Favorable outcomes in Hispanic recipients receiving simultaneous pancreas kidney transplantation.

The objective of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of Hispanic versus white recipients who underwent simultaneous pancreas kidney transplantation (SPKT). This single-center study, conducted from 2003 to 2022, had a median follow-up of 7.5 years. The study included 91 Hispanic and 202 white SPKT recipients. The mean age (44 vs. 46 years), percentage of males (67% vs. 58%), and body mass index (BMI) (25.6 vs. 25.3 kg/m2 ) were similar between the Hispanic and white groups. The Hispanic group had more recipients with type 2 diabetes (38%) compared to the white group (5%, p < .001). The duration of dialysis was longer in Hispanics (640 vs. 473 days, p = .02), and fewer patients received preemptive transplants (10% vs. 29%, p < .01) compared to whites. Hospital length of stay, rates of BK Viremia, and acute rejection episodes within 1 year were similar between the groups. The estimated 5-year kidney, pancreas, and patient survival rates were also similar between the groups, 94%, 81%, and 95% in Hispanics, compared to 90%, 79%, and 90% in whites. Increasing age and longer duration of dialysis were risk factors for death. Although Hispanic recipients had a longer duration on dialysis and fewer preemptive transplants, the survival rates were similar to those of white recipients. However, referring providers and many transplant centers continue to overlook pancreas transplants for appropriately selected patients with type 2 diabetes, particularly among minority populations. As a transplant community, it is crucial that we make efforts to comprehend and tackle these obstacles to transplantation.

Multiple abnormal peripheral blood gene expression assay results are correlated with subsequent graft loss after kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to correlate peripheral blood gene expression profile (GEP) results during the first post-transplant year with outcomes after kidney transplantation. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter observational study of obtaining peripheral blood at five timepoints during the first post-transplant year to perform a GEP assay. The cohort was stratified based on the pattern of the peripheral blood GEP results: Tx-all GEP results normal, 1 Not-TX had one GEP result abnormal and >1 Not-TX two or more abnormal GEP results. We correlated the GEP results with outcomes after transplantation. RESULTS: We enrolled 240 kidney transplant recipients. The cohort was stratified into the three groups: TX n = 117 (47%), 1 Not-TX n = 59 (25%) and >1 Not-TX n = 64 (27%). Compared to the TX group, the >1 Not-TX group had lower eGFR (p < .001) and more chronic changes on 1-year surveillance biopsy (p = .007). Death censored graft survival showed inferior graft survival in the >1 Not-TX group (p < .001) but not in the 1 Not-TX group. All graft losses in the >1 Not-TX group occurred after 1-year post-transplant. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that a pattern of persistently Not-TX GEP assay correlates with inferior graft survival.

Outcomes of asymptomatic histologic pyelonephritis of kidney transplant.

BACKGROUND: Urinary Tract Infections are the most common post-transplant infection and can have varied presentations. This study aimed to describe the outcomes of kidney transplant recipients with asymptomatic histologic pyelonephritis on allograft biopsy. Histologic Pyelonephritis was defined as neutrophil cast or neutrophilic tubulitis, interstitial infiltrates with predominant neutrophils, and no evidence of rejection or glomerulonephritis on biopsy. METHODS: The study included 123 kidney transplant recipients, of whom 95 underwent protocol biopsies, and 28 had biopsies for elevated creatinine within the first 2 years of a kidney transplant. RESULTS: The mean age of the cohort was 55.3 years, with 52% females and 78% deceased donor transplants. The risk factors for asymptomatic histologic pyelonephritis were recipient female sex (OR 1.89, 1.3-2.7, diabetes mellitus (OR 2.479, 1.687-3.645), and deceased donation (OR 1.69, 1.098-2.63). The incidence of asymptomatic pyelonephritis on protocol biopsy was 1.7%, with 52% having positive urine cultures and Escherichia coli being the most common bacteria. Subjects with asymptomatic pyelonephritis had inferior graft survival compared to the matched cohort HR 1.88 (1.06-3.35), p = .0281. In addition, of these 123 subjects, 68 (55%) subsequently developed pyelonephritis, and 34 subjects had pyelonephritis within 6 months after this episode. Subjects with recurrent infections exhibited lower survival HR 2.86 (1.36-6.02) and a trend toward higher rejection risk. CONCLUSION: Asymptomatic histologic pyelonephritis can occur in kidney transplant recipients and is associated with inferior graft survival.

Alloantibodies after simultaneous liver-kidney transplant: A story of primary nonfunction, retransplantation, and antibody-mediated rejection.

Simultaneous liver-kidney transplant (SLKT) in the presence of antihuman leukocyte antigen (HLA) donor-specific antibodies (DSA) is a well-accepted practice. Herein, we describe the evolution of alloantibodies in a patient who received an SLKT. The pre-SLKT serum sample showed multiple strong DSA. As expected, all DSA cleared in a sample collected 4 days after the SLKT. Because of the primary nonfunction of the liver in the SLKT, the patient had a second liver transplant 4 days later. An abrupt increase in DSA levels against the kidney was detected 10 days after the second liver transplant. These DSA were refractory to treatment, and the transplanted kidney was lost due to antibody-mediated rejection (AMR). A detailed study of the HLA epitopes recognized by DSA and, after normalization with third-party alloantibodies to address the effect of multiple transfusions and liver allograft neutralization, showed that the elimination of these antibodies depended on the HLA antigens expressed by the transplanted liver cells. The return of DSA after removal of the first transplanted liver was associated with AMR in the transplanted kidney.

Postoperative statin therapy is not associated with reduced incidence of venous thromboembolic events following kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The pleiotropic effects of statin therapy on inflammation and coagulation may reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism. This study evaluated whether statin therapy is associated with decreased venous thromboembolic (VTE) events following kidney transplantation. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of all primary kidney transplants performed between January 2014 and December 2019 at Mayo Clinic Arizona. Patients were divided into two groups depending on sustained statin therapy during the first year following transplantation. Recipient and donor clinical and demographic data were collected. The primary outcome was admission for symptomatic VTE events (deep vein thrombosis [DVT] or pulmonary embolism [PE]). RESULTS: Sustained statin therapy in the first year following transplant was observed in 16.1% (n = 223) of 1384 kidney transplants. The overall incidence of VTE events in the year following kidney transplant was 3.8%. VTE occurred in 4.1% of recipients treated with statins and 3.8% of the controls - (hazard ratio [HR] .92, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] .39, 2.21, p = .86). However, there were significant differences between the groups in terms of age, sex, race/ethnicity, body mass index, indication for transplant, diagnosis of diabetes and discharge antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. Following sensitivity analysis in which cohort matching was performed to account for these differences, there was no difference in VTE event-free survival (HR .89, 95% CI .41, 1.96, p = .78) or overall survival (HR .54, 95% CI .15, 1.94, p = .35) between patients treated with statins compared to controls. CONCLUSION: Statin therapy in the year following successful kidney transplant was not associated with a reduction in risk of VTE.

Kidney donor profile index and post-transplant health care utilization: Implications for value of transplant care delivery.

BACKGROUND: Centers discard high kidney donor profile index (KDPI) allografts, potentially related to delayed graft function and prolonged hospital use by kidney transplant recipients (KTR). We sought to determine whether high KDPI KTRs have excess health care utilization. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study from a high-volume center analyzing KTRs from January 3, 2011 to April 12, 2015 (n = 652). We measured differences in hospital use, emergency visits, and outpatient visits within the first 90 days between low (≤85%) versus high KDPI (>85%) KTRs, as well as long-term graft function and patient survival. RESULTS: High (n = 107) and low KDPI (n = 545) KTRs had similar length of stay (median = 3 days, P = .66), and readmission rates at 7, 30, and 90 days after surgery (all, P > .05). High KDPI kidneys were not associated with excess utilization of the hospital, emergency services, outpatient transplant clinics, or ambulatory infusion visits on univariate or multivariate analysis (all, P > .05). Low KDPI KTRs had significantly better eGFR at 2 years (Low vs. High KDPI: 60.35 vs. 41.54 ml/min, P < .001), but similar 3-year patient and graft survival (both, P > .09). CONCLUSIONS: High and low KDPI KTRs demonstrated similar 90-day risk-adjusted health care utilization, which should encourage use of high KDPI kidneys.

Infections following rejection therapies in kidney and liver transplant recipients.

INTRODUCTION: Infections are known complications of solid-organ transplant. Treatment for rejection may increase risk of infection. We aimed to study frequency of infection and identify the risk factors for infections in solid organ transplant (SOT) (liver and kidney) recipients treated for rejection. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review of all liver and kidney transplant recipients treated for rejection at our institution from 2014 to 2020. We collected information on episodes of acute rejection in the first year of transplant and infections within 6 months following rejection treatment. RESULTS: We identified 257 transplant patients treated for rejection. One hundred twelve (43.6%) developed infections, with a total of 226 infections. Urinary tracts infections were the most common, 72 (31.9%), followed by cytomegalovirus viremia in 37 (16.4%), bacteremia in 24 (10.6%), and BK virus in 14 (6.2%). Female sex (p = .047), elevated neutrophil count at rejection (p = .002), and increased number of rejection episodes (p = .022) were predictors of infection in kidney and simultaneous liver-kidney recipients. No specific type of induction or rejection therapy was identified as a risk factor for infection, likely due to the prophylaxis protocols at our institution. Infection post rejection treatment was associated with higher graft loss (p = .021) and mortality (p = .031) in kidney transplant recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Infections are common complications after treatment of SOT rejection. Female gender, higher neutrophil at time of rejection, and increased numbers of rejection episodes were predictors of infections after rejection in simultaneous liver-kidney and kidney transplant patients. Infections were predictors of graft loss at 6 months and mortality at any point in follow-up in kidney transplant patients.

Duration of delayed graft function and its impact on graft outcomes in deceased donor kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: There is controversy regarding the impact of delayed graft function (DGF) on kidney transplant outcomes. We hypothesize that the duration of DGF, rather than DGF itself, is associated with long-term kidney graft function. METHODS: We analyzed all deceased donor kidney transplants (DDKT) done at our center between 2008 to 2020. We determined factors associated with DGF duration. DGF duration was assessed at three 14-day intervals: < 14 DGF days, 14-27 DGF days, > 28 DGF days. We studied the impact of DGF duration on survival and graft function and resource utilization, including hospital length of stay and readmissions. RESULTS: 1714 DDKT recipients were included, 59.4% (n = 1018) had DGF. The median DGF duration was 10 days IQR (6,15). The majority of recipients (95%) had resolution of DGF within 28 days. Donor factors associated with DGF days were longer cold ischemia time, donor on inotropes, older age, donation after circulatory death, higher terminal creatinine, and hypertension. Recipient factors associated with increased DGF duration included male sex, length on dialysis before transplant, and higher body mass index. There were no differences in acute rejection events or interstitial fibrosis progression by 4 months when comparing DGF days. The median length of stay was 3 days. However, readmissions increased with increasing DGF duration. Death-censored graft survival was not associated with the length of DGF except when DGF lasted > 28 days. CONCLUSIONS: Inferior graft survival was observed only in recipients of DDKT with DGF lasting beyond 28 days. DGF lasting < 28 days had no impact on graft survival. Duration of DGF, rather than DGF itself, is associated with graft survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospective study approved by Mayo Clinic IRB number ID: 20-011561.

Successful outcomes with transplanting kidneys from deceased donors with acute kidney injuryon temporary renal replacement therapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine outcomes with transplanting kidneys from deceased donors with severe acute kidney injury requiring acute renal replacement therapy (RRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 172 recipients received a kidney from donors with acute kidney injury stage 3 (AKIN3) requiring RRT. We compared the study group to 528 recipients who received a kidney from donors with AKIN stage 3 not on RRT and 463 recipients who received < 85% Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) AKIN stage 0 kidney. RESULTS: The study group donors were younger compared to the 2 control groups. Despite higher DGF in the study group, the length of hospital stay and acute rejection were similar. Death censored graft survival (96% AKIN3-RRT vs. 97%AKIN3 no RRT vs. 96% KDPI < 85% AKIN0, P = 0.26) and patient survival with functioning graft at 1 year (95% across all groups, P = 0.402) were similar. The estimated glomerular filtration rate were similar across the 3 groups after first month. Interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy score ≥ 2 on protocol biopsy at time 0, 4 and 12 months were similar. Primary nonfunction was rare and associated with high KDPI. CONCLUSIONS: Transplanting selected kidneys from deceased donors with AKIN3 requiring RRT is safe and has good outcomes.

Transplant outcomes using kidneys from high KDPI acute kidney injury donors.

Kidney transplant (KT) outcomes from high kidney donor profile index (KDPI ≥85%) donors with acute kidney injury (AKI) remain underreported. KT from 172 high KDPI Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) stage 0-1 donors and 76 high KDPI AKIN stage 2-3 donors from a single center were retrospectively assessed. The AKIN 2-3 cohort had more delayed graft function (71% vs. 37%, p < .001). At one year, there were no differences in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (44 ± 17 vs. 46 ± 18, p = .42) or fibrosis on protocol biopsy (ci, p = .85). Donor terminal creatinine (p = .59) and length of delayed graft function (p = .39) did not impact one-year eGFR. There were more primary nonfunction (PNF) events in the high KDPI AKIN 2-3 group (5.3% vs. 0.6%, p = .02). With a median follow-up of 3.8 years, one-year death-censored graft failure was 3.5% for AKIN 0-1 and 14.5% for AKIN 2-3 (HR 2.40, 95% CI 1.24-4.63, p = .01). Although AKIN stage 2-3 high KDPI kidneys had comparable one-year eGFR to AKIN stage 0-1 high KDPI kidneys, there were more PNF occurrences and one-year death-censored graft survival was reduced. Given these findings, additional precautions should be undertaken when assessing and utilizing kidneys from severe AKI high KDPI donors.

Early technical pancreas failure in Simultaneous Pancreas-Kidney Recipients does not impact renal allograft outcomes.

Early pancreas loss in simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplants has been associated with longer perioperative recovery and reduced kidney allograft function. We assessed the impact of early pancreas allograft failure on transplant outcomes in a contemporary cohort of SPK patients (n = 218). Early pancreas allograft loss occurred in 12.8% (n = 28) of recipients. Delayed graft function (DGF) was more common (21.4% vs. 7.4%, p = 0.03) in the early pancreas loss group, but there were no differences in hospital length of stay (median 6.5 vs. 7.0, p = 0.22), surgical wound complications (p = 0.12), or rejection episodes occurring in the first year (p = 0.87). Despite differences in DGF, both groups had excellent renal function at 1 year post-transplant (eGFR 64.1 ± 20.8 vs. 65.8 ± 22.9, p = 0.75). There were no differences in patient (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.18-1.87, p = 0.26) or kidney allograft survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.23-3.06, p = 0.77). One- and 2-year protocol kidney biopsies were comparable between the groups and showed minimal chronic changes; the early pancreas loss group showed more cv changes at 2 years (p = 0.04). Current data demonstrate good outcomes and excellent kidney allograft function following early pancreas loss.

Added Benefit and Risk of an Additional Biopsy or Targeting With Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for Patients With Renal Transplants.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether renal transplant diagnoses substantially change when 2 biopsy sites are chosen and whether contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) has value for targeting the second site. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 40 patients undergoing ultrasound-guided renal transplant biopsy within 2 years of transplant: 20, surveillance; and 20, for cause. A CEUS examination was performed to identify cortical regions with subjectively altered flow. One biopsy was performed at the operator-preferred (primary) site regardless of CEUS findings. Another biopsy was done at a second location, either targeted to an area in which CEUS perfusion findings differed from the primary site (targeted) or at a random location (secondary) if no other area differed. Specimens were randomly labeled A or B; pathologists were blinded to the CEUS result and biopsy location. Location-specific CEUS assessments were recorded. Pathologic results were compared, including acute and chronic Banff scores and any new findings from the targeted or secondary biopsy. RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled between January 2016 and December 2018. No location-specific pathologic differences correlated with differences in CEUS assessments. The second biopsy provided additional information that changed management in 4 of 40 patients (10.0% [95% confidence interval, 2.8%-23.7%]). Major bleeding complications occurred in 3 of 40 (7.5%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound targeting was not useful. Major bleeding complications were higher than expected, possibly due to the additional biopsy away from the operator-preferred location. Obtaining a second renal transplant biopsy from a substantially different area than the initial operator-preferred location provided additional clinically useful information in 10% of patients.

Transplanting kidneys from donation after cardiac death donors with acute kidney injury.

Donation after cardiac death (DCD) and acute kidney injury (AKI) donors have historically been considered independent risk factors for delayed graft function (DGF), allograft failure, and inferior outcomes. With growing experience, updated analyses have shown good outcomes. There continues to be limited data, however, on outcomes specific to DCD donors who have AKI. Primary outcomes for this study were post-kidney transplant patient and allograft survival comparing two donor groups: DCD AKIN stage 2-3 and DBD AKIN stage 2-3. In comparing these groups, there were no short- or long-term differences in patient (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-1.93, P = .83) or allograft survival (HR 1.47, 95% CI 0.64-2.97, P = .32). In multivariate models, the DCD/DBD status had no significant impact on the estimated GFR (eGFR) at 1 (P = .38), 2 (P = .60), and 3 years (P = .52). DGF (57.9% vs 67.9%, P = .09), rejection (12.1% vs 13.9%, P = .12), and progression of interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy (IFTA) on protocol biopsy (P = .16) were similar between the two groups. With careful selection, good outcomes can be achieved utilizing severe AKI DCD kidneys. Historic concerns regarding primary nonfunction, DGF resulting in interstitial fibrosis and rejection, and inferior outcomes were not observed. Given the ongoing organ shortage, increased effort should be undertaken to further utilize these donors.

Development and clinical validity of a novel blood-based molecular biomarker for subclinical acute rejection following kidney transplant.

Noninvasive biomarkers are needed to monitor stable patients after kidney transplant (KT), because subclinical acute rejection (subAR), currently detectable only with surveillance biopsies, can lead to chronic rejection and graft loss. We conducted a multicenter study to develop a blood-based molecular biomarker for subAR using peripheral blood paired with surveillance biopsies and strict clinical phenotyping algorithms for discovery and validation. At a predefined threshold, 72% to 75% of KT recipients achieved a negative biomarker test correlating with the absence of subAR (negative predictive value: 78%-88%), while a positive test was obtained in 25% to 28% correlating with the presence of subAR (positive predictive value: 47%-61%). The clinical phenotype and biomarker independently and statistically correlated with a composite clinical endpoint (renal function, biopsy-proved acute rejection, ≥grade 2 interstitial fibrosis, and tubular atrophy), as well as with de novo donor-specific antibodies. We also found that <50% showed histologic improvement of subAR on follow-up biopsies despite treatment and that the biomarker could predict this outcome. Our data suggest that a blood-based biomarker that reduces the need for the indiscriminate use of invasive surveillance biopsies and that correlates with transplant outcomes could be used to monitor KT recipients with stable renal function, including after treatment for subAR, potentially improving KT outcomes.

Factors associated with adverse outcomes from cardiovascular events in the kidney transplant population: an analysis of national discharge data, hospital characteristics, and process measures.

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplant (KT) patients presenting with cardiovascular (CVD) events are being managed increasingly in non-transplant facilities. We aimed to identify drivers of mortality and costs, including transplant hospital status. METHODS: Data from the 2009-2011 Nationwide Inpatient Sample, the American Hospital Association, and Hospital Compare were used to evaluate post-KT patients hospitalized for MI, CHF, stroke, cardiac arrest, dysrhythmia, and malignant hypertension. We used generalized estimating equations to identify clinical, structural, and process factors associated with risk-adjusted mortality and high cost hospitalization (HCH). RESULTS: Data on 7803 admissions were abstracted from 275 hospitals. Transplant hospitals had lower crude mortality (3.0% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.06), and higher un-adjusted total episodic costs (Median $33,271 vs. $28,022, p < 0.0001). After risk-adjusting for clinical, structural, and process factors, mortality predictors included: age, CVD burden, CV destination hospital, diagnostic cardiac catheterization without intervention (all, p < 0.001). Female sex, race, documented co-morbidities, and hospital teaching status were protective (all, p < 0.05). Transplant and non-transplant hospitals had similar risk-adjusted mortality. HCH was associated with: age, CVD burden, CV procedures, and staffing patterns. Hospitalizations at transplant facilities had 37% lower risk-adjusted odds of HCH. Cardiovascular process measures were not associated with adverse outcomes. CONCLUSION: KT patients presenting with CVD events had similar risk-adjusted mortality at transplant and non-transplant hospitals, but high cost care was less likely in transplant hospitals. Transplant hospitals may provide better value in cardiovascular care for transplant patients. These data have significant implications for patients, transplant and non-transplant providers, and payers.

Prognostic factors in kidney transplantation in the septuagenarian: a multicenter analysis.

Kidney transplant (KT) programs have extended recipient eligibility to those who were previously excluded due to advanced age. We aimed to determine the outcomes of the patients ≥70 years undergoing KT and investigate factors predicting survival. Two thousand six hundred and twenty-four KT patients between 2003 and 2013 at two institutions were divided into two groups; those ≥70 years (n=300) and those <70 years (n=2324) at the time of KT. Patient survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 95%, 86%, and 77% in ≥70 years of age group and 98%, 95%, and 90% in the <70 years group (P<.001). When graft loss due to death was censored, graft survival was not significantly different between the two groups (P=.18). On multivariable analysis, the significant predictors of inferior survival in patients ≥70 years included: body mass index (BMI)>30 kg/m(2) (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07; P=.01), panel reactive antibody (PRA)>20% (HR 2.38; P=.01), previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG; HR 1.95; P=.03) and peripheral vascular disease (PVD; HR 2.60; P=.04). Acceptable outcomes can be achieved in KT recipients ≥70 years. Caution should be used when listing these patients if they have BMI>30 kg/m(2) , PRA>20%, CABG or PVD.

Glucose homeostasis after simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation: a comparison of subjects with C-peptide-positive non-type 1 diabetes mellitus and type 1 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: While simultaneous pancreas kidney transplant (SPKTx) is a therapeutic option for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) and renal failure, few centers offer SPKTx to "select" non-T1DM patients. To address concerns that existing insulin resistance may limit the benefits of the pancreas allograft among non-T1DM, we compared several indices of glucose homeostasis, in "select" non-T1DM and T1DM patients who received SPKTx. METHODS: Criteria for "select" non-T1DM included the following: positive C-peptide, BMI <30 kg/m(2) , treatment with oral agents before insulin initiation, and insulin at <1 unit/kg/d. We compared several indices of glucose homeostasis within 1 yr post-SPKTx among seven "select" patients with non-T1DM and nine patients with T1DM with similar age, BMI, and immunosuppression. Measurements of insulin resistance included the following: homeostatic model, insulin sensitivity index, and insulin-glucose ratio; insulin secretion measures included the following: corrected insulin response. RESULTS: Non-T1DM had similar pre-transplant metabolic (fasting glucose, HbA1c, blood pressure, and lipid) parameters to the T1DM cohort. There were no significant differences in the various measures of insulin resistance and secretion between T1DM and "select" non-T1DM patients. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest SPKTx should be considered in the therapeutic armamentarium among carefully select non-T1DM with features of minimal insulin resistance; however, a larger cohort with longer follow-up is needed to confirm our results.

Hepatitis E virus serum antibodies and RNA prevalence in patients evaluated for heart and kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Acute hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection in solid organ transplant recipients is rare, but can cause severe hepatic and extrahepatic complications. We sought to identify the pretransplant prevalence of HEV infection in heart and kidney candidates and any associated risk factors for infection. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Stored frozen serum from patients undergoing evaluation for transplant was tested for HEV immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies and HEV RNA. All patients were seen at Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona, with 333 patients evaluated for heart (n = 132) or kidney (n = 201) transplant. HEV IgG antibodies (anti-HEV IgG) were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and HEV RNA by a noncommercial nucleic acid amplification assay. RESULTS: The prevalence of anti-HEV IgG was 11.4% (15/132) for heart transplant candidates and 8.5% (17/201) for kidney transplant candidates, with an overall seroprevalence of 9.6% (32/333). None of the patients tested positive for HEV RNA in the serum. On multivariable analysis, age older than 60 years was associated with HEV infection (adjusted odds ratio, 3.34; 95% CI, 1.54-7.24; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that there was no evidence of acute HEV infection in this pretransplant population and that older age seems to be associated with positive anti-HEV IgG.

Duration of Dialysis in Acute Kidney Injury Donors and Transplant Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) kidneys, including those from donors on dialysis, are often underutilized, although there is increasing data available demonstrating good transplant outcomes. To date, data on the duration of donor dialysis and transplant outcomes are limited. STUDY DESIGN: This was a single-center study of deceased donor kidney transplants from 2010 to 2022. The study cohort consisted of recipients of deceased donor kidney transplants from donors with AKI and on dialysis. Three groups were identified based on the predetermined interquartile range of donor dialysis duration: 1 to 2 dialysis days, 3 to 4 dialysis days, and 5 or more dialysis days. RESULTS: During this period, 765 AKI deceased donor transplants were performed, of which 230 were from donors on dialysis. The median dialysis duration was 2 days with a maximum of 13 days. Across the 3 groups, there were no differences in recipient age (p = 0.23) or dialysis vintage (p = 0.70). Donor age (p = 0.86) and kidney donor profile index (p = 0.57) were comparable between the groups. Recipients of deceased donor kidney transplants from donors on dialysis 5 or more days had lower terminal creatinine levels (p = 0.003) and longer cold ischemia times (p = 0.04). Posttransplant, the median length of hospital stay was 3 days for all groups (p = 0.75). There were no differences in delayed graft function occurrence (94.4% vs 86.8% vs 92.1%, p = 0.19), duration of delayed graft function (p = 0.56), or readmissions (p = 0.99). At 1 year posttransplant, the estimated glomerular filtration rate (p = 0.76), patient survival (p = 0.82), or death-censored graft survival (p = 0.28) were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Excellent outcomes have been observed in AKI deceased donor kidney transplants, including those coming from donors on dialysis. In this small cohort, the duration of donor dialysis did not adversely affect outcomes. Cautious expansion of the donor pool, including donors on dialysis, should be considered given the ongoing organ shortage.

Impact of Early Rejection Treatment on Infection Development in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Propensity Analysis.

Introduction: The impact of renal allograft rejection treatment on infection development has not been formally defined in the literature. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 185 rejection (case) and 185 nonrejection (control) kidney transplant patients treated at our institution from 2014 to 2020 to understand the impact of rejection on infection development. Propensity scoring was used to match cohorts. We collected data for infections within 6 months of rejection for the cases and 18 months posttransplant for controls. Results: In 370 patients, we identified 466 infections, 297 in the controls, and 169 in the cases. Urinary tract infections (38.9%) and cytomegalovirus viremia (13.7%) were most common. Cumulative incidence of infection between the case and controls was 2.17 (CI 1.54-3.05); p < 0.001. There was no difference in overall survival (HR 0.90, CI 0.49-1.66) or graft survival (HR 1.27, CI 0.74-2.20) between the groups. There was a significant difference in overall survival (HR 2.28, CI 1.14-4.55; p = 0.019) and graft survival (HR 1.98, CI 1.10-3.56; p = 0.023) when patients with infection were compared to those without. Conclusions: As previously understood, rejection treatment is a risk factor for subsequent infection development. Our data have defined this relationship more clearly. This study is unique, however, in that we found that infections, but not rejection, negatively impacted both overall patient survival and allograft survival, likely due to our institution's robust post-rejection protocols. Clinicians should monitor patients closely for infections in the post-rejection period and have a low threshold to treat these infections while also restarting appropriate prophylaxis.