Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVE:Hepatitis C virus (HCV) positive-to-negative kidney transplants (KT) require direct acting antiviral therapy, but the optimal timing and duration remain unclear. We hypothesized that 14-day prophylactic course of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir 300/120 mg (GLE/PIB) would be safe and effective at treating donor-derived HCV viremia. METHODS:This was a prospective, single-center, single-arm, open-label pilot study. 20 adult HCV negative recipients of HCV nucleic acid amplification test positive deceased-donor kidneys (HCV positive-to-negative) received a 14-day course of GLE/PIB, with the first dose pre-transplant. HCV RNA viral loads (VL) were monitored on post-operative days (POD) 1, 3, 7, and 13. If VL was undetectable on POD 13, GLE/PIB was stopped, and if detectable, GLE/PIB was continued to complete an 8-week course. Surveillance monitoring continued after treatment to ensure sustained viral response (SVR). The primary outcome was efficacy of 14-day prophylactic GLE/PIB. Secondary outcomes included patient and allograft survival, the incidence, timing, and clearance of HCV viremia, and safety events. RESULTS:7/20 subjects (35%) never developed detectable HCV viremia. Only one subject had a detectable, but nonquantifiable, VL on POD 13 and completed an 8-week course. All subjects achieved SVR 12 weeks post-treatment with no relapses through 1-year follow-up. Mean time to undetectable HCV RNA VL was 10.5 (±4.7) days and mean peak VL was 371 (±715) copies/mL. 6-month and 1-year patient and allograft survival were 100% and 95%. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:A 14-day course of prophylactic GLE/PIB is safe and effective for HCV positive-to-negative KT and may prevent HCV transmission or significantly reduce the VL for those with detectable transmission allowing for rapid clearance within 2 weeks.

With the growth of the older adult population, the number of older adults waitlisted for and undergoing kidney and liver transplantation has increased. Transplantation is an important and definitive treatment for this population. We present a contemporary review of the unique preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative issues that patients older than 65 y face when they undergo kidney or liver transplantation. We focus on geriatric syndromes that are common in older patients listed for kidney or liver transplantation including frailty, sarcopenia, and cognitive dysfunction; discuss important considerations for older transplant recipients, which may impact preoperative risk stratification; and describe unique challenges in intraoperative and postoperative management for older patients. Intraoperative challenges in the older adult include using evidence-based best anesthetic practices, maintaining adequate perfusion pressure, and using minimally invasive surgical techniques. Postoperative concerns include controlling acute postoperative pain; preventing cardiovascular complications and delirium; optimizing immunosuppression; preventing perioperative kidney injury; and avoiding nephrotoxicity and rehabilitation. Future studies are needed throughout the perioperative period to identify interventions that will improve patients' preoperative physiologic status, prevent postoperative medical complications, and improve medical and patient-centered outcomes in this vulnerable patient population.

OBJECTIVE:Transplant renal artery stenosis (TRAS) after renal transplantation is a common cause of graft dysfunction and failure. Endovascular intervention in the form of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) and stenting has rapidly become the dominant treatment modality for the TRAS. There is a paucity of clinical data on use of drug-eluting stent (DES) for TRAS. We investigated the outcomes of patients with clinically significant TRAS undergoing DES placement. METHODS:A retrospective review of patients with clinically significant TRAS undergoing PTA with DES placement from June 2014 to April 2021 was conducted. Patients treated for TRAS exhibited uncontrolled hypertension and/or unexplained allograft dysfunction. Patient demographics, procedural details, and follow-up outcomes were collected. Primary endpoints were the in-stent primary patency and graft survival. Secondary endpoints were freedom from reintervention, primary-assisted patency and access-related complications. RESULTS:Thirteen TRAS in twelve patients with graft function alteration were treated with DES. The median age was 57 years (interquartile range (IQR), 48-63 years), and nine (70%) patients were male (Table). The median follow-up was 9 months (IQR, 4-52 months). The most common comorbidity was hypertension (100%), coronary artery disease (83%) and diabetes. The median time from deceased donor transplant to intervention was 5.8 months (IQR, 3.5-6.7 months). TRAS was most commonly found at the juxta-ostial segment (77%). The procedure was performed with carbon dioxide angiography with minimal amount of iodinated contrast (median, 3 mL) under local anesthesia in nine (69%) and general anesthesia in four (31%) patients. The median stent diameter was 4.5 mm (IQR, 4-5 mm), and the median stent length was 15 mm (IQR, 15-18 mm). No intraoperative complications occurred. The rates of stenosis-free primary patency of the DES and graft survival were 76% and 100%, respectively. All three reinterventions for restenosis resulted from the kinking of the transplant renal artery proximal to the DES, which were treated by extending the stent more proximally 1-2 mm into the external iliac artery. There were no access-related complications. The median time to reintervention was 0.9 months (range, 0.23-2 months). Freedom from reintervention and primary-assisted patency were 76% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Our study demonstrates that DES is a safe and effective treatment modality in patients with TRAS at short to mid-term follow-up. As all reinterventions after DES were performed due to kinking of the transplant renal artery proximal to the stent, bridging of the DES 1-2 mm into the external iliac artery is recommended.

Transplanting hepatitis C viremic donor organs into hepatitis C virus (HCV)-negative recipients is becoming increasingly common; however, practices for posttransplant direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment vary widely. Protracted insurance authorization processes for DAA therapy often lead to treatment delays.

New regulations require living kidney donor (LKD) follow-up for 2 years, but donor retention remains poor. Electronic communication (eg, text messaging and e-mail) might improve donor retention. To explore the possible impact of electronic communication, we recruited LKDs to participate in an exploratory study of communication via telephone, e-mail, or text messaging postdonation; communication through this study was purely optional and did not replace standard follow-up. Of 69 LKDs recruited, 3% requested telephone call, 52% e-mail, and 45% text messaging. Telephone response rate was 0%; these LKDs were subsequently excluded from analysis. Overall response rates with e-mail or text messaging at 1 week, 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years were 94%, 87%, 81%, 72%, and 72%. Lower response rates were seen in African Americans, even after adjusting for age, sex, and contact method (incidence rate ratio (IRR) nonresponse _2.07 5.81_16.36 , P = .001). Text messaging had higher response rates than e-mail (IRR nonresponse _0.11 0.28_0.71 , P = .007). Rates of nonresponse were similar by sex (IRR 0.68, P = .4) and age (IRR 1.00, P > .9). In summary, LKDs strongly preferred electronic messaging over telephone and were highly responsive 2 years postdonation, even in this nonrequired, nonincentivized exploratory research study. These electronic communication tools can be automated and may improve regulatory compliance and postdonation care.

BACKGROUND:Despite numerous initiatives to increase solid organs for transplant, the gap between donors and recipients widens. There is little in the literature identifying socioeconomic predictors for donation. We evaluate the correlation between socioeconomic factors and familial authorization for donation. METHODS:A retrospective analysis of adult potential donor referrals between 2007 and 2012 to our organ procurement organization (OPO) was performed. Potential donor information was obtained from the OPO database, death certificates, and the US Census Report. Data on demographics, education, residence, income, registry status, cause and manner of death, as well as OPO assessments and approach for donation were collected. End point was familial authorization for donation. RESULTS:A total of 1059 potential donors were included, with an overall authorization rate of 47%. The majority was not on the donor registry (73%). Younger donors (18-39 y: odds ratio [OR] = 4.9, P < 0.001; 40-60 y: OR = 2.1, P < 0.001), higher levels of education (college: OR = 2.5, P = 0.005; graduate studies: OR = 3.9, P = 0.002), prior listing on the donor registry (OR = 10.3, P < 0.001), and residence in counties with lower poverty rates than the US rates (OR = 1.7, P = 0.02) were independently associated with higher authorization rates. Decoupling (OR = 3.1, P < 0.001) and donation first mentioned by the local health care provider (OR = 1.8, P = 0.01) were also independently associated with higher authorization rates. CONCLUSIONS:Donor registration correlated most strongly with the highest authorization rates. These results indicate that public educational efforts in populations with unfavorable socioeconomic considerations may be beneficial in improving donor registration. Collaborations with local providers as well as OPO in-hospital assessments and approach techniques can help with improving authorization rates.

Current studies of complications following donor hepatectomy may not be generalizable to all hospitals performing this procedure. To address this, live liver donors were identified in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2000-2008). Complications after donor hepatectomy were categorized using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes and risk factors for complications were tested using logistic regression. Negative binomial regression models were used to estimate the increase in length of stay and hospital charge associated with complications. Among 555 donors (representing 2783 donors nationwide), 23% had 1 or more complications and 5% had a major complication. The most common complications were ileus (27%) and atelectasis (26%). No patient or hospital factors were associated with complications. Having any complication was associated with increased length of stay (incidence rate ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.16-1.58; P < .001) and hospital charge (incidence rate ratio, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.44; P = .002). Approximately 25% of liver donors have complications immediately postoperatively but most are minor, lending support to current practices in live liver donation and donor selection.

BACKGROUND: Lack of education and reluctance to initiate a conversation about live donor kidney transplantation is a common barrier to finding a donor. Although transplant candidates are often hesitant to discuss their illness, friends or family members are often eager to spread awareness and are empowered by advocating for the candidates. We hypothesized that separating the advocate from the patient is important in identifying live donors. METHODS: We developed an intervention to train a live donor champion (LDC; a friend, family member, or community member willing to advocate for the candidate) for this advocacy role. We compared outcomes of 15 adult kidney transplant candidates who had no prospective donors and underwent the LDC intervention with 15 matched controls from our waiting list. RESULTS: Comfort in initiating a conversation about transplantation increased over time for LDCs. Twenty-five potential donors contacted our center on behalf of LDC participants; four participants achieved live donor kidney transplantation and three additional participants have donors in evaluation, compared with zero among matched controls (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Transplant candidates are ill equipped to seek live donors; by separating the advocate from the patient, understandable concerns about initiating conversations are reduced.

BACKGROUND: On average, African Americans attain living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) at decreased rates compared with their non-African American counterparts. However, center-level variations in this disparity or the role of center-level factors is unknown. STUDY DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 247,707 adults registered for first-time kidney transplants from 1995-2007 as reported by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. PREDICTORS: Patient-level factors (age, sex, body mass index, insurance status, education, blood type, and panel-reactive antibody level) were adjusted for in all models. The association of center-level characteristics (number of candidates, transplant volume, LDKT volume, median time to transplant, percentage of African American candidates, percentage of prelisted candidates, and percentage of LDKT) and degree of racial disparity in LDKT was quantified. OUTCOMES: Hierarchical multivariate logistic regression models were used to derive center-specific estimates of LDKT attainment in African American versus non-African American candidates. RESULTS: Racial parity was not seen at any of the 275 transplant centers in the United States. At centers with the least racial disparity, African Americans had 35% lower odds of receiving LDKT; at centers with the most disparity, African Americans had 76% lower odds. Higher percentages of African American candidates (interaction term, 0.86; P = 0.03) and prelisted candidates (interaction term, 0.80; P = 0.001) at a given center were associated with increased racial disparity at that center. Higher rates of LDKT (interaction term, 1.25; P < 0.001) were associated with less racial disparity. LIMITATIONS: Some patient-level factors are not captured, including a given patient's pool of potential donors. Geographic disparities in deceased donor availability might affect LDKT rates. Center-level policies and practices are not captured. CONCLUSIONS: Racial disparity in attainment of LDKT exists at every transplant center in the country. Centers with higher rates of LDKT attainment for all races had less disparity; these high-performing centers might provide insights into policies that might help address this disparity.