Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) sensitization presents a major obstacle for patients awaiting renal transplantation. HLA antibody reduction and favorable transplantation rates have been reported after treatment with high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg). METHODS: We enrolled 27 patients whose median flow cytometric calculated panel reactive antibody (CPRA) was 100% and mean wait-list time exceeded 4 years in a protocol whereby high-dose IVIg was administered, HLA antibody profiles of sera obtained before and after treatment were characterized, and cross-match tests were performed with all blood group identical kidney offers. RESULTS: Whereas 12.8% of a similarly sensitized historic control cohort underwent transplantation in the course of a year, 41% of the IVIg-treated group underwent transplantation during the study period. Surprisingly, HLA antibody profiles, measured by CPRA, showed no significant change in response to IVIg treatment. In fact, retrospective cross-match testing using pretreatment sera of those receiving deceased-donor allografts showed that all patients would have been eligible for transplantation with their respective donors before IVIg infusions. CONCLUSIONS: This study does not corroborate previous reports of CPRA reduction leading to increased deceased-donor transplantation rates in broadly sensitized patients undergoing desensitization with high-dose IVIg. The increased rate of transplantation relative to historic controls is not related to improved cross-match eligibility and likely resulted from frequent crossmatching using a cytotoxic strength threshold, improved medical readiness for transplantation, and newly recognized options for live-donor transplantation, all of which could have been achieved without IVIg treatment.

Kidney paired donation represented 10% of living kidney donation in the United States in 2011. National registries around the world and several separate registries in the United States arrange paired donations, although with significant variations in their practices. Concerns about ethical considerations, clinical advisability, and the quantitative effectiveness of these approaches in paired donation result in these variations. For instance, although donor travel can be burdensome and might discourage paired donation, it was nearly universal until convincing analysis showed that living donor kidneys can sustain many hours of cold ischemia time without adverse consequences. Opinions also differ about whether the last donor in a chain of paired donation transplants initiated by a nondirected donor should donate immediately to someone on the deceased donor wait-list (a domino or closed chain) or should be asked to wait some length of time and donate to start another sequence of paired donations later (an open chain); some argue that asking the donor to donate later may be coercive, and others focus on balancing the probability that the waiting donor withdraws versus the number of additional transplants if the chain can be continued. Other controversies in paired donation include simultaneous versus nonsimultaneous donor operations, whether to enroll compatible pairs, and interactions with desensitization protocols. Efforts to expand public awareness of and participation in paired donation are needed to generate more transplant opportunities.

BACKGROUND:Only 29% of deceased donor kidney recipients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) receive HCV-positive (HCV+) kidneys. These kidneys are discarded 2.5 times more often than their HCV-negative (HCV-) counterparts, possibly due to the sense that an HCV+ kidney may adversely affect recipient liver function. The goals of this study were to characterize liver disease in HCV+ kidney recipients and compare rates of liver-related outcomes by kidney donor HCV status. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Observational cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:6,250 patients with HCV who had a kidney transplant in 1995-2008 as captured in the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database. Liver-related outcomes were assessed by cross-linking with the liver waitlist and transplant data sets. PREDICTOR/METHODS:HCV status of transplanted kidney. OUTCOMES/RESULTS:Joining the liver waitlist, receiving a liver transplant, death. MEASUREMENTS/METHODS:Time to event. RESULTS:Only 63 (1%) of HCV+ kidney recipients eventually joined the liver waitlist during the 13-year study period. Those who received HCV+ kidneys had a 2.6-fold higher hazard of joining the liver list (P < 0.001); however, the absolute difference in rate of listing between recipients of HCV- and HCV+ kidneys was <2%. This is consistent with findings of only 2% lower patient survival at 3 years in HCV+ patients receiving HCV+ versus HCV- kidneys. LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:We lacked data for HCV viral load and genotype of both HCV+ recipients and transplanted HCV+ kidneys. CONCLUSIONS:Because transplant with an HCV+ kidney may reduce waiting-time by more than a year for an HCV+ patient and there is a high risk of kidney waitlist mortality, a 2% increased rate of adverse liver outcomes and 2% increased rate of death at 3 years should not universally preclude the use of HCV+ kidneys when the intended recipient is also HCV+.

BACKGROUND: Lack of education and reluctance to initiate a conversation about live donor kidney transplantation is a common barrier to finding a donor. Although transplant candidates are often hesitant to discuss their illness, friends or family members are often eager to spread awareness and are empowered by advocating for the candidates. We hypothesized that separating the advocate from the patient is important in identifying live donors. METHODS: We developed an intervention to train a live donor champion (LDC; a friend, family member, or community member willing to advocate for the candidate) for this advocacy role. We compared outcomes of 15 adult kidney transplant candidates who had no prospective donors and underwent the LDC intervention with 15 matched controls from our waiting list. RESULTS: Comfort in initiating a conversation about transplantation increased over time for LDCs. Twenty-five potential donors contacted our center on behalf of LDC participants; four participants achieved live donor kidney transplantation and three additional participants have donors in evaluation, compared with zero among matched controls (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Transplant candidates are ill equipped to seek live donors; by separating the advocate from the patient, understandable concerns about initiating conversations are reduced.

BACKGROUND: On average, African Americans attain living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) at decreased rates compared with their non-African American counterparts. However, center-level variations in this disparity or the role of center-level factors is unknown. STUDY DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 247,707 adults registered for first-time kidney transplants from 1995-2007 as reported by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. PREDICTORS: Patient-level factors (age, sex, body mass index, insurance status, education, blood type, and panel-reactive antibody level) were adjusted for in all models. The association of center-level characteristics (number of candidates, transplant volume, LDKT volume, median time to transplant, percentage of African American candidates, percentage of prelisted candidates, and percentage of LDKT) and degree of racial disparity in LDKT was quantified. OUTCOMES: Hierarchical multivariate logistic regression models were used to derive center-specific estimates of LDKT attainment in African American versus non-African American candidates. RESULTS: Racial parity was not seen at any of the 275 transplant centers in the United States. At centers with the least racial disparity, African Americans had 35% lower odds of receiving LDKT; at centers with the most disparity, African Americans had 76% lower odds. Higher percentages of African American candidates (interaction term, 0.86; P = 0.03) and prelisted candidates (interaction term, 0.80; P = 0.001) at a given center were associated with increased racial disparity at that center. Higher rates of LDKT (interaction term, 1.25; P < 0.001) were associated with less racial disparity. LIMITATIONS: Some patient-level factors are not captured, including a given patient's pool of potential donors. Geographic disparities in deceased donor availability might affect LDKT rates. Center-level policies and practices are not captured. CONCLUSIONS: Racial disparity in attainment of LDKT exists at every transplant center in the country. Centers with higher rates of LDKT attainment for all races had less disparity; these high-performing centers might provide insights into policies that might help address this disparity.

Approximately 14,000 women of reproductive age are currently living in the United States after liver transplantation (LT), and another 500 undergo LT each year. Although LT improves reproductive function in women with advanced liver disease, the associated pregnancy outcomes and maternal-fetal risks have not been quantified in a broad manner. To obtain more generalizable inferences, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of articles that were published between 2000 and 2011 and reported pregnancy-related outcomes for LT recipients. Eight of 578 unique studies met the inclusion criteria, and these studies represented 450 pregnancies in 306 LT recipients. The post-LT live birth rate [76.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 72.7%-80.7%] was higher than the live birth rate for the US general population (66.7%) but was similar to the post-kidney transplantation (KT) live birth rate (73.5%). The post-LT miscarriage rate (15.6%, 95% CI = 12.3%-19.2%) was lower than the miscarriage rate for the general population (17.1%) but was similar to the post-KT miscarriage rate (14.0%). The rates of pre-eclampsia (21.9%, 95% CI = 17.7%-26.4%), cesarean section delivery (44.6%, 95% CI = 39.2%-50.1%), and preterm delivery (39.4%, 95% CI = 33.1%-46.0%) were higher than the rates for the US general population (3.8%, 31.9%, and 12.5%, respectively) but lower than the post-KT rates (27.0%, 56.9%, and 45.6%, respectively). Both the mean gestational age and the mean birth weight were significantly greater (P < 0.001) for LT recipients versus KT recipients (36.5 versus 35.6 weeks and 2866 versus 2420 g). Although pregnancy after LT is feasible, the complication rates are relatively high and should be considered during patient counseling and clinical decision making. More case and center reports are necessary so that information on post-LT pregnancy outcomes and complications can be gathered to improve the clinical management of pregnant LT recipients. Continued reporting to active registries is highly encouraged at the center level.

CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:Although graft and patient survival rates for living kidney donation are improved, some healthcare providers question whether volunteer donors and their informal caregivers are fully informed of the donation process and the risks involved. Donors and their family caregivers have reported that they receive limited information about the predonation and donor recovery process. Offering web-based information and social support is one way to address this gap. STRATEGY/METHODS:Living kidney donor candidates and their family caregivers participating in the Living Donor Information Network for Caregiving (LINC) have access to a variety of online informational resources and a social support discussion forum throughout their living kidney donation experience. Strategies in the development and implementation of an online information and social-support resource are presented. CONCLUSIONS:Use of the LINC website for information and support may assist health care providers in identifying potential barriers in the current donation process and provide direction for enhancing knowledge and confidence among donors and family caregivers.

In an effort to increase living donor transplantation while minimizing risk and morbidity, recent advances have been made in surgical technique, kidney paired donation, desensitization, identification of living donors and research into living donor outcomes. Single-port nephrectomy and vaginal extraction have reduced donor nephrectomy incision size. Transport of live donor kidneys has reduced geographic barriers to kidney paired donation, and participation of compatible pairs and nondirected donors has increased match opportunities for incompatible pairs participating in this modality. ABO-incompatible transplantation can now be successfully performed without high-intensity immunomodulation, and HLA-incompatible transplantation has been shown in a large single-center study to provide profound survival benefit compared with waiting for a compatible donor. Complement inhibition is an exciting, emerging approach that may facilitate incompatible transplantation and treat antibody-mediated rejection. Educational and communications interventions are proving valuable in helping patients find living donors, and large studies continue to provide reassurance to carefully screened living donors that risks are very low. As living donors are critical to addressing the profound organ shortage, efforts to increase living donation remain important.

The worldwide focus on work hour regulations and patient safety has led to the re-examination of the merits of night-time surgery, including kidney transplantation. The risks of operating during nontraditional work hours with potentially fatigued surgeons and staff must be weighed against the negative effects of prolonged cold ischemic time with resultant graft compromise. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of performing renal transplantation procedures during evening versus day time hours. The main outcome measures assessed between the day and night cohorts included comparisons of the postoperative complication rates and survival outcomes for both the renal allograft and the patient. A retrospective review of 633 deceased donor renal transplants performed at a single institution was analyzed. Three statistically significant results were noted, namely, a decrease in vascular complications in the nighttime cohort, an increase in urologic complications on subgroup analysis in the 3 AM to 6 AM cohort, and the 12 AM to 3 AM subgroup had the greatest odds of any complication. There was no statistical difference in either patient or graft survival over a twelve month period following transplantation. We conclude that although the complication rate varied among cohorts this was clinically insignificant and there was no overall clinically relevant impact on patient or graft survival.

BACKGROUND:The clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with glycogen storage disease (GSD) who undergo liver transplantation (LT) have not been well defined. In this study, our objective was to determine the outcome of LT in patients with GSD and compare it with a comparable group of patients without GSD (matched controls). METHODS:UNOS data from 1986 to 2007 were used for this study. For each GSD patient (n = 95; men 62%) who was transplanted, three patients (n = 285, men 60%) without GSD (case controls) matched for age ± five yr, year of transplantation and donor risk index (DRI) ± 0.2 were identified from the UNOS database in a random manner. Unadjusted patient survival was determined by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and significance determined by log-rank test. RESULTS:The mean age of the group was 17.9 yr. GSD patients had lower BMI (22 vs. 24, p = 0.002), lower serum bilirubin (2.7 vs. 13.5 mg/dL, p < 0.0001), higher serum albumin (3.7 vs. 3.1 g/dL, p < 0.0001), and higher wait-list time (239 vs. 74 d, p < 0.0001) compared to case controls. Recipient age and DRI were similar between the groups. Tumors were more common in GSD group (13.7% vs. 5%). Patient survival was significantly better (p = 0.024) in GSD group at one, five, and 10 yr (82%, 76%, and 64%) than non-GSD (73%, 65%, and 59%) group. CONCLUSIONS:In this matched-control study, patients who underwent LT for GSD had a better long-term survival than a comparable group of patients without GSD.