Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:Individuals who work on health data systems and services are uniquely positioned to understand the risks of health data collection and use. We designed and conducted a survey assessing the perceptions of those who work with health data around health data consent, sharing, and privacy practices in healthcare and clinical research. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:tests and ordinal logistic regression. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Most of our respondents (61.7%) reported that they would trust people to use their health data across various sectors, but more respondents trusted those working in academic medical research (86.5%) and healthcare offices (89.9%) compared to those working in industry (68.2%). Despite this reported trust, a strong majority believed that individuals should have complete control over their health data (97.3%), specific consent should be obtained for each use of their health data (92.0%), and that there should be higher standards of consent and privacy for health records data than other types of data (93.7%). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Based on our findings, we might infer that people who work with health data generally trust institutions across sectors to protect their health data. However, many would prefer to have complete control over who has access to their health data and how it is used. These insights should be explored further through qualitative studies.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Among heart transplant candidates, atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common comorbidity; however, little is known about the impact of pre-transplant AF on incidence of post-transplant AF or other transplant outcomes. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Adult heart transplant recipients transplanted from 07/01/2012 to 07/01/2021 with data available in both the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and Symphony Health pharmacy databases were included. Recipients were categorized by presence of pre-transplant AF using prescription fill data. Perioperative outcomes and survival out to 5 years post-transplant were compared between those with and without pre-transplant AF. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Of the 11,789 heart transplant recipients, 2,477 (21.0%) had pre-transplant AF. Pre-transplant AF was associated with an increased likelihood of pre-discharge stroke (aOR 2.13 [95%CI: 1.07-4.26], p=0.03) and dialysis (aOR 1.45 [1.05-2.00], p=0.02), as well as of post-transplant AF at 6 months (aOR 2.42 [1.44-1.48], p=0.001) and 1 year (aOR 2.81 [1.72-4.56], p<0.001). Pre-transplant AF was associated with increased post-transplant mortality at 30 days (aHR 2.39 [1.29-4.44], p=0.006) and 1 year (aHR 1.46 [95% CI: 1.01-2.13], p=0.04), but similar mortality at 5 years (aHR 1.23 [0.96-1.58], p=0.11). CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Heart transplant recipients with pre-transplant AF had worse short-term outcomes and increased risk of developing post-transplant AF but comparable survival at 5 years post-transplant. Our findings emphasize the importance of increased monitoring for perioperative complications and highlight the long-term safety of heart transplantation in this population. WHAT IS NEW?/UNASSIGNED:Patients with atrial fibrillation who undergo heart transplantation have worse short term survival (30-days and 1-year) but similar long term survival (5-years) compared to recipients without pre-transplant atrial fibrillation.Pre-transplant atrial fibrillation increases the risk of clinically significant post-transplant atrial fibrillation and peri-operative stroke.Rate vs rhythm control pharmacotherapy for atrial fibrillation is not associated with differences in survival in heart transplant recipients with pre-transplant atrial fibrillation. WHAT ARE THE CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS?/UNASSIGNED:Atrial fibrillation should not deter heart transplantation in appropriate candidates, though cardiovascular and stroke risk adjustment may be warranted.Use of amiodarone at doses ≤ 200 mg/day is not associated with reduced survival in heart transplant recipients with pre-transplant atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND:The number of deceased donor kidney transplants has been increasing and is at a record high, yet nonuse of kidneys recovered for transplantation has risen to 25.8% following circular kidney allocation system based on 250-nautical-mile circles implemented on March 15, 2021 (KAS250). METHODS:Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data, we studied all deceased donor kidneys recovered for transplant from March 15, 2019, to January 31, 2023. We calculated the association of multiple factors with kidney nonuse, including increasing recovery of kidneys from nonideal donors, delays in offer acceptance observed under KAS250, and impacts of COVID-19. RESULTS:In the 2 y before KAS250, the nonuse rate was 21.2%. Had this rate continued, 2334 more kidneys would have been transplanted through January 2023. We estimated that about 769 of these nonused kidneys (33%) were associated with offer acceptance delays under KAS250; about 994 of these nonused kidneys (43%) were associated with increased prevalence of nonideal donors: donation after circulatory death donors, older donors, and donors with elevated peak serum creatinine; and about 542 of these nonused kidneys (23%) were associated with an otherwise unexplained gradual upward trend in nonuse of recovered kidneys across the pre-KAS250 and KAS250 eras. The overall impact of COVID-19 on the nonuse rate was not significant. CONCLUSIONS:The rise in kidney nonuse rate was significantly associated with both increased recovery of nonideal donors, and with KAS250 allocation complexity and delays. Increasing recovery of kidneys from nonideal donors benefits patients because recovering more kidneys increases the number of kidneys available for transplant.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:Understanding national attitudes about living kidney donation will enable us to identify and address existing disincentives to living kidney donation. We performed a national survey to describe living kidney donation perceptions, perceived factors that affect the willingness to donate, and analyzed differences by demographic subgroups. STUDY DESIGN/UNASSIGNED:The survey items captured living kidney donation awareness, living kidney donation knowledge, willingness to donate, and barriers and facilitators to living kidney donation. SETTING & POPULATION/UNASSIGNED:We surveyed 802 US adults (aged 25-65 years) in June 2021, randomly selected from an online platform with diverse representation. ANALYTICAL APPROACH/UNASSIGNED:and Fisher exact tests. We inductively evaluated free-text responses to identify additional barriers and facilitators to living kidney donation. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Most (86.6%) of the respondents reported that they might or would definitely consider donating a kidney while they were still living. Barriers to living kidney donation included concerns about the risk of the surgery, paying for medical expenses, and potential health effects. Facilitators to living kidney donation included having information on the donation surgery's safety, knowing that the donor would not have to pay for medical expenses related to the donation, and hearing living kidney donation success stories. Awareness of the ability to participate in kidney-paired donation was associated with a higher willingness to donate. LIMITATIONS/UNASSIGNED:Potential for selection bias resulting from the use of survey panels and varied incentive amounts, and measurement error related to respondents' attention level. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Most people would consider becoming a living kidney donor. Increased rates of living kidney donation may be possible with investment in culturally competent educational interventions that address risks associated with donating, policies that reduce financial disincentives, and communication campaigns that raise awareness of kidney-paired donation and living kidney donation.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:ChatGPT has shown the ability to answer clinical questions in general medicine but may be constrained by the specialized nature of kidney transplantation. Thus, it is important to explore how ChatGPT can be used in kidney transplantation and how its knowledge compares to human respondents. METHODS:We prompted ChatGPT versions 3.5, 4, and 4 Visual (4 V) with 12 multiple-choice questions related to six kidney transplant cases from 2013 to 2015 American Society of Nephrology (ASN) fellowship program quizzes. We compared the performance of ChatGPT with US nephrology fellowship program directors, nephrology fellows, and the audience of the ASN's annual Kidney Week meeting. RESULTS:Overall, ChatGPT 4 V correctly answered 10 out of 12 questions, showing a performance level comparable to nephrology fellows (group majority correctly answered 9 of 12 questions) and training program directors (11 of 12). This surpassed ChatGPT 4 (7 of 12 correct) and 3.5 (5 of 12). All three ChatGPT versions failed to correctly answer questions where the consensus among human respondents was low. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Each iterative version of ChatGPT performed better than the prior version, with version 4 V achieving performance on par with nephrology fellows and training program directors. While it shows promise in understanding and answering kidney transplantation questions, ChatGPT should be seen as a complementary tool to human expertise rather than a replacement.

BACKGROUND:Kidney transplantation from donors with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) to recipients with HIV is an emerging practice. It has been performed since 2016 under the U.S. congressional HIV Organ Policy Equity Act and is currently approved for research only. The Department of Health and Human Services is considering expanding the procedure to clinical practice, but data are limited to small case series that did not include donors without HIV as controls. METHODS:In an observational study conducted at 26 U.S. centers, we compared transplantation of kidneys from deceased donors with HIV and donors without HIV to recipients with HIV. The primary outcome was a safety event (a composite of death from any cause, graft loss, serious adverse event, HIV breakthrough infection, persistent failure of HIV treatment, or opportunistic infection), assessed for noninferiority (margin for the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval, 3.00). Secondary outcomes included overall survival, survival without graft loss, rejection, infection, cancer, and HIV superinfection. RESULTS:We enrolled 408 transplantation candidates, of whom 198 received a kidney from a deceased donor; 99 received a kidney from a donor with HIV and 99 from a donor without HIV. The adjusted hazard ratio for the composite primary outcome was 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 1.38), which showed noninferiority. The following secondary outcomes were similar whether the donor had HIV or not: overall survival at 1 year (94% vs. 95%) and 3 years (85% vs. 87%), survival without graft loss at 1 year (93% vs. 90%) and 3 years (84% vs. 81%), and rejection at 1 year (13% vs. 21%) and 3 years (21% vs. 24%). The incidence of serious adverse events, infections, surgical or vascular complications, and cancer was similar in the groups. The incidence of HIV breakthrough infection was higher among recipients of kidneys from donors with HIV (incidence rate ratio, 3.14; 95%, CI, 1.02 to 9.63), with one potential HIV superinfection among the 58 recipients in this group with sequence data and no persistent failures of HIV treatment. CONCLUSIONS:In this observational study of kidney transplantation in persons with HIV, transplantation from donors with HIV appeared to be noninferior to that from donors without HIV. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03500315.).

INTRODUCTION:Thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion (TA-NRP) following cardiac death is an emerging multivisceral organ procurement technique. Recent national studies on outcomes of presumptive TA-NRP-procured organs are limited by potential misclassification since TA-NRP is not differentiated from donation after cardiac death (DCD) in registry data. METHODS:We studied 22 donors whose designees consented to TA-NRP and organ procurement performed at our institution between January 20, 2020 and July 3, 2022. We identified these donors in SRTR to describe organ utilization and recipient outcomes and compared them to recipients of traditional DCD (tDCD) and donation after brain death (DBD) organs during the same timeframe. RESULTS:All 22 donors progressed to cardiac arrest and underwent TA-NRP followed by heart, lung, kidney, and/or liver procurement. Median donor age was 41 years, 55% had anoxic brain injury, 45% were hypertensive, 0% were diabetic, and median kidney donor profile index was 40%. TA-NRP utilization was high across all organ types (88%-100%), with a higher percentage of kidneys procured via TA-NRP compared to tDCD (88% vs. 72%, p = .02). Recipient and graft survival ranged from 89% to 100% and were comparable to tDCD and DBD recipients (p ≥ .2). Delayed graft function was lower for kidneys procured from TA-NRP compared to tDCD donors (27% vs. 44%, p = .045). CONCLUSION:Procurement from TA-NRP donors yielded high organ utilization, with outcomes comparable to tDCD and DBD recipients across organ types. Further large-scale study of TA-NRP donors, facilitated by its capture in the national registry, will be critical to fully understand its impact as an organ procurement technique.

BACKGROUND:Brazil has a large public transplant program, but it remains unclear if the kidney waitlist criteria effectively allocate organs. This study aimed to investigate whether gender, ethnicity, clinical characteristics, and Brazilian regions affect the chance of deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT). METHODS:We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Transplant System/Brazil database, which included all patients on the kidney transplant waitlist from January 2012 to December 2022, followed until May 2023. The primary outcome assessed was the chance of DDKT, measured using subdistribution hazard and cause-specific hazard models (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR]). RESULTS:We analyzed 118 617 waitlisted patients over a 10-year study period. Male patients had an sHR of 1.07 ([95% CI: 1.05-1.10], p < 0.001), indicating a higher chance of DDTK. Patients of mixed race and Yellow/Indigenous ethnicity had lower rates of receiving a transplant compared to Caucasian patients, with sHR of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95-1) and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.95-1), respectively. Patients from the South region had the highest chance of DDKT, followed by those from the Midwest and Northeast, compared to patients from the Southeast, with sHR of 2.53 (95% CI: 2.47-2.61), 1.21 (95% CI: 1.16-1.27), and 1.10 (95% CI: 1.07-1.13), respectively. The North region had the lowest chance of DDTK, sHR of 0.29 (95% CI: 0.27-0.31). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:We found that women and racial minorities faced disadvantages in kidney transplantation. Additionally, we observed regional disparities, with the North region having the lowest chance of DDKT and longer times on dialysis before being waitlisted. In contrast, patients in the South regions had a chance of DDKT and shorter times on dialysis before being waitlisted. It is urgent to implement approaches to enhance transplant capacity in the North region and address race and gender disparities in transplantation.