Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:The rising proportion of older adults in the US population coupled with an increased prevalence of nodular thyroid disease will result in more thyroidectomies being performed. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical outcomes among older adults (age ≥65) undergoing thyroidectomy compared to younger adults (18-64). METHODS:This was a population-based study of adult thyroidectomy patients using the Premier Healthcare Database, 2005-2014. Discharge status, hospital length of stay (LOS), morbidity, and total patient charge were compared between younger adults and older adults in three different age groups: ≥65, ≥70, and ≥80 years old. RESULTS:Among 75,141 thyroidectomy patients, 15,805 (21.0%) patients were ≥65 years, 8834 (11.8%) were ≥70 years, and 1613 (2.2%) were ≥80 years. Patients ≥80 years were 2.6 times (aOR:2.58, 95%CI: 1.72-3.86; p < 0.001) more likely to be discharged to a home health organization than to be discharged to their residence and 1.6 times (aOR:1.61, 95%CI: 1.30-2.00; p < 0.001) more likely to have at least one complication. CONCLUSIONS:Age ≥80 is an independent predictor of worse clinical outcomes after thyroidectomy.

BACKGROUND:The availability of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy might have impacted use of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected (HCV+) deceased donor kidneys for transplantation. METHODS:We used 2005 to 2018 Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data to identify 18 936 candidates willing to accept HCV+ kidneys and 3348 HCV+ recipients of HCV+ kidneys. We compared willingness to accept, utilization, discard, and posttransplant outcomes associated with HCV+ kidneys between 2 treatment eras (interferon [IFN] era, January 1, 2005 to December 5, 2013 vs DAA era, December 6, 2013 to August 2, 2018). Models were adjusted for candidate, recipient, and donor factors where appropriate. RESULTS:In the DAA era, candidates were 2.2 times more likely to list as willing to accept HCV+ kidneys (adjusted odds ratio, 2.072.232.41; P < 0.001), and HCV+ recipients were 1.95 times more likely to have received an HCV+ kidney (adjusted odds ratio, 1.761.952.16; P < 0.001). Median Kidney Donor Profile Index of HCV+ kidneys decreased from 77 (interquartile range [IQR], 59-90) in 2005 to 53 (IQR, 40-67) in 2017. Kidney Donor Profile Index of HCV- kidneys remained unchanged from 45 (IQR, 21-74) to 47 (IQR, 24-73). After adjustment, HCV+ kidneys were 3.7 times more likely to be discarded than HCV- kidneys in the DAA era (adjusted relative rate, 3.363.674.02; P < 0.001); an increase from the IFN era (adjusted relative rate, 2.783.023.27; P < 0.001). HCV+ kidney use was concentrated within a subset of centers; 22.5% of centers performed 75% of all HCV+ kidney transplants in the DAA era. Mortality risk associated with HCV+ kidneys remained unchanged (aHR, 1.071.191.32 in both eras). CONCLUSIONS:Given the elevated risk of death on dialysis facing HCV+ candidates, improving quality of HCV+ kidneys, and DAA availability, broader utilization of HCV+ kidneys is warranted to improve access in this era of organ shortage.

One criticism of kidney paired donation (KPD) is that easy-to-match candidates leave the registry quickly, thus concentrating the pool with hard-to-match sensitized and blood type O candidates. We studied candidate/donor pairs who registered with the National Kidney Registry (NKR), the largest US KPD clearinghouse, from January 2012-June 2016. There were no changes in age, gender, BMI, race, ABO blood type, or panel-reactive antibody (PRA) of newly registering candidates over time, with consistent registration of hard-to-match candidates (59% type O and 38% PRA ≥97%). However, there was no accumulation of type O candidates over time, presumably due to increasing numbers of nondirected type O donors. Although there was an initial accumulation of candidates with PRA ≥97% (from 33% of the pool in 2012% to 43% in 2014, P = .03), the proportion decreased to 17% by June 2016 (P < .001). Some of this is explained by an increase in the proportion of candidates with PRA ≥97% who underwent a deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) after the implementation of the Kidney Allocation System (KAS), from 8% of 2012 registrants to 17% of 2015 registrants (P = .02). In this large KPD clearinghouse, increasing participation of nondirected donors and the KAS have lessened the accumulation of hard-to-match candidates, but highly sensitized candidates remain hard-to-match.

Development of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in living kidney donors is associated with increased graft loss in the recipients of their kidneys. Our goal was to investigate if this relationship was reflected at an earlier stage postdonation, possibly early enough for recipient risk prediction based on donor response to nephrectomy. Using national registry data, we studied 29 464 recipients and their donors from 2008-2016 to determine the association between donor 6-month postnephrectomy estimated GFR (eGFR) and recipient death-censored graft failure (DCGF). We explored donor BMI as an effect modifier, given the association between obesity and hyperfiltration. On average, risk of DCGF increased with each 10 mL/min decrement in postdonation eGFR (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.10, P = .007). The association was attenuated with higher donor BMI (interaction P = .049): recipients from donors with BMI = 20 (aHR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04-1.19, P = .002) and BMI = 25 (aHR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03-1.12, P = .001) had a higher risk of DCGF with each 10 mL/min decrement in postdonation eGFR, whereas recipients from donors with BMI = 30 and BMI = 35 did not have a higher risk. The relationship between postdonation eGFR, donor BMI, and recipient graft loss can inform counseling and management of living donor kidney transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND:In 2013, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network began requiring transplant centers in the United States to collect and report postdonation living kidney donor follow-up data at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Despite this requirement, <50% of transplant centers have been able to collect and report the required data. Previous work identified a number of barriers to living kidney donor follow-up, including logistical and administrative barriers for transplant centers and cost and functional barriers for donors. Novel smartphone-based mobile health (mHealth) technologies might reduce the burden of living kidney donor follow-up for centers and donors. However, the attitudes and perceptions toward the incorporation of mHealth into postdonation care among living kidney donors are unknown. Understanding donor attitudes and perceptions will be vital to the creation of a patient-oriented mHealth system to improve living donor follow-up in the United States. OBJECTIVE:The goal of this study was to assess living kidney donor attitudes and perceptions associated with the use of mHealth for follow-up. METHODS:We developed and administered a cross-sectional 14-question survey to 100 living kidney donors at our transplant center. All participants were part of an ongoing longitudinal study of long-term outcomes in living kidney donors. The survey included questions on smartphone use, current health maintenance behaviors, accessibility to health information, and attitudes toward using mHealth for living kidney donor follow-up. RESULTS:Of the 100 participants surveyed, 94 owned a smartphone (35 Android, 58 iPhone, 1 Blackberry), 37 had accessed their electronic medical record on their smartphone, and 38 had tracked their exercise and physical activity on their smartphone. While 77% (72/93) of participants who owned a smartphone and had asked a medical question in the last year placed the most trust with their doctors, nurses, or other health care professionals regarding answering a health-related question, 52% (48/93) most often accessed health information elsewhere. Overall, 79% (74/94) of smartphone-owning participants perceived accessing living kidney donor information and resources on their smartphone as useful. Additionally, 80% (75/94) perceived completing some living kidney donor follow-up via mHealth as useful. There were no significant differences in median age (60 vs 59 years; P=.65), median years since donation (10 vs 12 years; P=.45), gender (36/75, 36%, vs 37/75, 37%, male; P=.57), or race (70/75, 93%, vs 18/19, 95%, white; P=.34) between those who perceived mHealth as useful for living kidney donor follow-up and those who did not, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, smartphone ownership was high (94/100, 94.0%), and 79% (74/94) of surveyed smartphone-owning donors felt that it would be useful to complete their required follow-up with an mHealth tool, with no significant differences by age, sex, or race. These results suggest that patients would benefit from an mHealth tool to perform living donor follow-up.

Organs from deceased donors with suspected false-positive HIV screening tests were generally discarded due to the chance that the test was truly positive. However, the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act now facilitates use of such organs for transplantation to HIV-infected (HIV+) individuals. In the HOPE in Action trial, donors without a known HIV infection who unexpectedly tested positive for anti-HIV antibody (Ab) or HIV nucleic acid test (NAT) were classified as suspected false-positive donors. Between March 2016 and March 2018, 10 suspected false-positive donors had organs recovered for transplant for 21 HIV + recipients (14 single-kidney, 1 double-kidney, 5 liver, 1 simultaneous liver-kidney). Median donor age was 24 years; cause of death was trauma (n = 5), stroke (n = 4), and anoxia (n = 1); three donors were labeled Public Health Service increased infectious risk. Median kidney donor profile index was 30.5 (IQR 22-58). Eight donors were HIV Ab+/NAT-; two were HIV Ab-/NAT+. All 10 suspected false-positive donors were confirmed to be HIV-noninfected. Given the false-positive rates of approved assays used to screen > 20 000 deceased donors annually, we estimate 50-100 HIV false-positive donors per year. Organ transplantation from suspected HIV false-positive donors is an unexpected benefit of the HOPE Act that provides another novel organ source.

BACKGROUND:HIV+ donor organs can now be transplanted into HIV+ recipients (HIV D+/R+) following the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act. Implementation of the HOPE Act requires transplant center awareness and support of HIV D+/R+ transplants. METHODS:To assess center-level barriers to implementation, we surveyed 209 transplant centers on knowledge, attitudes, and planned HIV D+/R+ protocols. RESULTS:Responding centers (n = 114; 56%) represented all UNOS regions. Fifty centers (93 organ programs) planned HIV D+/R+ protocols (kidney n = 48, liver n = 34, pancreas n = 8, heart n = 2, lung = 1), primarily in the eastern United States (28/50). Most (91.2%) were aware that HIV D+/R+ transplantation is legal; 21.4% were unaware of research restrictions. Respondents generally agreed with HOPE research criteria except the required experience with ≥5 HIV+ transplants by organ type. Centers planning HIV D+/R+ protocols had higher transplant volume, HIV+ recipient volume, increased infectious risk donor utilization, and local HIV prevalence (P < 0.01). Centers not planning HIV D+/R+ protocols were more likely to believe their HIV+ candidates would not accept HIV+ donor organs (P < 0.001). Most centers (83.2%) supported HIV+ living donation. CONCLUSIONS:Although many programs plan HIV D+/R+ transplantation, center-level barriers remain including geographic clustering of kidney/liver programs and concerns about HIV+ candidate willingness to accept HIV+ donor organs.