Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Nephrology Fellow Training and Well-Being in the United States: A National Survey.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic's effects on nephrology fellows' educational experiences, preparedness for practice, and emotional wellbeing are unknown. METHODS: We recruited current adult and pediatric fellows and 2020 graduates of nephrology training programs in the United States to participate in a survey measuring COVID-19's effects on their training experiences and wellbeing. RESULTS: Of 1005 nephrology fellows-in-training and recent graduates, 425 participated (response rate 42%). Telehealth was widely adopted (90% for some or all outpatient nephrology consults), as was remote learning (76% of conferences were exclusively online). Most respondents (64%) did not have in-person consults on COVID-19 inpatients; these patients were managed by telehealth visits (27%), by in-person visits with the attending faculty without fellows (29%), or by another approach (9%). A majority of fellows (84%) and graduates (82%) said their training programs successfully sustained their education during the pandemic, and most fellows (86%) and graduates (90%) perceived themselves as prepared for unsupervised practice. Although 42% indicated the pandemic had negatively affected their overall quality of life and 33% reported a poorer work-life balance, only 15% of 412 respondents who completed the Resident Well-Being Index met its distress threshold. Risk for distress was increased among respondents who perceived the pandemic had impaired their knowledge base (odds ratio [OR], 3.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.00 to 4.77) or negatively affected their quality of life (OR, 3.47; 95% CI, 2.29 to 5.46) or work-life balance (OR, 3.16; 95% CI, 2.18 to 4.71). CONCLUSIONS: Despite major shifts in education modalities and patient care protocols precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, participants perceived their education and preparation for practice to be minimally affected.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Individuals With Pre-existing Kidney Disease and COVID-19 Admitted to Intensive Care Units in the United States.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Underlying kidney disease is an emerging risk factor for more severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) illness. We examined the clinical courses of critically ill COVID-19 patients with and without pre-existing chronic kidney disease (CKD) and investigated the association between the degree of underlying kidney disease and in-hospital outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS: 4,264 critically ill patients with COVID-19 (143 patients with pre-existing kidney failure receiving maintenance dialysis; 521 patients with pre-existing non-dialysis-dependent CKD; and 3,600 patients without pre-existing CKD) admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) at 68 hospitals across the United States. PREDICTOR(S): Presence (vs absence) of pre-existing kidney disease. OUTCOME(S): In-hospital mortality (primary); respiratory failure, shock, ventricular arrhythmia/cardiac arrest, thromboembolic events, major bleeds, and acute liver injury (secondary). ANALYTICAL APPROACH: We used standardized differences to compare patient characteristics (values>0.10 indicate a meaningful difference between groups) and multivariable-adjusted Fine and Gray survival models to examine outcome associations. RESULTS: Dialysis patients had a shorter time from symptom onset to ICU admission compared to other groups (median of 4 [IQR, 2-9] days for maintenance dialysis patients; 7 [IQR, 3-10] days for non-dialysis-dependent CKD patients; and 7 [IQR, 4-10] days for patients without pre-existing CKD). More dialysis patients (25%) reported altered mental status than those with non-dialysis-dependent CKD (20%; standardized difference=0.12) and those without pre-existing CKD (12%; standardized difference=0.36). Half of dialysis and non-dialysis-dependent CKD patients died within 28 days of ICU admission versus 35% of patients without pre-existing CKD. Compared to patients without pre-existing CKD, dialysis patients had higher risk for 28-day in-hospital death (adjusted HR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.09-1.81]), while patients with non-dialysis-dependent CKD had an intermediate risk (adjusted HR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.08-1.44]). LIMITATIONS: Potential residual confounding. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the high mortality of individuals with underlying kidney disease and severe COVID-19, underscoring the importance of identifying safe and effective COVID-19 therapies in this vulnerable population.

Experience with a six-month regimen of Pneumocystis pneumonia prophylaxis in 122 HIV-positive kidney transplant recipients.

Anti-Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) prophylaxis is recommended for 3 to 6 months post-transplant in HIV-negative kidney transplant recipients. For HIV-positive kidney transplant recipients, there is no definite duration of primary prophylaxis and is often prescribed life-long. The objective of this study was to determine the incidence of PCP in HIV-positive recipients who received 6 months of prophylaxis with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole or an alternative agent. One hundred and twenty-two HIV-positive recipients received a kidney transplant from 2001 to 2017 at Hahnemann University Hospital. Most patients received induction immunosuppression with an IL-2 receptor antagonist, with or without intravenous immunoglobulin. Only one patient received anti-thymocyte globulin. Maintenance immunosuppression included a calcineurin-inhibitor (tacrolimus or cyclosporine), an antiproliferative agent (mycophenolate or sirolimus), and prednisone. Mean CD4 cell count was 461 ± 127 cells/uL prior to transplant and 463 ± 229 cells/µL at 6 to 12 months after transplant. None of the recipients developed PCP after a median follow-up of 2.88 years (IQR 1.16-4.87). Based on our observation, a 6-month regimen of PCP prophylaxis may be sufficient among HIV-positive recipients, similar to those without HIV infection.

Barriers to kidney transplant evaluation in HIV-positive patients with advanced kidney disease: A single-center study.

BACKGROUND: HIV-positive kidney transplant (KT) recipients have similar outcomes to HIV-negative recipients. However, HIV-positive patients with advanced kidney disease might face additional barriers to initiating the KT evaluation process. We sought to characterize comorbidities, viral control and management, viral resistance, and KT evaluation appointment rates in a cohort of KT evaluation-eligible HIV-positive patients. METHODS: We included patients seen between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2015, at a primary care HIV clinic who met KT evaluation eligibility by an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤20 mL/min/1.73 meters2 or dialysis dependence. The primary outcome was a documented appointment for KT evaluation. RESULTS: Of 3735 patients evaluated at the HIV primary clinic during the study period, 42 (1.6%) were KT evaluation-eligible patients. The median age was 47 years, 77% were male, and 95%, black. Median CD4 count was 328 cells/mm3 (IQR 175-461). Among the 63% percent with antiretroviral therapy (ART) prescription, 40% had viral loads >200 copies. Among patients with HIV resistance profiles (50%, n = 21), 52% had resistance to at least one class of ART. A majority (60%, n = 25) were scheduled for KT evaluation appointment, but of those, only 8% (n = 2) had evidence of appointments before dialysis dependence. Those without appointments had more schizophrenia (29% vs 4%, P = .02), resistance (78% vs 33%, P = .04), ART prescription (76% vs 48%, P = .04), and more kidney disease of unknown etiology (53% vs 8%, P = .02). CONCLUSION: Kidney transplant evaluation-eligible HIV-positive patients had a high rate of evaluation appointments, but a low rate of preemptive evaluation appointments. Schizophrenia and viral resistance disproportionally affected patients without evaluation appointments. These data precede the recommendation for universal ART for all HIV+ patients, regardless of CD4 count and viral load, and must be interpreted in the context of this limitation.

Kidney Transplantation in HIV-Positive Patients: A Single-Center, 16-Year Experience.

Hahnemann University Hospital has performed 120 kidney transplantations in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive individuals during the last 16 years. Our patient population represents ∼10% of the entire US population of HIV-positive kidney recipients. In our earlier years of HIV transplantation, we noted increased rejection rates, often leading to graft failure. We have established a multidisciplinary team and over the years have made substantial protocol modifications based on lessons learned. These modifications affected our approach to candidate evaluation, donor selection, perioperative immunosuppression, and posttransplantation monitoring and resulted in excellent posttransplantation outcomes, including 100% patient and graft survival at 1 year and patient and graft survival at 3 years of 100% and 96%, respectively. We present key clinical data, including a granular patient-level analysis of the associations of antiretroviral therapy regimens with long-term survival, cellular and antibody-mediated rejection rates, and the causes of allograft failures. In summary, we provide details on the evolution of our approach to HIV transplantation during the last 16 years, including strategies that may improve outcomes among HIV-positive kidney transplantation candidates throughout the United States.

Association Between Weight Loss Before Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation and Posttransplantation Outcomes.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: There is debate on whether weight loss, a hallmark of frailty, signals higher risk for adverse outcomes among recipients of deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Using national Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data, we included all DDKT recipients in the United States between December 4, 2004, and December 3, 2014, who were adults (aged ≥ 18 years) when listed for DDKT. EXPOSURES: Relative pre-DDKT weight change as a continuous predictor and categorized as <5% weight change from listing to DDKT, ≥5% to <10% weight loss, ≥10% weight loss, ≥5% to <10% weight gain, and ≥10% weight gain. OUTCOMES: We examined 3 post-DDKT outcomes: (1) transplant hospitalization length of stay (LOS) in days, (2) all-cause graft failure, and (3) mortality. ANALYTIC APPROACH: Unadjusted fractional polynomial methods, multivariable log-gamma models, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Among 94,465 recipients of DDKT, median pre-DDKT weight change was 0 (interquartile range, -3.5 to +3.9) kg. There were nonlinear unadjusted associations between relative pre-DDKT weight loss and longer transplant hospitalization LOS, higher all-cause graft loss, and higher mortality. Compared with recipients with <5% pre-DDKT weight change (n = 49,366; 52%), recipients who lost ≥10% of their listing weight (n = 10,614; 11%) had 0.66 (95% CI, 0.23-1.09) days longer average transplant hospitalization LOS (P = 0.003), 1.11-fold higher graft loss (adjusted HR [aHR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.17; P < 0.001), and 1.18-fold higher mortality (aHR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.11-1.25; P < 0.001) independent of recipient, donor, and transplant factors. Pre-DDKT dialysis exposure, listing body mass index category, and waiting time modified the association of pre-DDKT weight change with hospital LOS (interaction P < 0.10), but not with all-cause graft loss and mortality. LIMITATIONS: Unmeasured confounders and inability to identify volitional weight change. Also, the higher significance level set to increase the power of detecting interactions with the fixed sample size may have resulted in increased risk for type 1 error. CONCLUSIONS: DDKT recipients with ≥10% pre-DDKT weight loss are at increased risk for adverse outcomes and may benefit from augmented support post-DDKT.

Association of the kidney allocation system with dialysis exposure before deceased donor kidney transplantation by preemptive wait-listing status.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether the new kidney transplant allocation system (KAS) has attenuated the advantages of preemptive wait-listing as a strategy to minimize pretransplant dialysis exposure. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of adult US deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) recipients between December 4, 2011-December 3, 2014 (pre-KAS) and December 4, 2014-December 3, 2017 (post-KAS). We estimated pretransplant dialysis durations by preemptive listing status in the pre- and post-KAS periods using multivariable gamma regression models. RESULTS: Among 65 385 DDKT recipients, preemptively listed recipients (21%, n = 13 696) were more likely to be white (59% vs 34%, P < 0.001) and have private insurance (64% vs 30%, P < 0.001). In the pre- and post-KAS periods, average adjusted pretransplant dialysis durations for preemptively listed recipients were <2 years in all racial groups. Compared to recipients who were listed after starting dialysis, preemptively listed recipients experienced 3.85 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 3.71-3.99) and 4.53 (95% CI 4.32-4.74) fewer average years of pretransplant dialysis in the pre- and post-KAS periods, respectively (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Preemptively wait-listed DDKT recipients continue to experience substantially fewer years of pretransplant dialysis than recipients listed after dialysis onset. Efforts are needed to improve both socioeconomic and racial disparities in preemptive wait-listing.

HIV in the dialysis population: Current issues and future directions.

Antiretroviral therapy has significantly reduced mortality due to HIV infection, but the aging HIV-positive patient population now faces a growing burden of comorbidity. This review describes the changing epidemiology of chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease in this population, and highlights recent advances in antiretroviral therapy and kidney transplantation that directly impact the care of patients with HIV infection and end-stage renal disease.

Barriers to listing for HIV-infected patients being evaluated for kidney transplantation.

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients have excellent outcomes following kidney transplantation (KT) but still might face barriers in the evaluation and listing process. The aim of this study was to characterize the patient population, referral patterns, and outcomes of HIV-infected patients who present for KT evaluation. We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study of HIV-infected patients who were evaluated for KT. The primary outcome was time to determination of eligibility for KT. Between 2011 and 2015, 105 HIV-infected patients were evaluated for KT. Of the 105 patients, 73 were listed for transplantation by the end of the study period. For those who were deemed ineligible, the most common reasons cited were active substance abuse (n = 7, 22%) and failure to complete the full transplant evaluation (n = 7, 22%). Our cohort demonstrated a higher proportion of HIV-infected patients eligible for KT than in previous studies, likely secondary to advances in HIV management. Among those who were denied access to transplantation, we identified that many were unable to complete the evaluation process, and that active substance abuse was common. Future prospective studies should examine reasons and potential interventions for the lack of follow-through and drug use we observed in this population.

Association of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with primary allograft survival in HIV-positive kidney transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is an antiretroviral agent frequently used to treat human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). There are concerns regarding its potential to cause acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, and proximal tubulopathy. Although TDF can effectively suppress HIV after kidney transplantation, it is unknown whether use of TDF-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) after kidney transplantation adversely affects allograft survival. METHODS: We examined 104 HIV+ kidney transplant (KT) recipients at our center between 2001 and 2014. We generated a propensity score for TDF treatment using recipient and donor characteristics. We then fit Cox proportional hazards models to investigate the association between TDF treatment and 3-year, death-censored primary allograft failure, adjusting for the propensity score and delayed graft function (DGF). RESULTS: Of the 104 HIV+ KT candidates who underwent transplantation during the study period, 23 (22%) were maintained on TDF-based ART at the time of transplantation, and 81 (78%) were on non-TDF-based ART. Median age of the cohort was 48 years; 87% were male; 88% were black; and median CD4 count at transplantation was 450 cells/mm3 . Median kidney donor risk index was 1.2. At 3 years post transplantation, primary allograft failure occurred in 26% of patients on TDF-based ART and in 28% of patients on non-TDF-based ART (P=.5). TDF treatment was not associated with primary allograft failure at 3 years post transplant after adjusting for DGF and a propensity score for TDF use (hazard ratio 2.12, 95% confidence interval 0.41-10.9). CONCLUSIONS: In a large single-center experience of HIV+ kidney transplantation, TDF use following kidney transplantation was not significantly associated with primary allograft failure. These results may help inform management for HIV+ KT recipients in need of TDF therapy for adequate viral suppression.

Management of the Dialysis Patient with Sickle Cell Disease.

While patients with sickle cell disease currently constitute a very small minority of the US dialysis population (0.1%), there is anticipated growth of this group as the life expectancy of those with sickle cell disease (SCD) increases. SCD patients suffer a high burden of morbidity, which is enhanced by the presence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). In this review, we discuss the pathophysiology of SCD and the basic tenets of its management with focus on the dialysis patient with SCD. Anemia in dialysis patients with SCD is a unique challenge. The hemoglobin target in SCD dialysis patients with ESRD should not exceed 10 g/dl. SCD patients, and particularly those on dialysis, are likely to be poorly responsive to erythropoietin-stimulating agent (ESA) therapy and might be at increased risk for vaso-occlusive crisis (VOC) with ESA. Iron chelation and hydroyxurea therapy require special considerations and modifications in dialysis patients with SCD. There are theoretical advantages to both hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) in SCD patients. With HD, there is a secure vascular access available for both standard and exchange blood transfusion in patients who need them. With PD, the absence of an acute rise in hematocrit with ultrafiltration (UF) might offer lower risk of VOC. During VOC, reduction in UF goals should be considered but administration of intravenous fluids should be reserved only for clear cases of volume depletion. Finally, renal transplantation appears to confer a survival advantage to dialysis in SCD patients and should be pursued when possible.

Antidiabetic Therapy in End-Stage Renal Disease.

There has been substantial growth in the variety of available antidiabetic agents during the last decade and a half. The role of these newer agents in patients with diabetes and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) population, and their relative benefits and risks in this population compared to patients without ESRD are not yet clear. This stems from the altered state of glucose homeostasis in ESRD, which places patients at high risk for hypoglycemia and, in certain situations, hyperglycemia. In addition, there is a dearth of evidence to support a benefit of tight glycemic control on either micro- or macrovascular outcomes in ESRD patients; furthermore, the metrics by which glycemic control is conventionally measured are less valid in ESRD. In this review, we will discuss noninsulin and insulin-based therapies as well as unique challenges, contraindications, advantages, and disadvantages to their use in ESRD. We will also review issues pertinent to both hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients.

A legacy of data use by Donna Diers.

Donna Diers, PhD, RN, FAAN, is renowned for her work as a visionary, scholar, thought leader, scientist, and writer in areas of advanced practice, nursing, and public policy. She envisioned a relationship between diagnosis-related groups, the work of nurses in resource consumption, and patient outcomes. Dr. Diers helped blaze the path for creating a hospital-based service dedicated to answering operational questions from clinicians through analysis of clinical and financial data sets. She recognized the value of nurses' access to data experts to contemplate and analyze the critical patient care questions and their impact on clinical quality and cost. Dr. Diers was the master of using local data for change at the unit level. Her lifetime contributions and dedication profoundly affected the uses of data for future generations of nurses.

Development and Validation of a Formative Assessment Tool for Nephrology Fellows' Clinical Reasoning.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic errors are commonly driven by failures in clinical reasoning. Deficits in clinical reasoning are common among graduate medical learners, including nephrology fellows. We created and validated an instrument to assess clinical reasoning in a national cohort of nephrology fellows and established performance thresholds for remedial coaching. METHODS: Experts in nephrology education and clinical reasoning remediation designed an instrument to measure clinical reasoning through a written patient encounter note from a web-based, simulated AKI consult. The instrument measured clinical reasoning in three domains: problem representation, differential diagnosis with justification, and diagnostic plan with justification. Inter-rater reliability was established in a pilot cohort ( n =7 raters) of first-year nephrology fellows using a two-way random effects agreement intraclass correlation coefficient model. The instrument was then administered to a larger cohort of first-year fellows to establish performance standards for coaching using the Hofstee method ( n =6 raters). RESULTS: In the pilot cohort, there were 15 fellows from four training program, and in the study cohort, there were 61 fellows from 20 training programs. The intraclass correlation coefficients for problem representation, differential diagnosis, and diagnostic plan were 0.90, 0.70, and 0.50, respectively. Passing thresholds (% total points) in problem representation, differential diagnosis, and diagnostic plan were 59%, 57%, and 62%, respectively. Fifty-nine percent ( n =36) met the threshold for remedial coaching in at least one domain. CONCLUSIONS: We provide validity evidence for a simulated AKI consult for formative assessment of clinical reasoning in nephrology fellows. Most fellows met criteria for coaching in at least one of three reasoning domains, demonstrating a need for learner assessment and instruction in clinical reasoning.

Closing the RN engagement gap: which drivers of engagement matter?

OBJECTIVE: This study focused on the relationship between RNs' perceptions of drivers of engagement and their workplace engagement. BACKGROUND: In multiple studies, mostly not in healthcare, researchers found that employees engaged in their work are in the minority. This phenomenon is referred to as the engagement gap. METHODS: Drivers of engagement and levels of nurse engagement were measured among 510 RNs from a large urban academic university center. RESULTS: The greatest difference between engaged and not-engaged nurses was in the manager action index; the smallest difference was in the salary and benefits index. The passion-for-nursing index was the only significant driver related to RN levels of engagement when controlling for all the other drivers. CONCLUSION: Nurse managers play a critical role in promoting employee engagement. The nurses' passion for nursing is an important dimension of engagement. Salary and benefits were not primary drivers in employee engagement.

Neighborhood context and kidney disease in Philadelphia.

Neighborhood context might influence the risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD), a condition that impacts approximately 10% of the United States population and is associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and costs. We included a sample of 23,692 individuals in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who were seen in a large academic primary care practice between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2017. We used generalized linear equations to estimate the associations between indicators of neighborhood context (e.g., proximity to healthy foods stores, neighborhood walkability, social capital, crime rate, socioeconomic status) and CKD, adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and insurance coverage. Among those with CKD, secondary outcomes were poor glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c ≥ 6.5%) and uncontrolled blood pressure (systolic ≥ 140 mm Hg and/or diastolic ≥ 90 mm Hg). The cohort represented residents from 97% of Philadelphia census tracts. CKD prevalence was 10%. When all neighborhood context metrics were considered collectively, only lower neighborhood socioeconomic index (a composite assessment of neighborhood income, educational attainment, and occupation) was associated with a higher risk of CKD (lowest tertile vs. highest tertile: adjusted relative risk [aRR] 1.46 [1.25, 1.69]; mid-tertile vs. highest-tertile: aRR 1.35 [1.25, 1.52]). Among those with CKD, compared to residence in the most walkable neighborhoods (i.e., where most essential resources are accessible by foot), residence in neighborhoods with mid-level WalkScore® (i.e., where only some essential neighborhood resources are accessible by foot) was independently associated with poor glycemic control (aRR 1.20, 95% CI 1.01-1.42). These findings suggest a potential role for measures of neighborhood socioeconomic status in identifying communities that would benefit from screening and treatment for CKD. Studies are also needed to determine mechanisms to explain why residence in neighborhoods not easily navigated by foot or car might hinder glycemic control among people with CKD.

Nephrology Fellows' and Program Directors' Perceptions of Hospital Rounds in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Hospital rounds are a traditional vehicle for patient-care delivery and experiential learning for trainees. We aimed to characterize practices and perceptions of rounds in United States nephrology training programs. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We conducted a national survey of United States nephrology fellows and program directors. Fellows received the survey after completing the 2019 National Board of Medical Examiners Nephrology In-Training Exam. Program directors received the survey at the American Society of Nephrology's 2019 Nephrology Training Program Directors' Retreat. Surveys assessed the structure and perceptions of rounds, focusing on workload, workflow, value for patient care, and fellows' clinical skill-building. Directors were queried about their expectations for fellow prerounds and efficiency of rounds. Responses were quantified by proportions. RESULTS: Fellow and program director response rates were 73% (n=621) and 70% (n=55). Most fellows (74%) report a patient census of >15, arrive at the hospital before 7:00 am (59%), and complete progress notes after 5:00 pm (46%). Among several rounding activities, fellows most valued bedside discussions for building their clinical skills (34%), but only 30% examine all patients with the attending at the bedside. Most directors (71%) expect fellows to both examine patients and collect data before attending-rounds. A majority (78%) of directors commonly complete their documentation after 5:00 pm, and for 36%, after 8:00 pm. Like fellows, directors most value bedside discussion for development of fellows' clinical skills (44%). Lack of preparedness for the rigors of nephrology fellowship was the most-cited barrier to efficient rounds (31%). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital rounds in United States nephrology training programs are characterized by high patient volumes, early-morning starts, and late-evening clinical documentation. Fellows use a variety of prerounding styles and examine patients at the beside with their attendings at different frequencies. PODCAST: This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2020_03_17_CJN.10190819.mp3.

Safety and Efficacy of Universal Postoperative Decolonization for Kidney Transplant Recipients.

OBJECTIVES: Infection is a common cause of morbidity and mortality after kidney transplant. Based on the well-documented successes of reducing infections with decolonization of patients in intensive care units, we began a universal immediate posttransplant decolonization program for all kidney transplant recipients. Herein, we report safety and efficacy of this decolonization program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared a consecutive cohort of kidney transplant recipients who underwent universal decolonization (intervention group) with a cohort of transplant patients from an era immediately prior to this practice (control group). Universal decolonization included daily chlorhexidine body wash and nasal mupirocin ointment. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients who underwent universal decolonization were compared with 43 patients in the control group. Ten microbiologically proven infections (8.3%) occurred in the 30 days after discharge: 7 (9%) in the intervention group and 3 (7%) in the control group. Forty-five transplant recipients (37.2%) were readmitted in the 30 days after discharge: 31 (39.7%) in the intervention group and 14 (32.6%) in the control group. No patients in the intervention group had adverse drug events from mupirocin and chlorhexidine use. CONCLUSIONS: A universal decolonization protocol was successfully implemented and was well tolerated by all patients. Despite successful implementation, we did not observe any significant differences in infection rates between treated patients and historical controls.