Artificial intelligence-based clinical decision support for liver transplant evaluation and considerations about fairness: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The use of large-scale data and artificial intelligence (AI) to support complex transplantation decisions is in its infancy. Transplant candidate decision-making, which relies heavily on subjective assessment (ie, high variability), provides a ripe opportunity for AI-based clinical decision support (CDS). However, AI-CDS for transplant applications must consider important concerns regarding fairness (ie, health equity). The objective of this study was to use human-centered design methods to elicit providers' perceptions of AI-CDS for liver transplant listing decisions. METHODS: In this multicenter qualitative study conducted from December 2020 to July 2021, we performed semistructured interviews with 53 multidisciplinary liver transplant providers from 2 transplant centers. We used inductive coding and constant comparison analysis of interview data. RESULTS: Analysis yielded 6 themes important for the design of fair AI-CDS for liver transplant listing decisions: (1) transparency in the creators behind the AI-CDS and their motivations; (2) understanding how the AI-CDS uses data to support recommendations (ie, interpretability); (3) acknowledgment that AI-CDS could mitigate emotions and biases; (4) AI-CDS as a member of the transplant team, not a replacement; (5) identifying patient resource needs; and (6) including the patient's role in the AI-CDS. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, providers interviewed were cautiously optimistic about the potential for AI-CDS to improve clinical and equitable outcomes for patients. These findings can guide multidisciplinary developers in the design and implementation of AI-CDS that deliberately considers health equity.

Critical interactions between race and the highly granular area deprivation index in liver transplant evaluation.

Neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation may have important implications on disparities in liver transplant (LT) evaluation. In this retrospective cohort study, we constructed a novel dataset by linking individual patient-level data with the highly granular Area Deprivation Index (ADI), which is advantageous over other neighborhood measures due to: specificity of Census Block-Group (versus Census Tract, Zip code), scoring, and robust variables. Our cohort included 1377 adults referred to our center for LT evaluation 8/1/2016-12/31/2019. Using modified Poisson regression, we tested for effect measure modification of the association between neighborhood socioeconomic status (nSES) and LT evaluation outcomes (listing, initiating evaluation, and death) by race and ethnicity. Compared to patients with high nSES, those with low nSES were at higher risk of not being listed (aRR = 1.14; 95%CI 1.05-1.22; p < .001), of not initiating evaluation post-referral (aRR = 1.20; 95%CI 1.01-1.42; p = .03) and of dying without initiating evaluation (aRR = 1.55; 95%CI 1.09-2.2; p = .01). While White patients with low nSES had similar rates of listing compared to White patients with high nSES (aRR = 1.06; 95%CI .96-1.17; p = .25), Underrepresented patients from neighborhoods with low nSES incurred 31% higher risk of not being listed compared to Underrepresented patients from neighborhoods with high nSES (aRR = 1.31; 95%CI 1.12-1.5; p < .001). Interventions addressing neighborhood deprivation may not only benefit patients with low nSES but may address racial and ethnic inequities.

The unfinished journey toward transplant equity: an analysis of racial/ethnic disparities for children after the implementation of the Kidney Allocation System in 2014.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in pediatric kidney transplantation (KT) result in reduced access and worse outcomes for minority children. We assessed the impact of recent systems changes on these disparities. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of pediatric patients utilizing data from the US Renal Data System (n = 7547) and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (n = 6567 waitlisted and n = 6848 transplanted patients). We compared access to transplantation, time to deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT), and allograft failure (ACGF) in the 5 years preceding implementation of the Kidney Allocation System (KAS) to the 5 years post-KAS implementation 2010-2014 vs. 2015-2019, respectively. RESULTS: Compared to the pre-KAS era, post-KAS candidates were more likely to be pre-emptively listed (26.8% vs. 38.1%, p < 0.001), pre-emptively transplanted (23.8% vs. 28.0%, p < 0.001), and less likely to have private insurance (35.6% vs. 32.3%, p = 0.01), but these were not uniform across racial groups. Compared to white children, Black and Hispanic children had a lower likelihood of transplant listing within 2 years of first dialysis service (aHR 0.590.670.76 and 0.730.820.92, respectively) in the post-KAS era. Time to DDKT was comparable across all racial groups in the post-KAS era. Compared to white children, Black DDKT recipients have more 5-year ACGF (aHR 1.001.432.06 p = 0.05) while there was no difference in 3- or 5-year ACGF among LDKT recipients. CONCLUSIONS: After KAS implementation, there is equity in time to DDKT. Pre-KAS increased hazard of ACGF among Black children has decreased in the post-KAS era; however, persistent disparities exist in time to transplant listing among Black and Hispanic children when compared to white children. A higher resolution version of the Graphical abstract is available as Supplementary information.

Multicenter study of racial and ethnic inequities in liver transplantation evaluation: Understanding mechanisms and identifying solutions.

Racial and ethnic disparities persist in access to the liver transplantation (LT) waiting list; however, there is limited knowledge about underlying system-level factors that may be responsible for these disparities. Given the complex nature of LT candidate evaluation, a human factors and systems engineering approach may provide insights. We recruited participants from the LT teams (coordinators, advanced practice providers, physicians, social workers, dieticians, pharmacists, leadership) at two major LT centers. From December 2020 to July 2021, we performed ethnographic observations (participant-patient appointments, committee meetings) and semistructured interviews (N = 54 interviews, 49 observation hours). Based on findings from this multicenter, multimethod qualitative study combined with the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety 2.0 (a human factors and systems engineering model for health care), we created a conceptual framework describing how transplant work system characteristics and other external factors may improve equity in the LT evaluation process. Participant perceptions about listing disparities described external factors (e.g., structural racism, ambiguous national guidelines, national quality metrics) that permeate the LT evaluation process. Mechanisms identified included minimal transplant team diversity, implicit bias, and interpersonal racism. A lack of resources was a common theme, such as social workers, transportation assistance, non-English-language materials, and time (e.g., more time for education for patients with health literacy concerns). Because of the minimal data collection or center feedback about disparities, participants felt uncomfortable with and unadaptable to unwanted outcomes, which perpetuate disparities. We proposed transplant center-level solutions (i.e., including but not limited to training of staff on health equity) to modifiable barriers in the clinical work system that could help patient navigation, reduce disparities, and improve access to care. Our findings call for an urgent need for transplant centers, national societies, and policy makers to focus efforts on improving equity (tailored, patient-centered resources) using the science of human factors and systems engineering.

Characterizing the landscape and impact of infections following kidney transplantation.

Infections remain a major threat to successful kidney transplantation (KT). To characterize the landscape and impact of post-KT infections in the modern era, we used United States Renal Data System (USRDS) data linked to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) to study 141 661 Medicare-primary kidney transplant recipients from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2014. Infection diagnoses were ascertained by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes. The cumulative incidence of a post-KT infection was 36.9% at 3 months, 53.7% at 1 year, and 78.0% at 5 years. The most common infections were urinary tract infection (UTI; 46.8%) and pneumonia (28.2%). Five-year mortality for kidney transplant recipients who developed an infection was 24.9% vs 7.9% for those who did not, and 5-year death-censored graft failure (DCGF) was 20.6% vs 10.1% (P < .001). This translated to a 2.22-fold higher mortality risk (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 2.15 2.222.29 , P < .001) and 1.92-fold higher DCGF risk (aHR: 1.84 1.911.98 , P < .001) for kidney transplant recipients who developed an infection, although the magnitude of this higher risk varied across infection types (for example, 3.11-fold higher mortality risk for sepsis vs 1.62-fold for a UTI). Post-KT infections are common and substantially impact mortality and DCGF, even in the modern era. Kidney transplant recipients at high risk for infections might benefit from enhanced surveillance or follow-up to mitigate these risks.

Center-level Variation in HLA-incompatible Living Donor Kidney Transplantation Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Desensitization protocols for HLA-incompatible living donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) vary across centers. The impact of these, as well as other practice variations, on ILDKT outcomes remains unknown. METHODS: We sought to quantify center-level variation in mortality and graft loss following ILDKT using a 25-center cohort of 1358 ILDKT recipients with linkage to Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients for accurate outcome ascertainment. We used multilevel Cox regression with shared frailty to determine the variation in post-ILDKT outcomes attributable to between-center differences and to identify any center-level characteristics associated with improved post-ILDKT outcomes. RESULTS: After adjusting for patient-level characteristics, only 6 centers (24%) had lower mortality and 1 (4%) had higher mortality than average. Similarly, only 5 centers (20%) had higher graft loss and 2 had lower graft loss than average. Only 4.7% of the differences in mortality (P < 0.01) and 4.4% of the differences in graft loss (P < 0.01) were attributable to between-center variation. These translated to a median hazard ratio of 1.36 for mortality and 1.34 of graft loss for similar candidates at different centers. Post-ILDKT outcomes were not associated with the following center-level characteristics: ILDKT volume and transplanting a higher proportion of highly sensitized, prior transplant, preemptive, or minority candidates. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike most aspects of transplantation in which center-level variation and volume impact outcomes, we did not find substantial evidence for this in ILDKT. Our findings support the continued practice of ILDKT across these diverse centers.

Financial incentives versus standard of care to improve patient compliance with live kidney donor follow-up: protocol for a multi-center, parallel-group randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Live kidney donors (LKDs) account for nearly a third of kidney transplants in the United States. While donor nephrectomy poses minimal post-surgical risk, LKDs face an elevated adjusted risk of developing chronic diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, and end-stage renal disease. Routine screening presents an opportunity for the early detection and management of chronic conditions. Transplant hospital reporting requirements mandate the submission of laboratory and clinical data at 6-months, 1-year, and 2-years after kidney donation, but less than 50% of hospitals are able to comply. Strategies to increase patient engagement in follow-up efforts while minimizing administrative burden are needed. We seek to evaluate the effectiveness of using small financial incentives to promote patient compliance with LKD follow-up. METHODS/DESIGN: We are conducting a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) of patients who undergo live donor nephrectomy at The Johns Hopkins Hospital Comprehensive Transplant Center (MDJH) and the University of Maryland Medical Center Transplant Center (MDUM). Eligible donors will be recruited in-person at their first post-surgical clinic visit or over the phone. We will use block randomization to assign LKDs to the intervention ($25 gift card at each follow-up visit) or control arm (current standard of care). Follow-up compliance will be tracked over time. The primary outcome will be complete (all components addressed) and timely (60 days before or after expected visit date), submission of LKD follow-up data at required 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year time points. The secondary outcome will be transplant hospital-level compliance with federal reporting requirements at each visit. Rates will be compared between the two arms following the intention-to-treat principle. DISCUSSION: Small financial incentivization might increase patient compliance in the context of LKD follow-up, without placing undue administrative burden on transplant providers. The findings of this RCT will inform potential center- and national-level initiatives to provide all LKDs with small financial incentives to promote engagement with post-donation monitoring efforts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT03090646 Date of registration: March 2, 2017 Sponsors: Johns Hopkins University, University of Maryland Medical Center Funding: The Living Legacy Foundation of Maryland.

Evolving Impact of COVID-19 on Transplant Center Practices and Policies in the United States.

In our first survey of transplant centers in March 2020, >75% of kidney and liver programs were either suspended or operating under restrictions. To safely resume transplantation, we must understand the evolving impact of COVID-19 on transplant recipients and center-level practices. We therefore conducted a six-week follow-up survey May 7-15, 2020, and linked responses to the COVID-19 incidence map, with a response rate of 84%. Suspension of live donor transplantation decreased from 72% in March to 30% in May for kidneys and from 68% to 52% for livers. Restrictions/suspension of deceased donor transplantation decreased from 84% to 58% for kidneys and from 73% to 42% for livers. Resuming transplantation at normal capacity was envisioned by 83% of programs by August 2020. Exclusively using local recovery teams for deceased donor procurement was reported by 28%. Respondents reported caring for a total of 1166 COVID-19-positive transplant recipients; 25% were critically ill. Telemedicine challenges were reported by 81%. There was a lack of consensus regarding management of potential living donors or candidates with SARS-CoV-2. Our findings demonstrate persistent heterogeneity in center-level response to COVID-19 even as transplant activity resumes, making ongoing national data collection and real-time analysis critical to inform best practices.

Addressing Racial Disparities in Live Donor Kidney Transplantation Through Education and Advocacy Training.

BACKGROUND: The Live Donor Champion (LDC) program trains kidney transplant (KT) candidates and their family/friends ("champions") as educator-advocates for live donor KT (LDKT). This program was created to empower patients and champions, particularly African American (AA) waitlist candidates that historically had lower access to LDKT. We assessed changes in knowledge about and comfort discussing live donation and donor referral associated with LDC participation, both overall and by participant race. METHODS: We compared 163 adult KT candidates who were LDC participants from October 2013 to May 2016 with 489 matched controls, both overall and by race. We compared changes in comfort and knowledge post-LDC using rank-sum tests among participants by race. We compared time to first live donor referral for participants versus controls, by race, using Cox regression. RESULTS: Post-LDC versus pre-LDC, participants had higher median knowledge (83% versus 63% on 12-question quiz; P < 0.001) and comfort (1.8 versus 1 on 4-point Likert scale; P < 0.001). Among participants, AAs had similar baseline and final knowledge (P = 0.9 and P = 0.1, respectively) and baseline comfort (P > 0.9) as non-AAs but higher final comfort (2 versus 1.4; P = 0.005) than non-AAs. LDC participants were 5.8 times as likely as controls to have a live donor referral (aHR 3.765.788.89; P < 0.001); the impact of LDC participation was similar among non-AAs and AAs (p-interaction = 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: The LDC program increased knowledge, comfort, and live donor referral for non-AA and AA participants, underscoring the effectiveness in the program in promoting LDKT in a population with historically lower access to LDKT.

Early impact of COVID-19 on transplant center practices and policies in the United States.

COVID-19 is a novel, rapidly changing pandemic: consequently, evidence-based recommendations in solid organ transplantation (SOT) remain challenging and unclear. To understand the impact on transplant activity across the United States, and center-level variation in testing, clinical practice, and policies, we conducted a national survey between March 24, 2020 and March 31, 2020 and linked responses to the COVID-19 incidence map. Response rate was a very high 79.3%, reflecting a strong national priority to better understand COVID-19. Complete suspension of live donor kidney transplantation was reported by 71.8% and live donor liver by 67.7%. While complete suspension of deceased donor transplantation was less frequent, some restrictions to deceased donor kidney transplantation were reported by 84.0% and deceased donor liver by 73.3%; more stringent restrictions were associated with higher regional incidence of COVID-19. Shortage of COVID-19 tests was reported by 42.5%. Respondents reported a total of 148 COVID-19 recipients from <1 to >10 years posttransplant: 69.6% were kidney recipients, and 25.0% were critically ill. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was used by 78.1% of respondents; azithromycin by 46.9%; tocilizumab by 31.3%, and remdesivir by 25.0%. There is wide heterogeneity in center-level response across the United States; ongoing national data collection, expert discussion, and clinical studies are critical to informing evidence-based practices.

Posttransplant Outcomes for cPRA-100% Recipients Under the New Kidney Allocation System.

BACKGROUND: There is concern in the transplant community that outcomes for the most highly sensitized recipients might be poor under Kidney Allocation System (KAS) high prioritization. METHODS: To study this, we compared posttransplant outcomes of 525 pre-KAS (December 4, 2009, to December 3, 2014) calculated panel-reactive antibodies (cPRA)-100% recipients to 3026 post-KAS (December 4, 2014, to December 3, 2017) cPRA-100% recipients using SRTR data. We compared mortality and death-censored graft survival using Cox regression, acute rejection, and delayed graft function (DGF) using logistic regression, and length of stay (LOS) using negative binomial regression. RESULTS: Compared with pre-KAS recipients, post-KAS recipients were allocated kidneys with lower Kidney Donor Profile Index (median 30% versus 35%, P < 0.001) but longer cold ischemic time (CIT) (median 21.0 h versus 18.6 h, P < 0.001). Compared with pre-KAS cPRA-100% recipients, those post-KAS had higher 3-year patient survival (93.6% versus 91.4%, P = 0.04) and 3-year death-censored graft survival (93.7% versus 90.6%, P = 0.005). The incidence of DGF (29.3% versus 29.2%, P = 0.9), acute rejection (11.2% versus 11.7%, P = 0.8), and median LOS (5 d versus 5d, P = 0.2) were similar between pre-KAS and post-KAS recipients. After accounting for secular trends and adjusting for recipient characteristics, post-KAS recipients had no difference in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.861.623.06, P = 0.1), death-censored graft failure (aHR: 0.521.001.91, P > 0.9), DGF (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.580.861.27, P = 0.4), acute rejection (aOR: 0.610.941.43, P = 0.8), and LOS (adjusted LOS ratio: 0.981.161.36, P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any statistically significant worsening of outcomes for cPRA-100% recipients under KAS, although longer-term monitoring of posttransplant mortality is warranted.

Risk of ESKD in Older Live Kidney Donors with Hypertension.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Hypertension in older kidney donor candidates is viewed as safe. However, hypertension guidelines have evolved and long-term outcomes have not been explored. We sought to quantify the 15-year risk of ESKD and mortality in older donors (≥50 years old) with versus those without hypertension. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A United States cohort of 24,533 older donors from 1999 to 2016, including 2265 with predonation hypertension, were linked to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data and the Social Security Death Master File to ascertain ESKD development and mortality. The exposure of interest was predonation hypertension. From 2004 to 2016, hypertension was defined as documented predonation use of antihypertensive therapy, regardless of systolic BP or diastolic BP; from 1999 to 2003, when there was no documentation of antihypertensive therapy, hypertension was defined as predonation systolic BP ≥140 or diastolic BP ≥90 mm Hg. RESULTS: Older donors were 82% white, 6% black, 7% Hispanic, and 3% Asian. The median follow-up was 7.1 years (interquartile range, 3.4-11.1; maximum, 18). There were 24 ESKD and 252 death events during the study period. The 15-year risk of ESKD was 0.8% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.4 to 1.6) for donors with hypertension (mean systolic BP, 138 mm Hg) versus 0.2% (95% CI, 0.1 to 0.4) for donors without hypertension (mean systolic BP, 123 mm Hg; adjusted hazard ratio, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.28 to 7.22; P=0.01). When predonation antihypertensive therapy was available, the risk of ESKD was 6.21-fold higher (95% CI, 1.20 to 32.17; P=0.03) for donors using antihypertensive therapy (mean systolic BP, 132 mm Hg) versus those not using antihypertensive therapy (mean systolic BP, 124 mm Hg). There was no significant association between donor hypertension and 15-year mortality (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.66; P=0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with older donors without hypertension, older donors with hypertension had higher risk of ESKD, but not mortality, for 15 years postdonation. However, the absolute risk of ESKD was small.

Pediatric deceased donor kidney transplant outcomes under the Kidney Allocation System.

The Kidney Allocation System (KAS) has resulted in fewer pediatric kidneys being allocated to pediatric deceased donor kidney transplant (pDDKT) recipients. This had prompted concerns that post-pDDKT outcomes may worsen. To study this, we used SRTR data to compare the outcomes of 953 pre-KAS pDDKT (age <18 years) recipients (December 4, 2012-December 3, 2014) with the outcomes of 934 post-KAS pDDKT recipients (December 4, 2014-December 3, 2016). We analyzed mortality and graft loss by using Cox regression, delayed graft function (DGF) by using logistic regression, and length of stay (LOS) by using negative binomial regression. Post-KAS recipients had longer pretransplant dialysis times (median 1.26 vs 1.07 years, P = .02) and were more often cPRA 100% (2.0% vs 0.1%, P = .001). Post-KAS recipients had less graft loss than pre-KAS recipients (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.35 0.540.83 , P = .005) but no statistically significant differences in mortality (HR: 0.29 0.721.83 , P = .5), DGF (odds ratio: 0.93 1.321.93 , P = .2), and LOS (LOS ratio: 0.96 1.061.19 , P = .4). After adjusting for donor-recipient characteristics, there were no statistically significant post-KAS differences in mortality (adjusted HR: 0.37 1.042.92 , P = .9), DGF (adjusted odds ratio: 0.94 1.412.13 , P = .1), or LOS (adjusted LOS ratio: 0.93 1.041.16 , P = .5). However, post-KAS pDDKT recipients still had less graft loss (adjusted HR: 0.38 0.590.91 , P = .02). KAS has had a mixed effect on short-term posttransplant outcomes for pDDKT recipients, although our results are limited by only 2 years of posttransplant follow-up.

Temporal trends and hospital costs associated with an endovascular-first approach for acute limb ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies suggest similar perioperative outcomes for endovascular and open surgical management of acute limb ischemia (ALI). We sought to describe temporal trends, patient factors, and hospital costs associated with contemporary ALI management. METHODS: We used the weighted National Inpatient Sample to estimate primary ALI cases requiring open or endovascular intervention (2005-2014). We used multivariable regression models to examine temporal trends, patient factors, and hospital costs associated with endovascular-first vs open-first management. RESULTS: Of 116,451 admissions for ALI during the study period, 35.2% were treated by an endovascular-first approach. The percentage of admissions managed with an endovascular-first approach increased over time (P < .001). Independent predictors of endovascular-first management included younger age, male sex, renal insufficiency, and more recent calendar year of admission (P ≤ .02), whereas patients who underwent fasciotomy, those with Medicaid, and those admitted on a weekend were more likely to undergo open-first management (P ≤ .02). Endovascular-first management had higher mean hospital costs than open-first management ($29,719 vs $26,193; P < .001). After adjustment for patient, hospital, and admission characteristics, there was an increase of $981 in treatment costs per year in the endovascular-first group (95% confidence interval [CI], $571-$1392; P < .001), whereas the costs associated with an open-first approach remained relatively stable over time ($10 per year; 95% CI, -$295 to $315; P = .95; P < .001 for interaction). The risk-adjusted odds of in-hospital major amputation was similar in both groups (adjusted odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.85-1.15; P = .88). CONCLUSIONS: Use of an endovascular-first approach for the treatment of ALI has significantly increased over time. Although major amputation rates are similar for both approaches, the costs associated with an endovascular-first approach are increasing over time, whereas the costs of open surgery have remained stable. The cost-effectiveness of modern ALI management warrants further investigation.

Accelerating kidney allocation: Simultaneously expiring offers.

Using nonideal kidneys for transplant quickly might reduce the discard rate of kidney transplants. We studied changing kidney allocation to eliminate sequential offers, instead making offers to multiple centers for all nonlocally allocated kidneys, so that multiple centers must accept or decline within the same 1 hour. If more than 1 center accepted an offer, the kidney would go to the highest-priority accepting candidate. Using 2010 Kidney-Pancreas Simulated Allocation Model-Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients data, we simulated the allocation of 12 933 kidneys, excluding locally allocated and zero-mismatch kidneys. We assumed that each hour of delay decreased the probability of acceptance by 5% and that kidneys would be discarded after 20 hours of offers beyond the local level. We simulated offering kidneys simultaneously to small, medium-size, and large batches of centers. Increasing the batch size increased the percentage of kidneys accepted and shortened allocation times. Going from small to large batches increased the number of kidneys accepted from 10 085 (92%) to 10 802 (98%) for low-Kidney Donor Risk Index kidneys and from 1257 (65%) to 1737 (89%) for high-Kidney Donor Risk Index kidneys. The average number of offers that a center received each week was 10.1 for small batches and 16.8 for large batches. Simultaneously expiring offers might allow faster allocation and decrease the number of discards, while still maintaining an acceptable screening burden.

Practice patterns in arteriovenous fistula ligation among kidney transplant recipients in the United States Renal Data Systems.

BACKGROUND: Arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) and grafts (AVG) have been associated with significant cardiac morbidity that often improves after ligation. However, AV access ligation after kidney transplant (KT) is controversial due to concern for potential long-term allograft failure. We investigated US trends in AV access ligation after KT and the association between ligation and allograft failure. METHODS: All adult Medicare patients on pretransplant hemodialysis with a functioning AVF or AVG who underwent first-time KT were studied using the United States Renal Data Systems (January 2011 to December 2013). Post-transplant AV access ligation was determined using current procedural terminology codes. The incidence of post-transplant AV access ligation was described, and characteristics for patients undergoing ligation vs no ligation were compared. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models were then used to determine the association of AV access ligation with long-term allograft failure and all-cause mortality after accounting for patient characteristics, donor characteristics, and variation in transplant center practices. RESULTS: A total of 16,845 patients with functioning AVF/AVG received a KT during the study period. Of these, 779 (4.6%) underwent post-transplant AV access ligation. The proportion of patients who underwent ligation varied substantially between transplant centers, ranging from 0% (43.0% of centers) to >10% (11.0% of centers). Transplant recipients who underwent access ligation were more likely to be female (40.4% vs 36.6%), had lower median body mass index (27.6 vs 28.4 kg/m2), spent longer on dialysis pretransplant (4.2 vs 4.0 years), and were less likely to have renal failure secondary to diabetes compared with other etiologies (25.0% vs 34.9%) (all, P ≤ .03). Patients who underwent ligation were also more likely to have steal syndrome (77.2% vs 4.1%) and AV access infectious or aneurysmal complications (2.7% vs 0.7%) (both, P < .001). After adjusting for donor and recipient characteristics, increasing age (adjusted hazards ratio [aHR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.01), increasing years on dialysis (aHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.00-1.13), zero human leukocyte antigen mismatch (aHR, 1.82; [95% CI, 1.09-3.05), and steal syndrome (aHR, 41.00; 95% CI, 34.56-48.64) were associated with post-transplant AV access ligation. Black race (aHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.98) and congestive heart failure (aHR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.54-0.82) were negatively associated with ligation. Three-year allograft failure occurred in 4.9% ± 1.3% transplant recipients who underwent access ligation vs 9.5% ± 0.5% transplant recipients with functioning access (log-rank, P = .30), and was not significantly different between groups after risk adjustment (aHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.47-1.40). There was also no significant association between AV access and all-cause mortality after risk adjustment (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.46-1.54). CONCLUSIONS: Post-transplant AV access ligation is uncommon and generally reserved for patients with steal syndrome. Importantly, ligation is not associated with post-transplant allograft failure, which occurs in less than 10% of patients at 3 years. There also appears to be no reduction in all-cause mortality with AV access ligation. These data suggest that AV access ligation after KT can likely be reserved for access-related complications because the systemic benefits appear to be minimal.

Assessment of Trends in Transplantation of Liver Grafts From Older Donors and Outcomes in Recipients of Liver Grafts From Older Donors, 2003-2016.

Importance: In light of the growing population of older adults in the United States, older donors (aged ≥70 years) represent an expansion of the donor pool; however, their organs are underused. Liver grafts from older donors were historically associated with poor outcomes and higher discard rates, but clinical protocols, organ allocation, and the donor pool have changed in the past 15 years. Objective: To evaluate trends in demographics, discard rates, and outcomes among older liver donors and transplant recipients of livers from older donors in a large national cohort. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective cohort study of 4127 liver grafts from older donors and 3350 liver-only recipients of older donor grafts and 78 990 liver grafts from younger donors (aged 18-69 years) and 64 907 liver-only recipients of younger donor grafts between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2016, in the United States. The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, which includes data on all transplant recipients in the United States that are submitted by members of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, was used. Exposures: Year of liver transplant and age of liver donor. Main Outcomes and Measures: Odds of graft discard and posttransplant outcomes of all-cause graft loss and mortality. Results: In this study, 4127 liver grafts from older donors were recovered for liver transplant across the study period (2003-2016); 747 liver grafts from older donors were discarded, and 3350 liver grafts from older donors were used for liver-only recipients. After adjusting for donor characteristics other than age and accounting for Organ Procurement Organization-level variation, liver grafts from older donors were more likely to be discarded compared with liver grafts from younger donors in 2003-2006 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.97; 95% CI, 1.68-2.31), 2007-2009 (aOR, 2.55; 95% CI, 2.17-3.01), 2010-2013 (aOR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.68-2.46), and 2013-2016 (aOR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.96-2.86) (P < .001 for all). Transplants of liver grafts from older donors represented a progressively lower proportion of all adult liver transplants, from 6.0% (n = 258 recipients) in 2003 to 3.2% (n = 211 recipients) in 2016 (P = .001). However, outcomes in recipients of grafts from older donors improved over time, with 40% lower graft loss risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.53-0.68; P < .001) and 41% lower mortality risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.52-0.68; P < .001) in 2010 through 2016 vs 2003 through 2009; these results were beyond the general temporal improvements in graft loss (interaction P = .03) and mortality risk (interaction P = .04) among recipients of liver grafts from younger donors. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings show that from 2003 to 2016, liver graft loss and mortality among recipients of liver grafts from older donors improved; however, liver graft discard from older donors remained increased and the number of transplants performed with liver grafts from older donors decreased. Expansion of the donor pool through broader use of liver grafts from older donors might be reasonable.

Liver transplantation and waitlist mortality for HCC and non-HCC candidates following the 2015 HCC exception policy change.

Historically, exception points for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) led to higher transplant rates and lower waitlist mortality for HCC candidates compared to non-HCC candidates. As of October 2015, HCC candidates must wait 6 months after initial application to obtain exception points; the impact of this policy remains unstudied. Using 2013-2017 SRTR data, we identified 39  350 adult, first-time, active waitlist candidates and compared deceased donor liver transplant (DDLT) rates and waitlist mortality/dropout for HCC versus non-HCC candidates before (October 8, 2013-October 7, 2015, prepolicy) and after (October 8, 2015-October 7, 2017, postpolicy) the policy change using Cox and competing risks regression, respectively. Compared to non-HCC candidates with the same calculated MELD, HCC candidates had a 3.6-fold higher rate of DDLT prepolicy (aHR = 3.49 3.69 3.89 ) and a 2.2-fold higher rate of DDLT postpolicy (aHR = 2.09 2.21 2.34 ). Compared to non-HCC candidates with the same allocation priority, HCC candidates had a 37% lower risk of waitlist mortality/dropout prepolicy (asHR = 0.54 0.63 0.73 ) and a comparable risk of mortality/dropout postpolicy (asHR = 0.81 0.95 1.11 ). Following the policy change, the DDLT advantage for HCC candidates remained, albeit dramatically attenuated, without any substantial increase in waitlist mortality/dropout. In the context of sickest-first liver allocation, the revised policy seems to have established allocation equity for HCC and non-HCC candidates.

Temporal Changes in the Impact of HLA Mismatching Among Pediatric Kidney Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Allocation for pediatric deceased-donor kidney transplantation (pDDKT) in the United States now de-emphasizes HLA matching to improve equality in access to transplantation, but other national systems still consider HLA matching due to concerns about graft survival. We hypothesized that the impact of HLA mismatching has decreased over time due to advances including improved immunosuppression. METHODS: Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient data, we analyzed whether the association between the number of HLA mismatches and outcomes of first-time pDDKTs changed between 2 eras: 1995 to 2004 (N = 2854) and 2005 to 2014 (N = 4643). RESULTS: Between eras, the median number of mismatches increased from 4 to 5 (P < 0.001). Overall graft failure risk was higher among HLA-mismatched versus HLA-matched transplants (adjusted hazard ratio 1.211.431.69 for 3-6 versus 0-2 mismatches; P < 0.001), and this association was similar pre-2005 and post-2005 (Pinteraction = 0.5). Median panel-reactive antibody change at relisting increased from 79 to 85 (P = 0.01), but the association between number of HLA mismatches and panel-reactive antibody change was similar between eras (Pinteraction = 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: Our finding that increased HLA mismatching continues to impact graft survival, with 43% higher risk of graft failure, highlights the tradeoff between transplant access equity and outcomes and calls into question the deemphasis on HLA matching in pDDKT allocation in the United States.

Complications, length of stay, and cost of cholecystectomy in kidney transplant recipients.

We hypothesized that cholecystectomy may be riskier for kidney transplant recipients (KTR) given their lifelong immunosuppression, physiologic impact of renal failure, and increased risk of gallstone and biliary disease. Using NIS, we compared mortality, morbidity, length of stay and cost in KTR vs non-KTR following cholecystectomy in the US from 2000 to 2011, adjusting for patient and hospital level factors, including transplant center status. Mortality was higher (OR 2.4), morbidity was higher (OR 1.3), LOS was longer (ratio 1.2), and costs were greater (ratio 1.1) for KTR compared to non-KTR following cholecystectomy. While it is clear that KTR are a high risk group following cholecystectomy, the cause of this increased risk requires further investigation.