The 1-year cumulative incidence of infection was 50.1%, 49.8%, 66.0%, and 73.5% for recipients who received none, low, moderate, and high-intensity desensitization (P < .001). The most common infections were UTI (33.5% of ILDKT vs. 21.5% compatible), opportunistic (21.9% vs. 10.8%), and bloodstream (19.1% vs. 5.4%) (P < .001). In weighted models, a trend toward increased risk was seen in low (wIRR = _0.77 1.40_2.56 ,P = .3) and moderately (wIRR = _0.88 1.35_2.06 ,P = .2) desensitized recipients, with a statistically significant 2.22-fold (wIRR = _1.33 2.22_3.72 ,P = .002) increased risk in highly desensitized recipients. Recipients with ≥4 infections were at higher risk of prolonged hospitalization (wIRR = _2.62 3.57_4.88 , P < .001) and death-censored graft loss (wHR = _1.15 4.01_13.95 ,P = .03). Post-KT infections are more common in desensitized ILDKT recipients. A subset of highly desensitized patients is at ultra-high risk for infections. Strategies should be designed to protect patients from the morbidity of recurrent infections, and to extend the survival benefit of ILDKT across the spectrum of recipients.

BACKGROUND:Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) remains a worldwide pandemic with a high mortality rate among patients requiring mechanical ventilation. The limited data that exists regarding the utility of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in these critically ill patients shows poor overall outcomes. This paper describes our institutional practice regarding the application and management of ECMO support for patients with Covid-19 and reports promising early outcomes. METHODS:>60 mmHg with no life-limiting comorbidities. Patients were cannulated at bedside and were managed with protective lung ventilation, early tracheostomy, bronchoscopies and proning as clinically indicated. RESULTS:Of 321 patients intubated for Covid-19, 77 (24%) patients were evaluated for ECMO support with 27 (8.4%) patients placed on ECMO. All patients were placed on veno-venous ECMO. Current survival is 96.3%, with only one mortality to date in over 350 days of total ECMO support. Thirteen patients (48.1%) remain on ECMO support, while 13 patients (48.1%) have been successfully decannulated. Seven patients (25.9%) have been discharged from the hospital. Six patients (22.2%) remain in the hospital of which four are on room-air. No healthcare workers that participated in ECMO cannulation developed symptoms of or tested positive for Covid-19. CONCLUSIONS:The early outcomes presented here suggest that the judicious use of ECMO support in severe Covid-19 may be clinically beneficial.

BACKGROUND:The Lung Allocation Score (LAS) significantly improved outcomes and waitlist mortality in lung transplantation. However, mortality remains high for the sickest waitlist candidates despite additional changes to allocation distance. Regulatory considerations of overhauling the current lung allocation system has met significant resistance, and would require years to implement. This study evaluates if a modest change to the current system by prioritization of only high-LAS lung transplant candidates would result in lowered waitlist mortality. METHODS:The Thoracic Simulated Allocation Model was used to evaluate all lung transplant candidates and donor lungs recovered between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2011. Current lung allocation rules (initial offer within 250 nautical-mile radius for ABO-identical then compatible offers) were run. Allocation was then changed for only patients with an LAS≥50 (high-LAS) to be prioritized within a 500 nautical-mile radius with no stratification between ABO-identical and compatible offers. Ten iterations of each model were run. Primary endpoints were waitlist mortality and post-transplant 1-year survival. RESULTS:6,538 waitlist candidates and transplant recipients were evaluated per iteration, for a total of 130,760 simulated patients. Compared with current allocation, the adjusted model had a 23.3% decrease in waitlist mortality. Post-transplant 1-year survival was minimally affected. CONCLUSIONS:Without overhauling the entire system, simple prioritization changes to the allocation system for high-LAS candidates may lead to decreased waitlist mortality and increased organ utilization. Importantly, these changes do not appear to lead to clinically significant changes in post-transplant 1-year survival.

BACKGROUND:Desensitization protocols for HLA-incompatible living donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) vary across centers. The impact of these, as well as other practice variations, on ILDKT outcomes remain unknown. METHODS:We sought to quantify center-level variation in mortality and graft loss following ILDKT using a 25-center cohort of 1358 ILDKT recipients with linkage to SRTR for accurate outcome ascertainment. We used multilevel Cox regression with shared frailty to determine the variation in post-ILDKT outcomes attributable to between-center differences, and to identify any center-level characteristics associated with improved post-ILDKT outcomes. RESULTS:After adjusting for patient-level characteristics, only 6 centers (24%) had lower mortality and 1 (4%) had higher mortality than average. Similarly, only 5 centers (20%) had higher graft loss and 2 had lower graft loss than average. Only 4.7% of the differences in mortality (p<0.01) and 4.4% of the differences in graft loss (p<0.01) were attributable to between-center variation. These translated to a median hazard ratio of 1.36 for mortality and 1.34 of graft loss for similar candidates at different centers. Post-ILDKT outcomes were not associated with the following center-level characteristics: ILDKT volume and transplanting a higher proportion of highly sensitized, prior transplant, preemptive, or minority candidates. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Unlike most aspects of transplantation where center-level variation and volume impact outcomes, we did not find substantial evidence for this in ILDKT. Our findings support the continued practice of ILDKT across these diverse centers.

To determine the impact of tocilizumab, a monoclonal antibody against the interleukin 6 receptor, on survival in patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Rationale & Objectives/UNASSIGNED:Recent data demonstrate that center volume is not a factor in the outcomes of adult kidney transplant recipients. This study assessed whether center volume affects graft survival in pediatric patients who received a kidney transplant. Study Design/UNASSIGNED:Case-cohort study. Setting & Participants/UNASSIGNED:Kidney transplantation centers, recipients younger than 18 years. Results/UNASSIGNED: = 0.02. Although outcomes for deceased donor kidney recipients were similar in the 3 volume categories, outcomes in patients who received a living kidney donation were better in the high-volume centers. Low household income was associated with poorer outcomes. However, 3-year graft survival was similar in the 3 center volume categories in high and low mean household income states. Limitations/UNASSIGNED:Lack of information for complications and individual family household income of recipients. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Transplantation outcomes are worse in pediatric patients treated at lower-volume centers. The difference was more pronounced for patients receiving living versus deceased donor kidneys. The distribution of household income in pediatric transplant recipients may also be a factor that contributes to lower 3-year graft survival in low-volume centers.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE:Compared to recipients of ABO-compatible (ABOc) living donor kidney transplants (LDKT), recipients of ABO-incompatible (ABOi) LDKT have a higher risk of graft loss, particularly in the first few weeks after transplantation. However, the decision to proceed with ABOi LDKT should be based on a comparison of the alternative: waiting for future ABOc LDKT (e.g, through kidney paired exchange) or for a deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT). We sought to evaluate the patient survival difference between ABOi LDKT and waiting for an ABOc LDKT or an ABOc DDKT. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study of adults in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 808 ABOi LDKT recipients and 2423 matched controls from among 245,158 adult, first-time kidney-only waitlist registrants who did not receive an ABOi LDKT and who remained on the waitlist or received either an ABOc LDKT or an ABOc DDKT, 2002-2017 EXPOSURE: Receipt of ABOi LDKT OUTCOME: Death ANALYTICAL APPROACH: We compared mortality among ABOi LDKT recipients versus a weighted matched comparison population using Cox proportional hazards regression as well as Cox models that accommodated for changing hazards ratios over time. RESULTS:Compared to matched controls, ABOi LDKT was associated with lower survival risk in the first 30 days post-transplant (99.0% vs 99.6%, respectively), but higher survival risk beyond 180 days post-transplant. Patients who received ABOi LDKT had higher survival at 5 and 10 years (90.0% and 75.4% respectively) than similar patients who remained on the waitlist or received ABOc LDKT or ABOc DDKT (81.9% and 68.4% respectively). LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:No measurement of ABO antibody titers in recipients; eligibility of participants for kidney paired donation is unknown. CONCLUSIONS:Transplant candidates who receive an ABOi LDKT and survive more than 180 days post-transplant experience a long-term survival benefit compared to remaining on the waitlist to potentially receive an ABO compatible kidney transplant.

Data describing the clinical progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in transplant recipients are limited. In New York City during the surge in COVID-19 cases, a systematic approach to monitoring and triaging immunocompromised transplant patients was required in the context of strained healthcare resources, limited outpatient testing, and heightened hospital exposure risks. Public health guidance at the onset of the COVID-19 outbreak recommended outpatient monitoring of mildly symptomatic patients without specific recommendations for special populations such as transplant recipients. We developed and implemented a systematic monitoring algorithm for kidney transplant recipients at our transplant center who reported mild symptoms suggestive of COVID-19. We describe the outcomes of the first 44 patients monitored through this algorithm. A total of 44 kidney transplant recipients thought to be symptomatic for COVID-19 disease were followed for a minimum of 14 days. The majority of mildly symptomatic patients (34/44) had clinical progression of disease and were referred to the emergency department where they all tested PCR positive and required hospitalization. More than half of these patients presented with hypoxia requiring supplemental oxygen, 39% were intubated within 48 hours, and 53% developed acute kidney injury but did not require dialysis. There were 6 deaths. During surge outbreaks, kidney transplant patients with even mild symptoms have a high likelihood of COVID-19 disease and most will worsen requiring hospitalization for supportive measures. Earlier outpatient testing and hospitalization may improve COVID-19 outcomes among transplant recipients.

The XV. Banff conference for allograft pathology was held in conjunction with the annual meeting of the American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics in Pittsburgh, PA (USA) and focused on refining recent updates to the classification, advances from the Banff working groups, and standardization of molecular diagnostics. This report on kidney transplant pathology details clarifications and refinements to the criteria for chronic active (CA) T cell-mediated rejection (TCMR), borderline, and antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR). The main focus of kidney sessions was on how to address biopsies meeting criteria for CA TCMR plus borderline or acute TCMR. Recent studies on the clinical impact of borderline infiltrates were also presented to clarify whether the threshold for interstitial inflammation in diagnosis of borderline should be i0 or i1. Sessions on ABMR focused on biopsies showing microvascular inflammation in the absence of C4d staining or detectable donor-specific antibodies; the potential value of molecular diagnostics in such cases and recommendations for use of the latter in the setting of solid organ transplantation are presented in the accompanying meeting report. Finally, several speakers discussed the capabilities of artificial intelligence and the potential for use of machine learning algorithms in diagnosis and personalized therapeutics in solid organ transplantation.

Background: Clinical trials have demonstrated the safety of utilizing hepatitis C viremic donors (HCV+) to expand the donor pool through transplantation into hepatitis C naive recipients (HCV-). However, there has been a lack of enthusiasm to of er HCV+ pancreas grafts to HCV- recipients. We of ered HCV- pancreas patients the option to list for HCV+ donor organs.
Material(s) and Method(s): Patients undergoing pancreas transplant evaluation had informed consent by a transplant physician to receive HCV+ donor organs. We ensured patients had pharmacy coverage for post-transplant HCV anti-retroviral therapy prior to listing. In our early experience, 4 of our 8 transplant recipients elected to list for HCV+ donor organs.
Result(s): In the first 8 months, the average time to transplant from listing was 41 days for patients with standard listing and 21 days for patients listing for HCV+ organs (p<0.05). Of note, 2 of the 4 HCV- recipients were blood type AB and had shorter match time due to their blood type. For all HCV+ donors, COD was anoxia/drug OD, all were HCV antibody and NAT positive, PHS IR, and national imports, with average rank of 3 on the match run. All HCV- donors were local donors with average rank of 21 on the match run. HCV+ donors were younger (28 years) in contrast to HCV- donors (35 years). All recipients have excellent graft function with no signif cant dif erences in complications, LOS, or readmissions.
Conclusion(s): Utilization of HCV+ pancreas donors has allowed our patients increased access to high quality pancreas donors with signif cantly shorter wait times