Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Frail kidney transplant (KT) recipients have higher risk of adverse post-KT outcomes. Yet, there is interest in measuring frailty at KT evaluation and then using this information for post-KT risk stratification. Given long wait times for KT, frailty may improve or worsen between evaluation and KT. Patterns, predictors, and post-KT adverse outcomes associated with these changes are unclear. METHODS:Five hundred sixty-nine adult KT candidates were enrolled in a cohort study of frailty (November 2009-September 2017) at evaluation and followed up at KT. Patterns of frailty transitions were categorized as follows: (1) binary state change (frail/nonfrail), (2) 3-category state change (frail/intermediate/nonfrail), and (3) raw score change (-5 to 5). Adjusted Cox proportional hazard and logistic regression models were used to test whether patterns of frailty transitions were associated with adverse post-KT outcomes. RESULTS:Between evaluation and KT, 22.0% became more frail, while 24.4% became less frail. Black race (relative risk ratio, 1.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-3.67) was associated with frail-to-nonfrail transition, and diabetes (relative risk ratio, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.22-5.39) was associated with remaining stably frail. Candidates who became more frail between 3-category states (hazard ratio, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.11-4.65) and frailty scores (hazard ratio, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.12-4.99) had increased risk of post-KT mortality and had higher odds of length of stay ≥2 weeks (3-category states: odds ratio, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.20-3.40; frailty scores: odds ratio, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.13-3.25). CONCLUSIONS:Almost half of KT candidates experienced change in frailty between evaluation and KT, and those transitions were associated with mortality and longer length of stay. Monitoring changes in frailty from evaluation to admission may improve post-KT risk stratification.

BACKGROUND:Cognitive impairment is common in patients with end-stage renal disease and is associated with poor outcomes on dialysis. We hypothesized that cognitive impairment might be associated with an increased risk of all-cause graft loss (ACGL) in kidney transplant (KT) recipients. METHODS:Using the Modified Mini-Mental State (3MS) examination, we measured global cognitive function at KT hospital admission in a prospective, 2-center cohort of 864 KT candidates (August 2009 to July 2016). We estimated the association between pre-KT cognitive impairment and ACGL using Cox regression, adjusting for recipient, donor, and transplant factors. RESULTS:In living donor KT (LDKT) recipients, the prevalence was 3.3% for mild impairment (60 ≤ 3MS < 80) and 3.3% for severe impairment (3MS < 60). In deceased donor KT (DDKT) recipients, the prevalence was 9.8% for mild impairment and 2.6% for severe impairment. The LDKT recipients with cognitive impairment had substantially higher ACGL risk than unimpaired recipients (5-year ACGL: 45.5% vs 10.6%; P < 0.01; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] any impairment, 5.40 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.78-16.34; P < 0.01); aHR severe impairment, 5.57 (95% CI, 1.29-24.00; P = 0.02). Similarly, DDKT recipients with severe impairment had higher ACGL risk than recipients without severe impairment (5-year ACGL, 53.0% vs 24.2%; P = 0.04); aHR severe impairment, 2.92 (95% CI, 1.13-7.50; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS:Given the elevated risk of ACGL among KT recipients with cognitive impairment observed in this 2-center cohort, research efforts should explore the mechanisms of graft loss and mortality associated with cognitive impairment and identify potential interventions to improve posttransplant survival.

Livers from older donors (OLDs; age ≥70) are risky and often declined; however, it is likely that some candidates will benefit from OLDs versus waiting for younger ones. To characterize the survival benefit of accepting OLD grafts, we used 2009-2017 SRTR data to identify 24 431 adult liver transplant (LT) candidates who were offered OLD grafts eventually accepted by someone. Outcomes from the time-of-offer were compared between candidates who accepted an OLD graft and matched controls within MELD ± 2 who declined the same offer. Candidates who accepted OLD grafts (n = 1311) were older (60.5 vs. 57.8 years, P < .001), had a higher median MELD score (25 vs. 22, P < .001), and were less likely to have hepatitis C cirrhosis (14.9% vs. 31.2%, P < .001). Five-year cumulative mortality among those who accepted versus declined the same OLD offer was 23.4% versus 41.2% (P < .001). Candidates who accepted OLDs experienced an almost twofold reduction in mortality (aHR:_0.45 0.52_0.59 , P < .001) compared to those who declined the same offer, especially among the highest MELD (35-40) candidates (aHR:_0.10 0.24_0.55 , P = .001). Accepting an OLD offer provided substantial long-term survival benefit compared to waiting for a better organ offer, notably among candidates with MELD 35-40. Providers should consider these benefits as they evaluate OLD graft offers.

In this review we summarize the research pertaining to the role of exercise in preventing cognitive decline in patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Impairment in cognitive function, especially in executive function, is common in patients with ESKD, and may worsen with maintenance dialysis as a result of retention of uremic toxins, recurrent cerebral ischemia, and high burden of inactivity. Cognitive impairment may lead to long-term adverse consequences, including dementia and death. Home-based and intradialytic exercise training (ET) are among the nonpharmacologic interventions identified to preserve cognitive function in ESKD. Additionally, cognitive training (CT) is an effective approach recently identified in this population. While short-term benefits of ET and CT on cognitive function were consistently observed in patients undergoing dialysis, more studies are needed to replicate these findings in diverse populations including kidney transplant recipients with long-term follow-up to better understand the health and quality of life consequences of these promising interventions. ET as well as CT are feasible interventions that may preserve or even improve cognitive function for patients with ESKD. Whether these interventions translate to improvements in quality of life and long-term health outcomes, including dementia prevention and better survival, are yet to be determined.

BACKGROUND:Inflammation is more common among African Americans (AAs), and it is associated with frailty, poor physical performance, and mortality in community-dwelling older adults. Given the elevated inflammation levels among end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients, inflammation may be associated with adverse health outcomes such as frailty, physical impairment, and poor health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and these associations may differ between AA and non-AA ESRD patients. METHODS:One thousand three ESRD participants were recruited at kidney transplant evaluation (4/2014-5/2017), and inflammatory markers (interleukin-6 [IL-6], tumor necrosis factor-a receptor-1 [TNFR1], C-reactive protein [CRP]) were measured. We quantified the association with frailty (Fried phenotype), physical impairment (Short Physical Performance Battery [SPPB]), and fair/poor HRQOL at evaluation using adjusted modified Poisson regression and tested whether these associations differed by race (AA vs. non-AA). RESULTS:Non-AAs had lower levels of TNFR1 (9.7 ng/ml vs 14.0 ng/ml, p < 0.001) and inflammatory index (6.7 vs 6.8, p < 0.001) compared to AAs, but similar levels of IL-6 (4.5 pg/ml vs 4.3 pg/ml, p > 0.9) and CRP (4.7 μg/ml vs 4.9 μg/ml, p = 0.4). Non-AAs had an increased risk of frailty with elevated IL-6 (RR = 1.58, 95% CI:1.27-1.96, p < 0.001), TNFR1 (RR = 1.60, 95% CI:1.25-2.05, p < 0.001), CRP (RR = 1.41, 95% CI:1.10-1.82, p < 0.01), and inflammatory index (RR = 1.82, 95% CI:1.44-2.31, p < 0.001). The associations between elevated inflammatory markers and frailty were not present among AAs. Similar results were seen with SPPB impairment and poor/fair HRQOL. CONCLUSIONS:Non-AAs with elevated inflammatory markers may need closer follow-up and may benefit from prehabilitation to improve physical function, reduce frailty burden, and improve quality of life prior to transplant.

Importance:In light of the growing population of older adults in the United States, older donors (aged ≥70 years) represent an expansion of the donor pool; however, their organs are underused. Liver grafts from older donors were historically associated with poor outcomes and higher discard rates, but clinical protocols, organ allocation, and the donor pool have changed in the past 15 years. Objective:To evaluate trends in demographics, discard rates, and outcomes among older liver donors and transplant recipients of livers from older donors in a large national cohort. Design, Setting, and Participants:Prospective cohort study of 4127 liver grafts from older donors and 3350 liver-only recipients of older donor grafts and 78 990 liver grafts from younger donors (aged 18-69 years) and 64 907 liver-only recipients of younger donor grafts between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2016, in the United States. The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, which includes data on all transplant recipients in the United States that are submitted by members of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, was used. Exposures:Year of liver transplant and age of liver donor. Main Outcomes and Measures:Odds of graft discard and posttransplant outcomes of all-cause graft loss and mortality. Results:In this study, 4127 liver grafts from older donors were recovered for liver transplant across the study period (2003-2016); 747 liver grafts from older donors were discarded, and 3350 liver grafts from older donors were used for liver-only recipients. After adjusting for donor characteristics other than age and accounting for Organ Procurement Organization-level variation, liver grafts from older donors were more likely to be discarded compared with liver grafts from younger donors in 2003-2006 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.97; 95% CI, 1.68-2.31), 2007-2009 (aOR, 2.55; 95% CI, 2.17-3.01), 2010-2013 (aOR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.68-2.46), and 2013-2016 (aOR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.96-2.86) (P < .001 for all). Transplants of liver grafts from older donors represented a progressively lower proportion of all adult liver transplants, from 6.0% (n = 258 recipients) in 2003 to 3.2% (n = 211 recipients) in 2016 (P = .001). However, outcomes in recipients of grafts from older donors improved over time, with 40% lower graft loss risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.53-0.68; P < .001) and 41% lower mortality risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.52-0.68; P < .001) in 2010 through 2016 vs 2003 through 2009; these results were beyond the general temporal improvements in graft loss (interaction P = .03) and mortality risk (interaction P = .04) among recipients of liver grafts from younger donors. Conclusions and Relevance:These findings show that from 2003 to 2016, liver graft loss and mortality among recipients of liver grafts from older donors improved; however, liver graft discard from older donors remained increased and the number of transplants performed with liver grafts from older donors decreased. Expansion of the donor pool through broader use of liver grafts from older donors might be reasonable.

BACKGROUND & AIMS:Frailty is associated with mortality in patients with cirrhosis. We measured frailty using 3 simple tests and calculated Liver Frailty Index (LFI) scores for patients at multiple ambulatory centers. We investigated associations between LFI scores, ascites, and hepatic encephalopathy (HE) and mortality. METHODS:Adults without hepatocellular carcinoma who were on the liver transplantation waitlist at 9 centers in the United States (N = 1044) were evaluated using the LFI; LFI scores of at least 4.5 indicated that patients were frail. We performed logistic regression analyses to assess associations between frailty and ascites or HE and competing risk regression analyses (with liver transplantation as the competing risk) to estimate sub-hazard ratios (sHRs) of waitlist mortality (death or removal from the waitlist). RESULTS:Of study subjects, 36% had ascites, 41% had HE, and 25% were frail. The odds of frailty were higher for patients with ascites (adjusted odd ratio 1.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-2.14) or HE (odd ratio 2.45, 95% CI 1.80-3.33) than for those without these features. Larger proportions of frail patients with ascites (29%) or HE (30%) died while on the waitlist compared with patients who were not frail (17% of patients with ascites and 20% with HE). In univariable analysis, ascites (sHR 1.52, 95% CI 1.14-2.05), HE (sHR 1.84, 95% CI 1.38-2.45), and frailty (sHR 2.38, 95% CI 1.77-3.20) were associated with waitlist mortality. In adjusted models, only frailty remained significantly associated with waitlist mortality (sHR 1.82, 95% CI 1.31-2.52); ascites and HE were not. CONCLUSIONS:Frailty is a prevalent complication of cirrhosis that is observed more frequently in patients with ascites or HE and independently associated with waitlist mortality. LFI scores can be used to objectively quantify risk of death related to frailty-in excess of liver disease severity-in patients with cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Frailty, a syndrome distinct from comorbidity and disability, is clinically manifested as a decreased resistance to stressors and is present in up to 35% of patient with ESKD. It is associated with falls, hospitalizations, poor cognitive function, and mortality. Also, frailty is associated with poor outcomes after kidney transplant, including delirium and mortality. Frailty is likely also associated with decreased access to kidney transplantation, given its association with poor outcomes on dialysis and post-transplant. Yet, clinicians have difficulty identifying which patients are frail; therefore, we sought to quantify if frail kidney transplant candidates had similar access to kidney transplantation as nonfrail candidates. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS:We studied 7078 kidney transplant candidates (2009-2018) in a three-center prospective cohort study of frailty. Fried frailty (unintentional weight loss, grip strength, walking speed, exhaustion, and activity level) was measured at outpatient kidney transplant evaluation. We estimated time to listing and transplant rate by frailty status using Cox proportional hazards and Poisson regression, adjusting for demographic and health factors. RESULTS:<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Frailty is associated with lower chance of listing and lower rate of transplant, and is a potentially modifiable risk factor.

Low T cell counts and acute rejection are associated with increased cardiovascular events (CVEs); T cell-depleting agents decrease both. Thus, we aimed to characterize the risk of CVEs by using an induction agent used in kidney transplant recipients. We conducted a secondary data analysis of patients who received a kidney transplant and used Medicare as their primary insurance from 1999 to 2010. Outcomes of interest were incident CVE, all-cause mortality, CVE-related mortality, and a composite outcome of mortality and CVE. Of 47 258 recipients, 29.3% received IL-2 receptor antagonist (IL-2RA), 33.3% received anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG), 7.3% received alemtuzumab, and 30.0% received no induction. Compared with IL-2RA, there was no difference in the risk of CVE in the ATG (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-1.05) and alemtuzumab group (aHR 1.01, 95% CI 0.89-1.16), but slightly higher in the no induction group (aHR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00-1.14). Acute rejection did not modify this association in the latter group but did increase CVE by 46% in the alemtuzumab group. There was no difference in the hazard of all-cause or CVE-related mortality. Only in the ATG group, a 7% lower hazard of the composite outcome of mortality and CVE was noted. Induction agents are not associated with incident CVE, although prospective trials are needed to determine a personalized approach to prevention.

A consensus conference on frailty in kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplantation sponsored by the American Society of Transplantation (AST) and endorsed by the American Society of Nephrology (ASN), the American Society of Transplant Surgeons (ASTS), and the Canadian Society of Transplantation (CST) took place on February 11, 2018 in Phoenix, Arizona. Input from the transplant community through scheduled conference calls enabled wide discussion of current concepts in frailty, exploration of best practices for frailty risk assessment of transplant candidates and for management after transplant, and development of ideas for future research. A current understanding of frailty was compiled by each of the solid organ groups and is presented in this paper. Frailty is a common entity in patients with end-stage organ disease who are awaiting organ transplantation, and affects mortality on the waitlist and in the posttransplant period. The optimal methods by which frailty should be measured in each organ group are yet to be determined, but studies are underway. Interventions to reverse frailty vary among organ groups and appear promising. This conference achieved its intent to highlight the importance of frailty in organ transplantation and to plant the seeds for further discussion and research in this field.