Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Predicting graft failure risk in pediatric liver transplantation (LT) recipients could identify areas for improving management. Persistent cognitive, motor, academic, and functional deficits are common in recipients and their impact on graft survival following LT helps inform risk prediction. METHODS:Using SRTR data 2008-2023, we evaluated the cognitive, motor, academic, and functional deficits of LT recipients at time of transplant to 14 years post-LT. We compared all cause graft failure (ACGF) among patients with versus without pre-LT and 1-year post-LT deficits using Cox regression, adjusting for recipient characteristics. We calculated an individual risk score for ACGF. RESULTS:In 8062 pediatric LT recipients median age 3 (IQR: 1, 10), 28.0%, 29.5%, 35.0%, and 79.8% of recipients had pre-LT deficits in cognition, motor, academic activity, and functional status respectively. This decreased to 23.0%, 18.1%, 14.2%, and 38.7% 1-year post-LT. Increased hazard of ACGF was noted in recipients with pre-LT decreased functional status (aHR = 1.13 (per 10% decrease), 95% CI: 1.10-1.15, p < 0.001), definite motor delay (aHR = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.21-2.10, p < 0.001), and inability to participate in academics (aHR = 1.49, 95% CI: 1.08-1.89, p = 0.01), but not delays in cognition (aHR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.69-1.21, p = 0.19). Our risk score predicting ACGF demonstrated improved predictive performance compared to clinical parameters alone (C-statistic = 0.70 (0.67, 0.72) vs. 0.66 (0.64, 0.69), p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Pediatric LT recipients with pre- or post-LT motor, academic, and functional deficits are at higher risk for ACGF. Care should be taken to assess deficits to identify patients who may benefit from functional intervention to potentially reduce ACGF risk.

BACKGROUND:Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) policy requires 2 years of follow-up for living kidney donors (LKDs); however, many transplant hospitals struggle to meet this requirement. We developed and tested a mobile health (mHealth) system for LKD follow-up in a pilot randomized-controlled trial (RCT). METHODS:LKDs were randomly assigned to either the intervention (mHealth + standard of care) or control arm (standard of care). We assessed OPTN policy-defined completeness and timeliness of 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year follow-ups. Four hundred LKDs were enrolled in the study (June 2018 to February 2021). RESULTS:At 6-month follow-up, a higher proportion of the intervention arm participants completed composite visits (97.5% vs. 91.5%, p = 0.01). Both arms had similar compliance rates at 1- and 2-year follow-up (92.0% vs. 89.5%, p = 0.49, and 66.5% vs. 65.0%, p = 0.83). Intervention arm participants completed 6-month follow-up 11 days earlier than their counterparts (p = 0.009). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:mHealth technologies improved 6-month follow-up, but did not impact 1- and 2-year LKD follow-up in this single-center RCT. Other strategies, such as providing services beyond data collection, may be necessary to improve donor engagement and support LDK's long-term follow-up.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Understanding center-level decision-making for suboptimal kidney (SOK) offers is critical to ensure utilization of all transplantable kidneys. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We quantified center-level variation in accepting SOK deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) offers using 2021-2023 national registry data. SOK subtypes included: donor age >60, ultimate cold ischemia time >24 h, hepatitis C positive, terminal serum creatinine >2.0 mg/dL, donation after circulatory death, kidney donor profile index >85%, and public health service increased risk donors. Gini coefficient (Gini) was used to analyze inequality in DDKT utilization by SOK subtype. Multilevel logistic regression models were used to calculate the median odds ratio (mOR), measuring center-level variation in accepting SOK donor offers among adult centers. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Of all DDKTs, 72.6% were from donors with at least 1 SOK characteristic. Inequality persisted in utilization of SOK DDKTs (Gini of all SOKs: 0.53, Gini of all non-SOKs: 0.47). The 193 adult centers accepted a median (interquartile range) of 12.5% (8.4%-19.2%) offered non-SOK donors and 7.2% (4.6%-10.8%) offered SOK donors. Non-SOK donors and SOK donors were refused by a median (interquartile range) of 5 (3-10) and 9 (4-23) centers, respectively. The SOK subtypes with the least and the most center-level variance in acceptance were increased risk donor (mOR = 2.06) and cold ischemia time >36 h (mOR = 4.86), respectively. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Centers vary sharply in their willingness to accept certain types of SOK offers. Informing centers of their patterns of accepting specific donor phenotypes compared with their peers may motivate centers to accept more SOKs for clinically suitable recipients, thus improving patient access to DDKT.

BACKGROUND:Kidney transplantation (KT) from donors with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) to recipients with HIV (HIV D+/R+) is noninferior to KT from donors without HIV (HIV D-/R+) with regard to safety. However, there may be differences in posttransplant infections. METHODS:We performed a secondary analysis of the HOPE in Action KT Study (NCT02602262) comparing the time to first clinically relevant infection within 24 months posttransplantation in 99 HIV D+/R+ versus 99 HIV D-/R+. Secondary outcomes included incidence rates, infection-related death, and timing of clinically relevant infection, each stratified by donor HIV status. RESULTS:The cumulative incidence of a clinically relevant infection at 24 months posttransplantation was 73.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 63.1%-81.2%) for HIV D+/R+ versus 64.7% (95% CI: 53.0%-73.4%) for HIV D-/R+. Comparing time to first clinically relevant infection in HIV D+/R+ versus HIV D-/R+, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) was 1.44 (95% CI: 1.01-2.04) at 24 months posttransplantation; for infections associated with hospitalization, the aHR was not significantly higher (1.21 [95% CI: .78-1.86). There were no significant differences in the number of infections, death from infection, duration, or site of infection between HIV D+/R+ versus HIV D-/R+, though viral infections were numerically more common in HIV D+/R+ (40% vs 35%). CONCLUSIONS:Although there was a statistically significant association between receipt of a kidney from a donor with HIV and time to first clinically relevant infection in the 24 months posttransplantation, there were no differences in infections associated with hospitalization. These data are overall reassuring as this emerging practice expands into clinical care. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT02602262.

BACKGROUND:Multiorgan heart and kidney transplants (HKTx) performed for patients with end-stage heart failure and chronic kidney disease have increased in recent years. However, no established protocols exist on whether a heart and kidney from the same donor should be transplanted in the same operation versus 1-2 days apart. METHODS:Using SRTR data 1993-2023, we compared same-donor HKTx recipients with both transplants performed on the same day ("simultaneous") to recipients with kidney transplants performed within 1 day of the heart transplant ("staged"). We examined differences in weighted post-transplant clinical characteristics using average treatment effect. Post-transplant mortality and graft failure was also assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and instrumental variable analysis adjusted for recipient characteristics and year of transplant. RESULTS:, p < 0.001). Weighted patient mortality, all cause heart failure (ACHF), and all cause kidney failure (ACKF) 4 years post-transplant were slightly lower for simultaneous versus staged HKTx recipients (17.1% vs. 19.9%, 17.2% vs. 20.1%, 20.8% vs. 24.7%). However, instrumental variable analysis found no meaningful differences in adjusted patient survival, ACHF, or ACKF by HKTx type. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Simultaneous HKTx recipients have shorter hospital stays, decreased mortality, and higher rates of graft survival post-transplant compared to staged HKTx recipients, which may reflect favorable patient factors that enable both operations to be performed on the same day rather than an inherent benefit of simultaneous HKTx, given equivalent adjusted patient mortality, ACHF, and ACKF.

BACKGROUND:Bariatric surgery has long been established as an effective treatment option for obesity and diabetes [Kalainov et al. in J Am Acad Orthop Surg [32(10):427-438, 2025] and Ogden et al. in JAMA 311(8):806-806, 2025. 10.1001/jama.2014.732]. Recently, GLP-1 Receptor Agonists' (GLP-1RAs) use has expanded as an alternative therapy for weight loss and diabetes management. While GLP1RAs are known to be safe and effective, few have compared long term outcomes of GLP-1RAs versus the "gold standard" of bariatric surgery among Medicare/Medicaid patients, who make up the largest payer group in the U.S. [Kalainov et al. in J Am Acad Orthop Surg [32(10):427-438, 2025]. METHODS:This was a retrospective, multicenter study of obese, type-2 diabetic patients (T2D) ≥ 18 years old, who initiated weekly injectable semaglutide or tirzepatide or underwent bariatric surgery between January 1st, 2018 to July 31st, 2024. Patients with a baseline BMI ≤ 35, those with prior GLP1-RA use, or any prior bariatric procedure were excluded from analysis. The primary outcome of interest was % total body weight loss 3 months to 3 years post intervention among bariatrics surgery patients vs. GLP1-RA patients (any GLP1-RA prescription and 12 months continuous GLP1-RA prescription). RESULTS:7667 patients were included for analysis (7200 GLP1-RA, 467 bariatric surgery). Bariatric surgery patients were younger (median (IQR): 43 (34, 53) vs. 65 (54, 72); p < 0.001) and more likely to be female (67.5% vs. 60.8%; p < 0.01) and Hispanic (58.7% vs. 19.4%; p < 0.001) while GLP1-RA users were more likely to be white (58.5% vs. 10.7%; p < 0.001). In models adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics, bariatric surgery was associated with a 22.9% total weight loss 3 years following surgery compared to 2.3% for patients with any GLP1-RA use, and 15.9% vs 2.4% for patients with 12 months consecutive GLP1-RA use (22.9 [21.0-24.8] vs 2.3 [0.5-4.1], 15.9 [6.9-24.9] vs. 2.4 [6.7-11.5]. CONCLUSIONS:Among obese, T2D, publicly insured patients, bariatric surgery was associated with greater weight loss than GLP1-RAs at all measured periods from 3 months to 3 years post op.

BACKGROUND:Despite the goal of the 2018 revision to the heart allocation policy to reduce reliance on exception requests through improved granularity in status criteria, there has been a dramatic rise in exception requests. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:This study evaluated trends in exception use over the first 6 years of the updated policy, assessing associated clinical factors, temporal changes, and impact on waitlist outcomes. METHODS:This retrospective transplant registry analysis included all adult isolated heart transplant candidates from October 18, 2018, to September 30, 2024. Candidates were stratified by exception use, listing era, and region. Exception use was compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum and chi-squared tests, with multilevel logistic regression assessing independent associations. Trends over time and across UNOS (United Network for Organ Sharing) regions were evaluated, and a competing risks framework examined time to transplant and waitlist mortality. RESULTS:Among 26,330 candidates, 38.6% used exception requests, with a statistically significant increase over time, particularly in higher priority statuses. Exception use was more common among Black, non-Hispanic candidates, and candidates with blood type O, and less likely for patients with blood type A (P < 0.001). Additionally, pretransplant isolated durable left ventricular assist devices were less common in candidates who requested exceptions (19.0% vs 31.6%; P < 0.001). Overall, 39.9% of exception candidates were listed at status 1 or 2 compared to 29% of nonexception candidates, and 69.2% of exception candidates were removed from the waitlist at status 1 or 2 compared with 37% of nonexception candidates. CONCLUSIONS:The rising use of exceptions underscores ongoing limitations in allocation criteria, and disparities suggesting inequities in access to higher listing status. Policy refinements are needed to ensure a balance between medical urgency and equitable allocation.

BACKGROUND:Transplant waitlist registrants in the United States may be delisted because of receipt of a transplant abroad. Although not universally unethical, "travel for transplantation" poses risks to posttransplant care. To better understand this phenomenon, this study identifies temporal trends, geographic patterns, and demographic factors associated with cross-border transplantation. METHODS:Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data, we identified 818 US waitlist candidates who were removed because of transplantation abroad between 2010 and 2023. We described recipient characteristics overall, by organ, and by top transplant destinations. We used a Cox regression framework to identify characteristics associated with waitlist removal due to transplantation abroad. RESULTS:Transplants abroad averaged 58.4 per year. Incidence peaked at 80 transplants in 2017, with an upward trend after 2021. Kidney transplants made up 92.1% of cases. The most common destinations were the Philippines (19.8%), India (16.5%), Mexico (9.4%), China (8.4%), and Iran (4.4%). India and Mexico experienced the smallest drop-off during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic 2020-2021. Most recipients were US citizens (65.0%) or residents (23.5%). Female (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.520.610.71; P < 0.001) and Black candidates (aHR, 0.120.180.26; P < 0.001) were less likely to travel abroad compared with Asian candidates (aHR, 5.927.108.52; P < 0.001). Nonresidents (aHR, 6.708.6911.26; P < 0.001) and, among registrations in 2012 or later, nonresidents who traveled to the United States for transplantation (aHR, 27.2738.9155.50; P < 0.001) had a greater chance of undergoing transplantation abroad. CONCLUSIONS:Understanding patterns of international travel for transplantation is key not only for preventing resource drains from destination countries but also for providing adequate posttransplant care for recipients.