Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Previous studies have reported a wide range of prevalence of post-donation anxiety, depression, and regret in living kidney donors (LKDs). It is also unclear what risk factors are associated with these outcomes. METHODS:We screened 825 LKDs for anxiety and depression using 2-item GAD-2 and PHQ-2 scales and asked about regret. RESULTS:Overall, 5.5% screened positive for anxiety, 4.2% for depression, and 2.1% reported regretting their donation. While there was moderate correlation between positive anxiety and depression screens (r = 0.52), there was no correlation between regret and positive screens (r < 0.1 for both). A positive anxiety screen was more likely in LKDs with a positive depression screen (adjusted relative risk [aRR] 13.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.78-27.74, p < 0.001). Similarly, a positive depression screen was more likely in LKDs with a positive anxiety screen (aRR 19.50, 95% CI 6.94-54.81, p < 0.001), as well as in those whose recipients experienced graft loss (aRR 5.38, 95% CI 1.29-22.32, p = 0.02). Regret was more likely in LKDs with a positive anxiety screen (aRR 5.68, 95% CI 1.20-26.90, p = 0.03). This was a single center cross-sectional study which may limit generalizability and examination of causal effects. Also, due to the low prevalence of adverse psychosocial outcomes, we may lack power to detect some associations between donor characteristics and anxiety, depression, or regret. CONCLUSIONS:Although there is a low prevalence of anxiety, depression, and regret of donation among LKDs, these are interrelated conditions and a positive screen for one condition should prompt evaluation for other conditions.

BACKGROUND:With passage of the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act, people living with HIV (PLWH) can donate organs to PLWH awaiting transplant. Understanding knowledge and attitudes regarding organ donation among PLWH in the United States is critical to implementing the HOPE Act. METHODS:PLWH were surveyed regarding their knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about organ donation and transplantation at an urban academic HIV clinic in Baltimore, MD, between August 2016 and October 2016. Responses were compared using Fisher exact and χ tests. RESULTS:Among 114 survey respondents, median age was 55 years, 47.8% were female, and 91.2% were African American. Most were willing to be deceased donors (79.8%) or living donors (62.3%). Most (80.7%) were aware of the US organ shortage; however, only 24.6% knew about the HOPE Act, and only 21.1% were registered donors. Respondents who trusted the medical system or thought their organs would function adequately in recipients were more likely to be willing to be deceased donors (P < 0.001). Respondents who were concerned about surgery, worse health postdonation, or need for changes in HIV treatment because of donation were less likely to be willing to be living donors (P < 0.05 for all). Most believed that PLWH should be permitted to donate (90.4%) and that using HIV+ donor organs for transplant would reduce discrimination against PLWH (72.8%). CONCLUSIONS:Many of the PLWH surveyed expressed willingness to be organ donors. However, knowledge about the HOPE Act and donor registration was low, highlighting a need to increase outreach.

BACKGROUND:Allografts from older liver donors (OLDs), 70 years or older are often discarded for fear of inferior outcomes. We previously identified "preferred recipients" who did not suffer the higher risk of graft loss and mortality associated with OLDs. Preferred recipients were first-time, non-status 1 registrants older than 45 years, body mass index less than 35, indication other than hepatitis C, and cold ischemia time less than 8 hours. METHODS:We assessed the validity of the preferred recipient construct in a larger, more recent cohort (38 891 patients, 2006-2013). We compared recipients of OLD grafts to recipients of average liver donors (ALDs, age = 40-69) and ideal liver donors (ILDs, age = 18-39) grafts using multilevel Cox regression adjusting for recipient and transplant factors. RESULTS:The use of OLD grafts in preferred recipients has increased from 2006 to 2013 (P = 0.02). Preferred recipients Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores ranged 6 to 40. Preferred recipients had similar 5-year all-cause graft loss (ACGL) with OLD versus ALD and ILD grafts (25.4% vs 24.5% and 21.6%). Conversely, nonpreferred recipients had higher 5-year ACGL with OLD versus ALD and ILD grafts (41.4% vs 32.9% and 25.6%). After adjustment, preferred recipients had similar graft loss with OLD versus ALD grafts (hazard ratio [HR], 0.921.081.27; P = 0.3) and ILD grafts (HR, 0.981.161.39, P = 0.09); however, nonpreferred recipients had higher ACGL risk with OLD grafts versus ALD (HR, 1.281.411.56, P < 0.001) and ILD grafts (HR, 1.501.671.86, P < 0.001). Similar trends are seen with mortality. CONCLUSIONS:Because preferred recipients comprise 43.3% (n = 2916) of the current waitlist and span the full range of Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores, transplanted OLD allografts could be distributed without added risk of graft loss or mortality.

In the United States, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) use Systems Improvement Agreements (SIAs) to require transplant programs repeatedly flagged for poor-performance to improve performance or lose CMS funding for transplants. We identified 14 kidney transplant (KT) programs with SIAs and 28 KT programs without SIAs matched on waitlist volume and characterized kidney acceptance using SRTR data from 12/2006-3/2015. We used difference-in-differences linear regression models to identify changes in acceptance associated with an SIA independent of program variation and trends prior to the SIA. SIA programs accepted 26.9% and 22.1% of offers pre- and post-SIA, while non-SIA programs accepted 33.9% and 44.4% of offers in matched time periods. After adjustment for donor characteristics, time-varying waitlist volume, and secular trends, SIAs were associated with a 5.9 percentage-point (22%) decrease in kidney acceptance (95% CI: -10.9 to -0.8, P = .03). The decrease in acceptance post-SIA was more pronounced for KDPI 0-40 kidneys (12.3 percentage-point decrease, P = .007); reductions in acceptance of higher KDPI kidneys occurred pre-SIA. Programs undergoing SIAs substantially reduced acceptance of kidney offers for waitlisted candidates. Attempts to improve posttransplant outcomes might have the unintended consequence of reducing access to transplantation as programs adopt more restrictive organ selection practices.

Background:The use of machine perfusion (MP) in kidney transplantation lowers delayed graft function (DGF) and improves 1-year graft survival in some, but not all, grafts. These associations have not been explored in grafts stratified by the Kidney Donor Profile index (KDPI). Methods:We analyzed 78 207 deceased-donor recipients using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from 2006 to 2013. The cohort was stratified using the standard criteria donor/expanded criteria donor (ECD)/donation after cardiac death (DCD)/donation after brain death (DBD) classification and the KDPI scores. In each subgroup, MP use was compared with cold storage. Results:The overall DGF rate was 25.4% and MP use was associated with significantly lower DGF in all but the ECD-DCD donor subgroup. Using the donor source classification, the use of MP did not decrease death-censored graft failure (DCGF), except in the ECD-DCD subgroup from 0 to 1 year {adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.56 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32-0.98]}. In the ECD-DBD subgroup, higher DCGF from 1 to 5 years was noted [aHR 1.15 (95% CI 1.01-1.31)]. Also, MP did not lower all-cause graft failure except in the ECD-DCD subgroup from 0 to 1 year [aHR = 0.59 (95% CI 0.38-0.91)]. Using the KDPI classification, MP did not lower DCGF or all-cause graft failure, but in the ≤70 subgroup, higher DCGF [aHR 1.16 (95% CI 1.05-1.27)] and higher all-cause graft failure [aHR 1.10 (95% CI 1.02-1.18)] was noted. Lastly, MP was not associated with mortality in any subgroup. Conclusions:Overall, MP did not lower DCGF. Neither classification better risk-stratified kidneys that have superior graft survival with MP. We question their widespread use in all allografts as an ideal approach to organ preservation.

The Kidney Allocation System (KAS) was implemented in December 2014 with unknown impact on the pediatric waitlist. To understand the effect of KAS on pediatric registrants, deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) rate was assessed using interrupted time series analysis and time-to-event analysis. Two allocation eras were defined with an intermediary washout period: Era 1 (01/01/2013-09/01/2014), Era 2 (09/01/2014-03/01/2015), and Era 3(03/01/2015-03/01/2017). When using Cox proportional hazards, there was no significant association between allocation era and DDKT likelihood as compared to Era 1 (Era 3: aHR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.97-1.18, P = .17). However, this was not consistent across all subgroups. Specifically, while highly sensitized pediatric registrants were consistently less likely to be transplanted than their less sensitized counterparts, this disparity was attenuated in Era 3 (Era 1 aHR: 0.04, 95%CI: 0.01-0.14, P < .001; Era 3 aHR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.21-0.53, P < .001) whereas the youngest registrants aged 0-6 experienced a 21% decrease in DDKT likelihood in Era 3 as compared to Era 1 (aHR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.64-0.98, P = .03). Thus, while overall DDKT likelihood remained stable with the introduction of KAS, registrants ≤ 6 years of age were disadvantaged, warranting further study to ensure equitable access to transplantation.

Racial disparities in living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) persist but the most effective target to eliminate these disparities remains unknown. One potential target could be delays during completion of the live donor evaluation process. We studied racial differences in progression through the evaluation process for 247 African American (AA) and 664 non-AA living donor candidates at our center between January 2011 and March 2015. AA candidates were more likely to be obese (38% vs 22%: P < .001), biologically related (66% vs 44%: P < .001), and live ≤50 miles from the center (64% vs 37%: P < .001) than non-AAs. Even after adjusting for these differences, AAs were less likely to progress from referral to donation (aHR for AA vs non-AA: _0.26 0.47 _0.83; P = .01). We then assessed racial differences in completion of each step of the evaluation process and found disparities in progression from medical screening to in-person evaluation (aHR: _0.41 0.62_0.94; P = .02) and from clearance to donation (aHR: _0.28 0.51_0.91; P = .02), compared with from referral to medical screening (aHR: _0.78 1.02_1.33; P = .95) and from in-person evaluation to clearance (aHR: _0.59 0.93_1.44; P = .54). Delays may be a manifestation of the transplant candidate's social network, thus, targeted efforts to optimize networks for identification of donor candidates may help address LDKT disparities.

BACKGROUND:The donation of multiple allografts from a single living donor is a rare practice, and the patient characteristics and outcomes associated with these procedures are not well described. METHODS:Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we identified 101 living multiorgan donors and their 133 recipients. RESULTS:The 49 sequential (donations during separate procedures) multiorgan donors provided grafts to 81 recipients: 21 kidney-then-liver, 15 liver-then-kidney, 5 lung-then-kidney, 3 liver-then-intestine, 3 kidney-then-pancreas, 1 lung-then-liver, and 1 pancreas-then-kidney. Of these donors, 38% donated 2 grafts to the same recipient and 15% donated 2 grafts as non-directed donors. Compared to recipients from first-time, single organ living donors, recipients from second-time living donors had similar graft and patient survival. The 52 simultaneous (multiple donations during one procedure) multiorgan donors provided 2 grafts to 1 recipient each: 48 kidney-pancreas and 4 liver-intestine. Donors had median of 13.4 years (interquartile range, 8.3-18.5 years) of follow-up. There was one reported death of a sequential donor (2.5 years after second donation). Few postdonation complications were reported over a median of 116 days (interquartile range, 0-295 days) of follow-up; however, routine living donor follow-up data were sparse. Recipients of kidneys from second-time living donors had similar graft (P = 0.2) and patient survival (P = 0.4) when compared with recipients from first-time living donors. Similarly, recipients of livers from second-time living donors had similar graft survival (P = 0.9) and patient survival (P = 0.7) when compared with recipients from first-time living donors. CONCLUSIONS:Careful documentation of outcomes is needed to ensure ethical practices in selection, informed consent, and postdonation care of this unique donor community.

BACKGROUND:Efforts are underway to improve living kidney donor (LKD) education, but current LKD concerns and information-gathering preferences have not been ascertained to inform evidence-based resource development. As a result, prior studies have found that donors desire information that is not included in current informed consent and/or educational materials. METHODS:We conducted semi-structured interviews with 50 LKDs who donated at our center to assess (1) concerns about donation that they either had personally before or after donation or heard from family members or friends, (2) information that they had desired before donation, and (3) where they sought information about donation. We used thematic analysis of verbatim interview transcriptions to identify donation-related concerns. We compared the demographic characteristics of participants reporting specific concerns using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS:We identified 19 unique concerns that participants had or heard about living kidney donation. 20% of participants reported having had no pre-donation concerns; 38% reported no post-donation concerns. The most common concern pre-donation was future kidney failure (22%), post-donation was the recovery process (24%), and from family was endangering their family unit (16%). 44% of participants reported being less concerned than family. 26% of participants wished they had had additional information prior to donating, including practical advice for recovery (10%) and information about specific complications (14%). Caucasian participants were more likely to hear at least one concern from family (76% vs. 33%, p = 0.02). The most commonly consulted educational resources were health care providers (100%) and websites (79% of donors since 2000). 26% of participants had had contact with other donors; an additional 20% desired contact with other LKDs. CONCLUSIONS:Potential donors not only have personal donation-related concerns but frequently hear donation-related concerns from family members and friends. Current gaps in donor education include an absence of practical, peer-to-peer advice about donation from other prior donors and materials directed and potential donors' family members and friends. These findings can inform the development of new educational practices and resources targeted not only at LKDs but at their social networks.