Faculty Bibliography

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:Understanding national attitudes about living kidney donation will enable us to identify and address existing disincentives to living kidney donation. We performed a national survey to describe living kidney donation perceptions, perceived factors that affect the willingness to donate, and analyzed differences by demographic subgroups. STUDY DESIGN/UNASSIGNED:The survey items captured living kidney donation awareness, living kidney donation knowledge, willingness to donate, and barriers and facilitators to living kidney donation. SETTING & POPULATION/UNASSIGNED:We surveyed 802 US adults (aged 25-65 years) in June 2021, randomly selected from an online platform with diverse representation. ANALYTICAL APPROACH/UNASSIGNED:and Fisher exact tests. We inductively evaluated free-text responses to identify additional barriers and facilitators to living kidney donation. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Most (86.6%) of the respondents reported that they might or would definitely consider donating a kidney while they were still living. Barriers to living kidney donation included concerns about the risk of the surgery, paying for medical expenses, and potential health effects. Facilitators to living kidney donation included having information on the donation surgery's safety, knowing that the donor would not have to pay for medical expenses related to the donation, and hearing living kidney donation success stories. Awareness of the ability to participate in kidney-paired donation was associated with a higher willingness to donate. LIMITATIONS/UNASSIGNED:Potential for selection bias resulting from the use of survey panels and varied incentive amounts, and measurement error related to respondents' attention level. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Most people would consider becoming a living kidney donor. Increased rates of living kidney donation may be possible with investment in culturally competent educational interventions that address risks associated with donating, policies that reduce financial disincentives, and communication campaigns that raise awareness of kidney-paired donation and living kidney donation.

INTRODUCTION:Thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion (TA-NRP) following cardiac death is an emerging multivisceral organ procurement technique. Recent national studies on outcomes of presumptive TA-NRP-procured organs are limited by potential misclassification since TA-NRP is not differentiated from donation after cardiac death (DCD) in registry data. METHODS:We studied 22 donors whose designees consented to TA-NRP and organ procurement performed at our institution between January 20, 2020 and July 3, 2022. We identified these donors in SRTR to describe organ utilization and recipient outcomes and compared them to recipients of traditional DCD (tDCD) and donation after brain death (DBD) organs during the same timeframe. RESULTS:All 22 donors progressed to cardiac arrest and underwent TA-NRP followed by heart, lung, kidney, and/or liver procurement. Median donor age was 41 years, 55% had anoxic brain injury, 45% were hypertensive, 0% were diabetic, and median kidney donor profile index was 40%. TA-NRP utilization was high across all organ types (88%-100%), with a higher percentage of kidneys procured via TA-NRP compared to tDCD (88% vs. 72%, p = .02). Recipient and graft survival ranged from 89% to 100% and were comparable to tDCD and DBD recipients (p ≥ .2). Delayed graft function was lower for kidneys procured from TA-NRP compared to tDCD donors (27% vs. 44%, p = .045). CONCLUSION:Procurement from TA-NRP donors yielded high organ utilization, with outcomes comparable to tDCD and DBD recipients across organ types. Further large-scale study of TA-NRP donors, facilitated by its capture in the national registry, will be critical to fully understand its impact as an organ procurement technique.

BACKGROUND:Kidney transplant (KT) recipients have numerous risk factors for delirium, including those shared with the general surgical population (eg, age and major surgery) and transplant-specific factors (eg, neurotoxic immunosuppression medications). Evidence has linked delirium to long-term dementia risk in older adults undergoing major surgery. We sought to characterize dementia risk associated with post-KT delirium. METHODS:Using the United States Renal Data System datasets, we identified 35 800 adult first-time KT recipients ≥55 y. We evaluated risk factors for delirium using logistic regression. We evaluated the association between delirium and incident dementia (overall and by subtype: Alzheimer's, vascular, and other/mixed-type), graft loss, and death using Fine and Gray's subhazards models and Cox regression. RESULTS:During the KT hospitalization, 0.9% of recipients were diagnosed with delirium. Delirium risk factors included age (OR = 1.40, 95% CI, 1.28-1.52) and diabetes (OR = 1.38, 95% CI, 1.10-1.73). Delirium was associated with higher risk of death-censored graft loss (aHR = 1.52, 95% CI, 1.12-2.05) and all-cause mortality (aHR = 1.53, 95% CI, 1.25-1.89) at 5 y post-KT. Delirium was also associated with higher risk of dementia (adjusted subhazard ratio [aSHR] = 4.59, 95% CI, 3.48-6.06), particularly vascular dementia (aSHR = 2.51, 95% CI, 1.01-6.25) and other/mixed-type dementia (aSHR = 5.58, 95% CI, 4.24-7.62) subtypes. The risk of all-type dementia associated with delirium was higher for younger recipients aged between 55 and 64 y (Pinteraction = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS:Delirium is a strong risk factor for subsequent diagnosis of dementia among KT recipients, particularly those aged between 55 and 64 y at the time of transplant. Patients experiencing posttransplant delirium might benefit from early interventions to enhance cognitive health and surveillance for cognitive impairment to enable early referral for dementia care.

BACKGROUND:Pediatric (age < 18 years) kidney transplant (KT) candidates face increasingly complex choices. The 2014 kidney allocation system nearly doubled wait times for pediatric recipients. Given longer wait times and new ways to optimize compatibility, more pediatric candidates may consider kidney-paired donation (KPD). Motivated by this shift and the potential impact of innovations in KPD practice, we studied pediatric KPD procedures in the US from 2008 to 2021. METHODS:We describe the characteristics and outcomes of pediatric KPD recipients with comparison to pediatric non-KPD living donor kidney transplants (LDKT), pediatric LDKT recipients, and pediatric deceased donor (DDKT) recipients. RESULTS:Our study cohort includes 4987 pediatric DDKTs, 3447 pediatric non-KPD LDKTs, and 258 pediatric KPD transplants. Fewer centers conducted at least one pediatric KPD procedure compared to those that conducted at least one pediatric LDKT or DDKT procedure (67, 136, and 155 centers, respectively). Five centers performed 31% of the pediatric KPD transplants. After adjustment, there were no differences in graft failure or mortality comparing KPD recipients to non-KPD LDKT, LDKT, or DDKT recipients. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:We did not observe differences in transplant outcomes comparing pediatric KPD recipients to controls. Considering these results, KPD may be underutilized for pediatric recipients. Pediatric KT centers should consider including KPD in KT candidate education. Further research will be necessary to develop tools that could aid clinicians and families considering the time horizon for future KT procedures, candidate disease and histocompatibility characteristics, and other factors including logistics and donor protections.

This chapter updates the COVID-19 chapter from the 2021 Annual Data Report with trends through November 12, 2022, and introduces trends in recovery and use of organs from donors with a positive COVID-19 test. Posttransplant mortality and graft failure, which remained a concern in all organs at the last report due to the Omicron variant wave, have returned to lower levels in the most recent available data through November 2022. Use of organs from donors with a positive COVID-19 test has grown, particularly after the first year of the pandemic. Mortality due to COVID-19 should continue to be monitored, but most other measures have sustained their recovery and may now be responding more to changes in policy than to ongoing concerns with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Real-world evidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) messenger RNA (mRNA) booster effectiveness among patients with immune dysfunction are limited. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We included data from patients in the United States National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) who completed ≥2 doses of mRNA vaccination between 10 December 2020 and 27 May 2022. Immune dysfunction conditions included human immunodeficiency virus infection, solid organ or bone marrow transplant, autoimmune diseases, and cancer. We defined incident COVID-19 BTI as positive results from laboratory tests or diagnostic codes 14 days after at least 2 doses of mRNA vaccination; and severe COVID-19 BTI as hospitalization, invasive cardiopulmonary support, and/or death. We used propensity scores to match boosted versus nonboosted patients and evaluated hazards of incident and severe COVID-19 BTI using Cox regression after matching. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Among patients without immune dysfunction, the relative effectiveness of booster (3 doses) after 6 months from the primary (2 doses) vaccination against BTI ranged from 69% to 81% during the Delta-predominant period and from 33% to 39% during the Omicron-predominant period. Relative effectiveness against BTI was lower among patients with immune dysfunction but remained statistically significant in both periods. Boosted patients had lower risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization (hazard ratios [HR] ranged from 0.5 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .48-.53] to 0.63 [95% CI, .56-.70]), invasive cardiopulmonary support, or death (HRs ranged from 0.46 [95% CI, .41-.52] to 0.63 [95% CI, .50-.79]) during both periods. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Booster vaccines remain effective against severe COVID-19 BTI throughout the Delta- and Omicron-predominant periods, regardless of patients' immune status.

BACKGROUND:Adolescent solid organ transplant recipients (aSOTRs) who received three doses of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine experience high seroconversion rates and antibody persistence for up to 3 months. Long-term antibody durability beyond this timeframe following three doses of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine remains unknown. We describe antibody responses 6 months following the third vaccine dose (D3) of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination among aSOTRs. METHODS:Participants in a multi-center, observational cohort who received the third dose of the vaccine were analyzed for antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor-binding domain (Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2-S positive: ≥0.8, maximum: >2500 U/mL). Samples were collected at 1-, 3-, and 6-months post-D3. Participants were surveyed at each timepoint and at 12-months post-D3. RESULTS:All 34 participants had positive anti-RBD antibody titers 6 months post-D3. Variations in titers occurred between 3 and 6 months post-D3, with 8/28 (29%) having decreased antibody levels at 6 months compared to 3 months and 2/28 (7%) reporting increased titers at 6 months. The remaining 18/28 (64%) had unchanged antibody titers compared to 3-month post-D3 levels. A total of 4/34 (12%) reported breakthrough infection within 6 months and 3/32 (9%) reported infection after 6-12 months following the third dose of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine. CONCLUSIONS:The results suggest that antibody durability persists up to 6 months following three doses of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA in aSOTRs. Demography and transplant characteristics did not differ for those who experienced antibody weaning. Breakthrough infections did occur, reflecting immune-evasive nature of novel variants such as Omicron.

OBJECTIVE:End-stage lung disease from severe COVID-19 infection is an increasingly common indication for lung transplantation (LT), but there are limited data on outcomes. We evaluated 1-year COVID-19 LT outcomes. METHODS:We identified all adult US LT recipients January 2020 to October 2022 in the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients, using diagnosis codes to identify recipients transplanted for COVID-19. We used multivariable regression to compare in-hospital acute rejection, prolonged ventilator support, tracheostomy, dialysis, and 1-year mortality between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 recipients, adjusting for donor, recipient, and transplant characteristics. RESULTS:LT for COVID-19 increased from 0.8% to 10.7% of total LT volume during 2020 to 2021. The number of centers performing LT for COVID-19 increased from 12 to 50. Recipients transplanted for COVID-19 were younger; were more likely to be male and Hispanic; were more likely to be on a ventilator, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, and dialysis pre-LT; were more likely to receive bilateral LT; and had higher lung allocation score and shorter waitlist time than other recipients (all P values < .001). COVID-19 LT had higher risk of prolonged ventilator support (adjusted odds ratio, 2.28; P < .001), tracheostomy (adjusted odds ratio 5.3; P < .001), and longer length of stay (median, 27 vs 19 days; P < .001). Risk of in-hospital acute rejection (adjusted odds ratio, 0.99; P = .95) and 1-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.73; P = .12) were similar for COVID-19 LTs and LTs for other indications, even accounting for center-level differences. CONCLUSIONS:COVID-19 LT is associated with higher risk of immediate postoperative complications but similar risk of 1-year mortality despite more severe pre-LT illness. These encouraging results support the ongoing use of LT for COVID-19-related lung disease.

BACKGROUND:Frailty is associated with poor outcomes in surgical patients including kidney transplant recipients. Transplant centers that measure frailty have better pre- and post-operative outcomes. However, clinical utility of existing tools is low due to time constraints. To address this major barrier to implementation in the pre-operative evaluation of patients, we developed an abridged frailty phenotype. METHODS:The abridged frailty phenotype was developed by simplifying the 5 Physical Frailty Phenotype (PFP) components in a two-center prospective cohort of 3,220 kidney transplant candidates and tested for efficiency (time to completion) in 20 candidates evaluation (1/2009-3/2020). We examined area under curve (AUC) and Cohen's kappa agreement to compare the abridged assessment with the PFP. We compared waitlist mortality risk (competing risks models) by frailty using the PFP and abridged assessment, respectively. Model discrimination was assessed using Harrell's C-statistic. RESULTS:Of 3,220 candidates, the PFP and abridged assessment identified 23.8% and 27.4% candidates as frail, respectively. The abridged frailty phenotype had substantial agreement (kappa=0.69, 95%CI:0.66-0.71) and excellent discrimination (area under the curve=0.861). Among 20 patients at evaluation, abridged assessment took 5-7 minutes to complete. The PFP and abridged assessment had similar associations with waitlist mortality (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR]=1.62, 95%CI:1.26-2.08 vs. SHR=1.70, 95%CI:1.33-2.16) and comparable mortality discrimination (p=0.51). CONCLUSIONS:The abridged assessment is an efficient and valid way to identify frailty. It predicts waitlist mortality without sacrificing discrimination. Surgical departments should consider utilizing the abridged assessment to evaluate frailty in patients when time is limited.