Faculty Bibliography

Prehabilitation is the process of enhancing preoperative functional capacity to improve tolerance for the upcoming stressor; it was associated with improved postoperative outcomes in a handful of studies, but never evaluated in transplantation. Kidney transplant (KT) candidates may be uniquely suited for prehabilitation because they experience a profound loss of functional capacity while waiting years on dialysis. To better understand the feasibility and effectiveness of prehabilitation in KT, we conducted a pilot study of center-based prehabilitation for candidates; this intervention consisted of weekly physical therapy sessions at an outpatient center with at-home exercises. We enrolled 24 participants; 18 participated in prehabilitation (75% of enrolled; 17% of eligible). 61% were male, 72% were African American, and mean age = 52 (SD = 12.9); 71% of participants had lower-extremity impairment, and 31% were frail. By 2 months of prehabilitation, participants improved their physical activity by 64% (P = 0.004) based on accelerometry. Participants reported high satisfaction. Among 5 prehabilitation participants who received KT during the study, length of stay was shorter than for age-, sex-, and race-matched control (5 vs 10 days; RR = 0.69; 95% CI:0.50-0.94; P = 0.02). These pilot study findings suggest that prehabilitation is feasible in pretransplant patients and may potentially be a strategy to improve post-KT outcomes.

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.

BACKGROUND:Hemodialysis (HD) patients frequently experience pain. Previous studies of HD patients suggest increased opioid prescribing through 2010. It remains unclear if this trend continued after 2010 or declined with national trends. METHODS:Longitudinal cohort study of 484,745 HD patients in the United States Renal Data System/Medicare data. We used Poisson/negative binomial regression to estimate annual incidence rates of opioid prescribing between 2007 and 2014. We compared prescribing rates with the general US population using IQVIA's National Prescription Audit data. Outcomes included the following: percent of HD patients receiving an opioid prescription, rate of opioid prescriptions, quantity, days supply, morphine milligram equivalents (MME) dispensed per 100 person-days, and prescriptions per person. RESULTS:In 2007, 62.4% of HD patients received an opioid prescription. This increased to 63.2% in 2010 then declined to 53.7% by 2014. Opioid quantity peaked in 2011 at 73.5 pills per 100 person-days and declined to 62.6 pills per 100 person-days in 2014. MME peaked between 2010 and 2012 then declined through 2014. In 2014, MME rates were 1.8-fold higher among non-Hispanic patients and 1.6-fold higher among low-income patients. HD patients received 3.2-fold more opioid prescriptions per person compared to the general US population and were primarily prescribed oxycodone and hydrocodone. Between 2012 and 2014, HD patients experienced greater declines in opioid prescriptions per person (18.2%) compared to the general US population (7.1%). CONCLUSION:Opioid prescribing among HD patients declined between 2012 and 2014. However, HD patients continue receiving substantially more opioids than the general US population.

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.

BACKGROUND:Kidney transplantation (KT) candidates often present with multiple comorbidities. These patients also have a substantial burden of frailty, which is also associated with increased mortality. However, it is unknown if frailty is merely a surrogate for comorbidity, itself an independent domain of risk, or if frailty and comorbidity have differential effects. Better understanding the interplay between these 2 constructs will improve clinical decision making in KT candidates. OBJECTIVE:To test whether comorbidity is equally associated with waitlist mortality among frail and nonfrail KT candidates and to test whether measuring both comorbidity burden and frailty improves mortality risk prediction. METHODS:We studied 2,086 candidates on the KT waitlist (November 2009 - October 2017) in a multicenter cohort study, in whom frailty and comorbidity were measured at evaluation. We quantified the association between Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) adapted for end-stage renal disease and waitlist mortality using an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model and tested whether this association differed between frail and nonfrail candidates. RESULTS:At evaluation, 18.1% of KT candidates were frail and 51% had a high comorbidity burden (CCI score ≥2). Candidates with a high comorbidity burden were at 1.38-fold (95% CI 1.01-1.89) increased risk of waitlist mortality. However, this association differed by frailty status (p for interaction = 0.01): among nonfrail candidates, a high comorbidity burden was associated with a 1.66-fold (95% CI 1.17-2.35) increased mortality risk; among frail candidates, here was no statistically significant association (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.44-1.29). Adding this interaction between comorbidity and frailty to a mortality risk estimation model significantly improved prediction, increasing the c-statistic from 0.640 to 0.656 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Nonfrail candidates with a high comorbidity burden at KT evaluation have an increased risk of waitlist mortality. Importantly, comorbidity is less of a concern in already high-risk patients who are frail.

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:Restoration of kidney function after kidney transplant generally improves cognitive function. It is unclear whether frail recipients, with higher susceptibility to surgical stressors, achieve such post-transplant cognitive improvements or whether they experience subsequent cognitive decline as they age with a functioning graft. METHODS:In this two-center cohort study, we assessed pretransplant frailty (Fried physical frailty phenotype) and cognitive function (Modified Mini-Mental State Examination) in adult kidney transplant recipients. To investigate potential short- and medium-term effects of frailty on post-transplant cognitive trajectories, we measured cognitive function up to 4 years post-transplant. Using an adjusted mixed effects model with a random slope (time) and intercept (person), we characterized post-transplant cognitive trajectories by pretransplant frailty, accounting for nonlinear trajectories. RESULTS:Of 665 recipients (mean age 52.0 years) followed for a median of 1.5 years, 15.0% were frail. After adjustment, pretransplant cognitive scores were significantly lower among frail patients compared with nonfrail patients (89.0 versus 90.8 points). By 3 months post-transplant, cognitive performance improved for both frail (slope =0.22 points per week) and nonfrail (slope =0.14 points per week) recipients. Between 1 and 4 years post-transplant, improvements plateaued among nonfrail recipients (slope =0.005 points per week), whereas cognitive function declined among frail recipients (slope =-0.04 points per week). At 4 years post-transplant, cognitive scores were 5.8 points lower for frail recipients compared with nonfrail recipients. CONCLUSIONS:On average, both frail and nonfrail recipients experience short-term cognitive improvement post-transplant. However, frailty is associated with medium-term cognitive decline post-transplant. Interventions to prevent cognitive decline among frail recipients should be identified.

BACKGROUND:Recipients of nonkidney solid organ transplants (nkSOT) are living longer, and 11%-18% will develop end stage renal disease (ESRD). While our general inclination is to treat nkSOT recipients who develop ESRD with a kidney transplant (KT), an increasing number are developing ESRD at an older age where KT may not be the most appropriate treatment. It is possible that the risk of older age and prior nkSOT might synergize to make KT too risky, but this has never been explored. METHODS:To examine death-censored graft loss and mortality for KT recipients with and without prior nkSOT, we used Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data to identify 42 089 older (age ≥65) KT recipients between 1995 and 2016. Additionally, to better understand treatment options for these patients and survival benefit of KT, we identified 5023 older (age ≥65) with prior nkSOT recipients listed for subsequent KT, of whom 863 received transplants. RESULTS:Compared with 41 159 older KT recipients without prior nkSOT, death-censored graft loss was similar (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.93-1.37, P = 0.2), but mortality (aHR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.28-1.54, P < 0.001) was greater for older KT recipients with prior nkSOT. Nonetheless, in a survival benefit model (survival with versus without the transplant), among older prior nkSOT recipients, KT decreased the risk of mortality by more than half (aHR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.42-0.54, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Older prior nkSOT recipients who subsequently develop ESRD derive survival benefit from KT, but graft longevity is limited by overall survival in this population. These findings can help guide patient counseling for this challenging population.

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.

Pediatric kidney transplant candidates often have multiple potential living donors (LDs); no evidence-based tool exists to compare potential LDs, or to decide between marginal LDs and deceased donor (DD) kidney transplantation (KT). We developed a pediatric living kidney donor profile index (P-LKDPI) on the same scale as the DD KDPI by using Cox regression to model the risk of all-cause graft loss as a function of living donor characteristics and DD KDPI. HLA-B mismatch (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] per mismatch = _1.04 1.27_1.55 ), HLA-DR mismatch (aHR per mismatch = _1.02 1.23_1.49 ), ABO incompatibility (aHR = _1.20 3.26_8.81 ), donor systolic blood pressure (aHR per 10 mm Hg = _1.01 1.07_1.18 ), and donor estimated GFR (eGFR; aHR per 10 mL/min/1.73 m² = _0.88 0.94_0.99 ) were associated with graft loss after LDKT. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) P-LKDPI was -25 (-56 to 12). 68% of donors had P-LKDPI <0 (less risk than any DD kidney) and 25% of donors had P-LKDPI >14 (more risk than median DD kidney among pediatric KT recipients during the study period). Strata of LDKT recipients of kidneys with higher P-LKDPI had a higher cumulative incidence of graft loss (39% at 10 years for P-LDKPI ≥20, 28% for 20> P-LKDPI ≥-20, 23% for -20 > P-LKDPI ≥-60, 19% for P-LKDPI <-60 [log rank P < .001]). The P-LKDPI can aid in organ selection for pediatric KT recipients by allowing comparison of potential LD and DD kidneys.