Faculty Bibliography

Frailty is prevalent in liver transplant candidates, but little is known of what happens to frailty after liver transplantation. We analyzed data for 214 adult liver transplant recipients who had ≥1 frailty assessment using the Liver Frailty Index (LFI) at 3- (n = 178), 6- (n = 139), or 12- (n = 107) months posttransplant (higher values=more frail). "Frail" and "robust" were defined as LFI ≥4.5 and <3.2. Median pre-liver transplant LFI was 3.7, and was worse at 3 months (3.9; P = .02), similar at 6 months (3.7; P = .07), and improved at 12 months (3.4; P < .001). The percentage who were robust pre- and 3-, 6-, and 12-months posttransplant were 25%, 14%, 28%, and 37%; the percentage frail were 21%, 21%, 10%, and 7%. In univariable analysis, each 0.1 pretransplant LFI point more frail was associated with a decreased odds of being robust at 3- (odds ratio [OR] 0.75), 6- (OR 0.77), and 12-months (OR 0.90) posttransplant (P ≤ .001), which did not change substantially with multivariable adjustment. In conclusion, frailty worsens 3 months posttransplant and improves modestly by 12 months, but fewer than 2 of 5 patients achieve robustness. Pretransplant LFI was a potent predictor of posttransplant robustness. Aggressive interventions aimed at preventing frailty pretransplant are urgently needed to maximize physical health after liver transplantation.

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.

BACKGROUND:Dialysis-dependent patients and kidney transplant recipients may be at increased risk for Achilles tendon rupture (ATR). METHODS:We studied Medicare patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) from 1999 through 2013. Patients were categorized as waitlisted for a transplant, not waitlisted, or received a transplant. We performed multivariate negative binomial regression using demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and year of study entry to estimate adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs), identify ATR risk factors, and determine treatment patterns and outcomes. RESULTS:We identified 1091 ATRs (incidence, 3.80/10 000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.58-4.03). Compared with transplant recipients, nonwaitlisted patients had a lower incidence (aIRR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.37-0.53), and waitlisted patients had a similar incidence (aIRR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.78-1.12) of ATR. ATR incidence was higher among patients taking fluoroquinolones (aIRR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.32-1.84) and corticosteroids (aIRR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.44-2.05) compared with those who did not. Patients with ATR were younger, had higher mean body mass index, and had fewer comorbidities than patients without ATR. Seventeen percent of patients received operative treatment within 14 days of ATR diagnosis. The 30-day cumulative incidence of operative site infections was 6.5%. CONCLUSION:The incidence of ATR was higher among transplant recipients and waitlisted patients compared with nonwaitlisted patients. Younger age, higher body mass index, fewer comorbidities, fluoroquinolone use, and corticosteroid use were risk factors for ATR. Patients were more likely to receive nonoperative than operative treatment for ATR. Those who underwent operative treatment had a low incidence of operative site infection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Prognostic level III, comparative study.

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/UNASSIGNED:Variation in the use of immunosuppression regimens after liver transplant has not been well described. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Immunosuppression regimens used after liver transplant were identified in a novel database integrating national transplant registry and pharmacy fill records for 24 238 recipients (2006-2014). Bilevel hierarchical models were developed to quantify the effects of transplant program, recipient, and donor characteristics on regimen choice. Results/UNASSIGNED:=0.003). Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Liver transplant immunosuppression is dominantly driven by program preference, but case factors also affect regimen choice. This variation frames a natural experiment for future evaluations of comparative efficacy.

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.