Implementation of a One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic to Improve the Efficiency of the Living Kidney Donor Evaluation: Program Report.

Purpose of program: A key barrier to becoming a living kidney donor is an inefficient evaluation process, requiring more than 30 tests (eg, laboratory and diagnostic tests), questionnaires, and specialist consultations. Donor candidates make several trips to hospitals and clinics, and often spend months waiting for appointments and test results. The median evaluation time for a donor candidate in Ontario, Canada, is nearly 1 year. Longer wait times are associated with poorer outcomes for the kidney transplant recipient and higher health care costs. A shorter, more efficient donor evaluation process may help more patients with kidney failure receive a transplant, including a pre-emptive kidney transplant (ie, avoiding the need for dialysis). In this report, we describe the development of a quality improvement intervention to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and patient-centeredness of the donor candidate evaluation process. We developed a One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic, a condensed clinic where interested donor candidates complete all testing and consultations within 1 day. Sources of information: The One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic was developed after performing a comprehensive review of the literature, receiving feedback from patients who have successfully donated, and meetings with transplant program leadership from St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton. A multistakeholder team was formed that included health care staff from nephrology, transplant surgery, radiology, cardiology, social work, nuclear medicine, and patients with the prior lived experience of kidney donation. In the planning stages, the team met regularly to determine the objectives of the clinic, criteria for participation, clinic schedule, patient flow, and clinic metrics. Methods: Donor candidates entered the One-Day Clinic if they completed initial laboratory testing and agreed to an expedited process. If additional testing was required, it was completed on a different day. Donor candidates were reviewed by the nephrologist, transplant surgeon, and donor coordinator approximately 2 weeks after the clinic for final approval. The team continues to meet regularly to review donor feedback, discuss challenges, and brainstorm solutions. Key findings: The One-Day Clinic was implemented in March 2019, and has now been running for 4 years, making iterative improvements through continuous patient and provider feedback. To date, we have evaluated more than 150 donor candidates in this clinic. Feedback from donors has been uniformly positive (98% of donors stated they were very satisfied with the clinic), with most noting that the clinic was efficient and minimally impacted work and family obligations. Hospital leadership, including the health care professionals from each participating department, continue to show support and collaborate to create a seamless experience for donor candidates attending the One-Day Clinic. Limitations: Clinic spots are limited, meaning some interested donor candidates may not be able to enter a One-Day Clinic the same month they come forward. Implications: This patient-centered quality improvement intervention is designed to improve the efficiency and experience of the living kidney donor evaluation, result in better outcomes for kidney transplant recipients, and potentially increase living donation. Our next step is to conduct a formal evaluation of the clinic, measuring qualitative feedback from health care professionals working in the clinic and donor candidates attending the clinic, and measuring key process and outcome measures in donor candidates who completed the one-day assessment compared with those who underwent the usual care assessment. This program evaluation will provide reliable, regionally relevant evidence that will inform transplant centers across the country as they consider incorporating a similar one-day assessment model.

Objectifs du programme: Devenir donneur de rein vivant est difficile, le principal obstacle étant le processus d'évaluation inefficace auquel les candidats doivent se soumettre. Ce processus comporte plus de 30 examens (p. ex. tests de laboratoire et tests diagnostiques), questionnaires et consultations avec des spécialistes. Les candidats donneurs font plusieurs visites dans les hôpitaux et cliniques, et passent souvent plusieurs mois à attendre des rendez-vous et des résultats de tests. En Ontario (Canada), le délai médian pour l'évaluation d'un candidat au don est de près d'un an. Les temps d'attente plus longs sont associés à de moins bons résultats pour les receveurs d'une greffe rénale, ainsi qu'à des coûts de soins de santé plus élevés. Un processus d'évaluation plus court et plus efficace des donneurs potentiels permettrait à un plus grand nombre de patients atteints d'insuffisance rénale de recevoir une greffe, y compris une greffe préventive (c.-à-d. permettant d'éviter la dialyse). Cet article décrit une intervention d'amélioration de la qualité visant à augmenter l'efficience, l'efficacité et la personnalisation du processus d'évaluation des candidats au don. Nous avons développé une clinique d'un jour pour l'évaluation des donneurs de reins vivants (One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic), soit une clinique condensée où les candidats passent tous les tests et consultent un spécialiste dans la même journée. Sources de l'information: La clinique d'un jour pour l'évaluation des donneurs de reins vivants a été développée à la suite d'un examen approfondi de la littérature, de la consultation des commentaires de patients ayant donné avec succès et de rencontres avec les dirigeants du programme de transplantation du St Joseph's Healthcare d'Hamilton. Une équipe multipartite a été formée; celle-ci réunit du personnel soignant en néphrologie, chirurgie de transplantation, radiologie, cardiologie, travail social et médecine nucléaire, ainsi que des patients ayant une expérience vécue du don de rein. L'équipe s'est réunie régulièrement pendant les étapes de planification pour déterminer les objectifs, les paramètres et le calendrier de la clinique, ainsi que les critères de participation et le flux de patients. Méthodologie: Les donneurs potentiels qui avaient complété les tests de laboratoire initiaux et qui acceptaient de se soumettre à un processus accéléré ont été évalués à la clinique d'un jour. Si des tests supplémentaires étaient nécessaires, ceux-ci étaient effectués un autre jour. Les candidats ont été rencontrés par le néphrologue, le chirurgien de transplantation et le coordonnateur des dons environ deux semaines après leur visite à la clinique pour l'approbation finale. L'équipe multipartite continue de se réunir régulièrement pour examiner les commentaires des donneurs, discuter des défis et trouver des solutions. Principaux résultats: La clinique d'un jour, mise sur pied en mars 2019, est en activité depuis quatre ans et permet des améliorations itératives grâce à la rétroaction continue des patients et des soignants. À ce jour, plus de 150 candidats au don ont été évalués à la clinique. Les commentaires des donneurs sont quasi unanimement positifs (98 % des candidats ont déclaré être très satisfaits de la clinique), la plupart soulignant l'efficacité de la clinique et les conséquences minimes du processus sur les obligations professionnelles et familiales. La direction de l'hôpital, tout comme les professionnels de la santé des services participants, continue d'appuyer la clinique d'un jour et de collaborer à la création d'une expérience fluide pour les donneurs potentiels qui la fréquentent. Limites: Les places à la clinique sont limitées; ainsi, certains candidats au don d'un rein vivant pourraient ne pas pouvoir être admis dans le mois où ils se présentent à la clinique. Conclusion: Cette intervention d'amélioration de la qualité axée sur les patients est conçue pour augmenter l'efficacité du processus d'évaluation et bonifier l'expérience des donneurs de rein vivants. Elle vise également à améliorer les résultats des receveurs d'une greffe rénale et, potentiellement, augmenter le don vivant. La prochaine étape sera une évaluation formelle de la clinique, c'est-à-dire la mesure de la rétroaction qualitative des professionnels de la santé qui y travaillent et des candidats au don qui la fréquentent, et l'analyse des processus clés et des résultats des candidats évalués à la clinique d'un jour par rapport à ceux qui suivent le processus d'évaluation habituel. Cette évaluation du programme fournira des données probantes fiables et propres à la région qui pourront informer les centres de transplantation de tout le pays qui envisagent d'intégrer un processus d'évaluation similaire.

Circulating microvesicle protein is associated with renal transplant outcome.

Renal transplantation is an effective therapy with improved long-term outcomes compared with other therapies for end stage renal disease. Present methods for evaluating kidney allograft function, such as serum creatinine or allograft biopsy, are not sensitive and identify pathological changes only after any potential intervention would be effective. Thus, there is a necessity for biomarkers that would provide early prognostic information about kidney transplant outcomes. Circulating microvesicles represent an attractive source of biomarkers for different diseases including renal failure. We have studied the proteins of the circulating microvesicles from two populations of kidney transplant recipients (n = 20) with poor transplant outcomes (n = 10) or good transplant outcome (n = 10), according to their estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Microvesicles from age-matched healthy subjects (n = 10) were used as a control. Also, we performed a pilot study to assess the microvesicle protein in kidney transplant recipients before and six months after kidney transplant (n = 6), compared to healthy subjects. Proteomic analysis of microvesicles could discriminate between transplant recipients and healthy subjects, and between transplant patients based on eGFR. Our results shed light on the potential of blood microvesicles to provide a novel tool for the prediction of the outcome of kidney transplants.

The Risk of Cardiovascular Disease Is Not Increasing Over Time Despite Aging and Higher Comorbidity Burden of Kidney Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular death remains the leading cause of mortality in kidney transplant recipients. Cardiovascular events are associated with significant morbidity. However, current trends in cardiovascular events after kidney transplantation are poorly understood. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study using healthcare databases in Ontario, Canada, to determine whether the incidence of cardiovascular events after kidney transplantation has changed from 1994 to 2009. Our primary endpoint was a 3-year composite outcome of posttransplant death or major cardiovascular event (myocardial infarction, coronary angioplasty, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, stroke). RESULTS: Recipients (n = 4954) were older and had more baseline comorbidity in recent years. A total of 445 recipients (9.0%) died or experienced a major cardiovascular event within 3 years of transplantation. There was no significant change in the incidence of the composite outcome or death-censored cardiovascular events over time (P = 0.41 and 0.92, respectively). After adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities, the risk of death or major cardiovascular event steadily declined across the years of transplant (2006-2009 adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; P = 0.009; referent 1994-1997). When recipients were matched on age, sex, and date of cohort entry to members of the general population and to the chronic kidney disease population, the risk was lowest in the general population and highest in the chronic kidney disease population. CONCLUSION: Despite transplant centers accepting recipients who are older with more comorbidities in recent years, the 3-year cumulative incidence of death or major cardiovascular event has remained stable over time.

Tumor microsatellite-instability status as a predictor of benefit from fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colon cancers with high-frequency microsatellite instability have clinical and pathological features that distinguish them from microsatellite-stable tumors. We investigated the usefulness of microsatellite-instability status as a predictor of the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil in stage II and stage III colon cancer. METHODS: Tumor specimens were collected from patients with colon cancer who were enrolled in randomized trials of fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy. Microsatellite instability was assessed with the use of mononucleotide and dinucleotide markers. RESULTS: Of 570 tissue specimens, 95 (16.7 percent) exhibited high-frequency microsatellite instability. Among 287 patients who did not receive adjuvant therapy, those with tumors displaying high-frequency microsatellite instability had a better five-year rate of overall survival than patients with tumors exhibiting microsatellite stability or low-frequency instability (hazard ratio for death, 0.31 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.14 to 0.72]; P=0.004). Among patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy, high-frequency microsatellite instability was not correlated with increased overall survival (hazard ratio for death, 1.07 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.62 to 1.86]; P=0.80). The benefit of treatment differed significantly according to the microsatellite-instability status (P=0.01). Adjuvant chemotherapy improved overall survival among patients with microsatellite-stable tumors or tumors exhibiting low-frequency microsatellite instability, according to a multivariate analysis adjusted for stage and grade (hazard ratio for death, 0.72 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.53 to 0.99]; P=0.04). By contrast, there was no benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in the group with high-frequency microsatellite instability. CONCLUSIONS: Fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy benefited patients with stage II or stage III colon cancer with microsatellite-stable tumors or tumors exhibiting low-frequency microsatellite instability but not those with tumors exhibiting high-frequency microsatellite instability.