Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Under the HOPE Act, transplants from donors with HIV to recipients with HIV (HIV D+/R+) have been largely limited to kidney and liver. However, recent modifications to HOPE research guidelines allow broader participation of cardiothoracic programs. METHODS:To quantify potential cardiothoracic HOPE donors, we used SRTR data (3/2016-12/2024) to identify 101,200 donors without HIV and 273 HOPE donors (with true and false positive HIV tests). Using logistic regression, we predicted the probability of having a heart or lung(s) used for transplant among donors without HIV that had a kidney or liver used. We then applied model parameters to HOPE donors that had a kidney or liver used to estimate the number of HOPE donors that might have been cardiothoracic donors if the practice were expanded. RESULTS:Among donors without HIV, cardiothoracic donation was associated with age, cause of death, hepatitis C, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, cardiovascular disease, blood gas, and circulatory death. Applying our model, an estimated 41.0% (N=111), 18.7% (N=51), and 15.2% (N=41) of HOPE donors were potential heart, any lung (single or double), or double-lung donors, as compared to 32.3%, 21.8%, and 18.2% of abdominal organ donors without HIV, respectively. This translated to an annual 13-18 potential heart and 5-8 potential lung transplants (of which 4-6 would be double-lung transplants) from HOPE donors. CONCLUSIONS:If HIV D+/R+ is more widely expanded to cardiothoracic transplantation, 41% of HOPE kidney and liver donors have potential to donate a heart and almost 20% to donate a lung to candidates with HIV.

With U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance of clinical trials of kidney xenotransplantation (XTx) in living humans, understanding the recipient experience is critical. Semi-structured interviews with the three living XTx recipients identified core domains of the recipient experience, including quality of life (QoL), fears about XTx, and healthcare team communication and support. Transcribed interviews were analyzed by two qualitative researchers using an inductive thematic approach and were mapped onto the Warwick Patient Experience Model, a validated framework to assess key aspects of patient satisfaction with the healthcare experience. All three recipients (53-year-old female; 66-year-old male; 54-year old male) described a restoration of hope, contrasted with their poor quality of life on dialysis. They emphasized that access to XTx and graft survival requires mutual confidence and commitment between recipients and healthcare teams. XTx recipients use dialysis as a point of reference when describing changes in their post-transplant QoL and seemed well-situated to handle the possibility of graft failure. These insights may aid in the creation of decision aids and educational materials tailored to the specific needs of XTx recipients.

BACKGROUND:To encourage high-quality, reduced-cost care for total joint arthroplasty (TJA), the Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services mandated a pay-for-performance model, the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR), as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The CJR incentivizes cost containment, and it was anticipated that its implementation would reduce access to TJA for high-cost populations. Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) undergoing kidney replacement therapy (dialysis and kidney transplant) are costly compared with healthier patients, but it was unknown whether this population lost access to hip and knee replacement because of CJR implementation. This population allows study of whether TJA is accessible for medically complex patients whose risk of surgical complications has been mitigated, as kidney transplantation improves outcomes compared with dialysis, allowing evaluation as to whether access improved when patients crossed over from dialysis to transplantation. Because all patients with ESKD are included in a mandated national registry, we can quantify whether access changed for patients who underwent dialysis and transplantation. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES/OBJECTIVE:(1) How did the rate of TJA change amid the shift to bundled payments for patients with ESKD receiving dialysis? (2) How did the rate of TJA change amid the shift to bundled payments for patients with ESKD after kidney transplant? METHODS:This was an observational cohort study from 2008 to 2018 using the United States Renal Data System, a mandatory national registry that allows for the opportunity to study all individuals with ESKD. During the study period, we identified 1,324,614 adults undergoing routine dialysis and 187,212 adult kidney transplant recipients; after exclusion for non-Medicare primary insurance (n = 785,224 for dialysis and 78,011 for transplant), patients who were 100 years or older (n = 79 and 0, respectively), those who resided outside of 50 US states and Puerto Rico (n = 781 and 87, respectively), missing dialysis status for the dialysis cohort (n = 8658), and multiorgan transplant recipients for the transplant cohort (n = 2442), our study population was 40% (529,872) of patients who underwent routine dialysis and 57% (106,672) of adult kidney transplant recipients, respectively. TJA was ascertained using Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Groups and ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes. We divided the study period by PPACA (January 1, 2014, to March 31, 2016) and CJR (April 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018) implementation and compared the incidence of TJA by era using mixed-effects Poisson regression adjusting for calendar time and clinical and demographic variables. RESULTS:After adjustment for linear temporal trend and patient case mix, there was no evidence of association between policy implementation and the incidence of TJA. In the dialysis cohort, the adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) for TJA was 1.06 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98 to 1.14; p = 0.2) comparing PPACA with the previous period and 1.02 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; p = 0.6) comparing CJR with the previous periods. Similarly, in the transplant cohort, the adjusted IRR for TJA was 0.82 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.02; p = 0.07) comparing PPACA with the previous period and 1.10 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.28; p = 0.9) comparing CJR with the previous periods. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:There was no loss in access to TJA for medically complex patients receiving kidney replacement therapy. The increase in TJA incidence for patients after kidney transplant and decrease for patients receiving dialysis suggest that surgeons continued to provide care for higher risk patients whose risk of morbidity or mortality with total joint replacement has been maximally improved after transplantation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III, prognostic study.

The benefits of bilateral lung transplantation (BLT) versus single lung transplantation (SLT) are still debated. One impediment to clinical recommendations is that BLT vs. SLT advantages may vary based on underlying disease. Since both options are clinically tenable in patients with emphysema, we conducted a comprehensive assessment of lung allograft survival in this population. Using U.S. registry data, we studied time to all-cause allograft failure in 8,092 patients 12 years or older transplanted from 2006 to 2022, adjusting for recipient, donor, and transplant factors by inverse propensity weighting. Median allograft survival was 6.6 years in BLT compared to 5.3 years in SLT, a 25% risk-adjusted survival advantage of _0.81.3_1.8 years. Risk-adjusted bilateral survival advantages varied between 0.9 and 2.4 years across eleven subgroups. Median allograft survival in BLT was 1.2 years greater than right SLT and 2.0 years greater than left SLT. During the 16-year study period, allograft survival steadily improved for BLT but not for SLT. Although the 25% BLT survival advantage pre-dated the pandemic, COVID-19 may have contributed to an apparent SLT survival decline. Recognizing the possible influence of residual confounding due to selection biases, these findings may aid offer decision-making when both donor lungs are available.

Historically, liver transplant (LT) candidates with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) have experienced high waitlist mortality. Since the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act expands access to organs from donors with HIV, we assessed the impact of HOPE on LT rate and wait time for this population. We linked data from a multicenter HOPE in Action study to Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (February 21, 2019 to June 1, 2024) and used Poisson regression to compare transplant rates among 99 candidates willing to accept HOPE donors (HOPE candidates) to 13 495 candidates with or without HIV not listed as willing to accept HOPE donors (non-HOPE candidates) matched on transplant center. The median time to any deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) was 2.3 months for HOPE and 1.1 years for non-HOPE candidates. Within 2 years of listing, 90.9% of HOPE versus 58.5% of non-HOPE candidates received a DDLT (P < .001). HOPE was associated with an overall 3.11-fold higher DDLT incident rate ratio (95% CI 2.48-3.88, P < .001). Stratified by model for end-stage liver disease score categories 6 to 14, 15 to 24, 25 to 34, and 35 to 40/status 1; HOPE candidates had 10.12-fold, 5.31-fold, 1.41-fold and 2.90-fold higher DDLT rates, respectively. Willingness to accept livers from donors with HIV improves access to liver transplantation for candidates with HIV.

BACKGROUND:Donor pool expansion is critical as lung candidates suffer high mortality, yet older donor lungs remain underutilized. We evaluated whether accepting an older donor (defined 4 ways: donor age 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, or 60-69 y) lung transplant was associated with a survival benefit over waiting for a younger donor offer. METHODS:Adult candidates who received a lung offer were identified using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data, 2015-2022. Offers were categorized by donor age and candidate lung allocation score (LAS; <40, 40-55, >55). Postoffer mortality was compared between candidates for whom the offer was accepted ("acceptors") versus declined ("decliners") within each age-LAS category using weighted Cox regression. RESULTS:A total of 21 426 candidates received an offer from a donor age ≥30 y; 11 679 accepted. For LAS >55 candidates, a survival benefit was observed for acceptors of donors ages 30-39 y (weighted hazard ratio [wHR] of mortality: 0.450.520.59), 40-49 y (wHR: 0.610.700.79), and 50-59 y (wHR: 0.670.770.88); P < 0.001. For candidates with LAS 40-55, results suggest a survival benefit of accepting lung offers from donors age 30-39 y (wHR: 0.770.870.99) and 40-49 y (wHR: 0.760.870.99); P = 0.03. However, for candidates with LAS <40, a survival benefit was not observed for accepting any older donor transplant, with possible harm in accepting an age 50+ donor offer. CONCLUSIONS:Compared with declining and waiting for a younger donor offer, accepting an older donor lung transplant was associated with a survival advantage in candidates with high LAS in the precontinuous distribution era. Decision makers should consider these findings while recognizing potential changes in waiting time dynamics in the current era.

Racial/ethnic disparities in the deceased organ donor referral process may contribute to the organ shortage and place minority communities at a greater disadvantage. Prior literature cites substantial inequalities, though methodological concerns may bias estimates. Using Organ Retrieval and Collection of Health Information for Donation data, we conducted a simulation study and re-analysis of 132,968 referrals 2015-2021 across six organ procurement organizations (OPOs). We excluded brain death declaration and cause/mechanism/circumstances of death from the approach model and conducted Poisson regression with robust standard errors. We found Black patients were approached at a more similar rate relative to White patients, although disparities remained (incidence rate ratio (IRR): _0.910.94_0.97). Black patients provided authorization at a 31% lower rate than White patients (IRR: _0.670.69_0.71). Slight disparities were observed at procurement (IRR: _0.940.96_0.99). Our findings are directionally similar to prior literature but suggest substantially less inequality (vs 23% and 65% higher risk of approach and authorization, for non-Black vs Black referrals). Accurate quantification of racial/ethnic disparities in transplantation impacts public perception of those involved, particularly OPOs, and is paramount to any study. Importantly, continued measures are needed to promote equality among Black and minority patients in our national organ donation and transplant system.

BACKGROUND:People with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are at an increased risk for end-stage lung disease, for which lung transplantation (LT) may be necessary. METHODS:We aimed to characterize the national practice patterns of LT in recipients with HIV (HIV R+) and post-LT outcomes, including rejection in the US over time. Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data (from January 1, 2004, to December 1, 2024, for practice patterns and from January 1, 2016, to December 1, 2024, for outcomes), we compared 96 adult HIV R+ to 42 341 LT recipients without HIV (HIV R-). We examined the association between HIV and outcomes using Gini coefficients, Cox regression, and modified Poisson regression before and after 2020. RESULTS:HIV R+ LTs increased from 0.1% in 2004 to 0.4% of LTs in 2024 (p = 0.07). Pre-2020, 18 centers performed 80% of HIV R+ LTs (Gini = 0.78); post-2020, 14 centers performed 80% of HIV R+ LTs (Gini = 0.76), indicating no expansion of the practice across centers. HIV R+ did not have an increased risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio pre-2020: 0.91 [95% confidence interval 0.41-1.62], p = 0.7 and post-2020: 1.05 [0.49-3.25], p = 0.8), or increased risk of 1-year rejection rate (adjusted relative risk pre-2020: 0.60 [0.20-1.77], p = 0.3, and post-2020: 0.77 [0.26-2.2], p = 0.6). CONCLUSIONS:Increasing numbers of HIV R+ LTs and comparable outcomes to those without HIV are encouraging, yet few centers perform these transplants.

The proportion of deceased donor kidneys recovered for transplantation that are not transplanted reached 28% in 2023. Past research demonstrated that >90% of the non-use rate increase in the 2000s could be explained by the broadening donor pool. We used OPTN data to study kidneys recovered 2010-2023, applying causal inference methods to assess the degree to which the recent, sharp rise in the non-use rate could be explained by changes in donor clinical characteristics. Unadjusted odds of kidney non-use were 63% higher (95% CI: 56%, 70%) in 2023 vs 2018. After adjusting for donor factors, odds of non-use were only 12% (9%, 15%) higher in 2023. Both regression and propensity weighting demonstrated that 75-80% of the recent non-use rate increase can be explained by a rapidly expanding donor pool. Encouragingly, the non-use rate has not increased and remains low for above-average quality kidneys. However, the unexplained risk of non-use for kidneys in the highest kidney donor risk index quartile increased by ∼30%, potentially due to residual confounding and/or system-level, exogenous factors such as allocation policy changes. To improve placement efficiency, allocation policy should adapt to the increasingly heterogeneous donor pool by allocating kidneys differently along the donor quality spectrum.