Wait Time Advantage for Transplant Candidates With HIV Who Accept Kidneys From Donors With HIV Under the HOPE Act.

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplant (KT) candidates with HIV face higher mortality on the waitlist compared with candidates without HIV. Because the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act has expanded the donor pool to allow donors with HIV (D + ), it is crucial to understand whether this has impacted transplant rates for this population. METHODS: Using a linkage between the HOPE in Action trial (NCT03500315) and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we identified 324 candidates listed for D + kidneys (HOPE) compared with 46 025 candidates not listed for D + kidneys (non-HOPE) at the same centers between April 26, 2018, and May 24, 2022. We characterized KT rate, KT type (D + , false-positive [FP; donor with false-positive HIV testing], D - [donor without HIV], living donor [LD]) and quantified the association between HOPE enrollment and KT rate using multivariable Cox regression with center-level clustering; HOPE was a time-varying exposure. RESULTS: HOPE candidates were more likely male individuals (79% versus 62%), Black (73% versus 35%), and publicly insured (71% versus 52%; P < 0.001). Within 4.5 y, 70% of HOPE candidates received a KT (41% D + , 34% D - , 20% FP, 4% LD) versus 43% of non-HOPE candidates (74% D - , 26% LD). Conversely, 22% of HOPE candidates versus 39% of non-HOPE candidates died or were removed from the waitlist. Median KT wait time was 10.3 mo for HOPE versus 60.8 mo for non-HOPE candidates ( P < 0.001). After adjustment, HOPE candidates had a 3.30-fold higher KT rate (adjusted hazard ratio = 3.30, 95% confidence interval, 2.14-5.10; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Listing for D + kidneys within HOPE trials was associated with a higher KT rate and shorter wait time, supporting the expansion of this practice for candidates with HIV.

Learning and Predicting from Dynamic Models for COVID-19 Patient Monitoring.

COVID-19 has challenged health systems to learn how to learn. This paper describes the context, methods and challenges for learning to improve COVID-19 care at one academic health center. Challenges to learning include: (1) choosing a right clinical target; (2) designing methods for accurate predictions by borrowing strength from prior patients' experiences; (3) communicating the methodology to clinicians so they understand and trust it; (4) communicating the predictions to the patient at the moment of clinical decision; and (5) continuously evaluating and revising the methods so they adapt to changing patients and clinical demands. To illustrate these challenges, this paper contrasts two statistical modeling approaches - prospective longitudinal models in common use and retrospective analogues complementary in the COVID-19 context - for predicting future biomarker trajectories and major clinical events. The methods are applied to and validated on a cohort of 1,678 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 during the early months of the pandemic. We emphasize graphical tools to promote physician learning and inform clinical decision making.

Better Understanding the Disparity Associated With Black Race in Heart Transplant Outcomes: A National Registry Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Black heart transplant recipients have higher risk of mortality than White recipients. Better understanding of this disparity, including subgroups most affected and timing of the highest risk, is necessary to improve care of Black recipients. We hypothesize that this disparity may be most pronounced among young recipients, as barriers to care like socioeconomic factors may be particularly salient in a younger population and lead to higher early risk of mortality. METHODS: We studied 22 997 adult heart transplant recipients using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data from January 2005 to 2017 using Cox regression models adjusted for recipient, donor, and transplant characteristics. RESULTS: Among recipients aged 18 to 30 years, Black recipients had 2.05-fold (95% CI, 1.67-2.51) higher risk of mortality compared with non-Black recipients (P<0.001, interaction P<0.001); however, the risk was significant only in the first year post-transplant (first year: adjusted hazard ratio, 2.30 [95% CI, 1.60-3.31], P<0.001; after first year: adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.54-1.29]; P=0.4). This association was attenuated among recipients aged 31 to 40 and 41 to 60 years, in whom Black recipients had 1.53-fold ([95% CI, 1.25-1.89] P<0.001) and 1.20-fold ([95% CI, 1.09-1.33] P<0.001) higher risk of mortality. Among recipients aged 61 to 80 years, no significant association was seen with Black race (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.97-1.29]; P=0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Young Black recipients have a high risk of mortality in the first year after heart transplant, which has been masked in decades of research looking at disparities in aggregate. To reduce overall racial disparities, clinical research moving forward should focus on targeted interventions for young Black recipients during this period.

A prospective multicenter pilot study of HIV-positive deceased donor to HIV-positive recipient kidney transplantation: HOPE in action.

HIV-positive donor to HIV-positive recipient (HIV D+/R+) transplantation is permitted in the United States under the HIV Organ Policy Equity Act. To explore safety and the risk attributable to an HIV+ donor, we performed a prospective multicenter pilot study comparing HIV D+/R+ vs HIV-negative donor to HIV+ recipient (HIV D-/R+) kidney transplantation (KT). From 3/2016 to 7/2019 at 14 centers, there were 75 HIV+ KTs: 25 D+ and 50 D- (22 recipients from D- with false positive HIV tests). Median follow-up was 1.7 years. There were no deaths nor differences in 1-year graft survival (91% D+ vs 92% D-, P = .9), 1-year mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (63 mL/min D+ vs 57 mL/min D-, P = .31), HIV breakthrough (4% D+ vs 6% D-, P > .99), infectious hospitalizations (28% vs 26%, P = .85), or opportunistic infections (16% vs 12%, P = .72). One-year rejection was higher for D+ recipients (50% vs 29%, HR: 1.83, 95% CI 0.84-3.95, P = .13) but did not reach statistical significance; rejection was lower with lymphocyte-depleting induction (21% vs 44%, HR: 0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.87, P = .03). In this multicenter pilot study directly comparing HIV D+/R+ with HIV D-/R+ KT, overall transplant and HIV outcomes were excellent; a trend toward higher rejection with D+ raises concerns that merit further investigation.

Decreased incidence of acute rejection without increased incidence of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in kidney transplant recipients receiving rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin without CMV prophylaxis - a cohort single-center study.

Induction therapy with rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin (rATG) in low-risk kidney transplant recipients (KTR) remains controversial, given the associated increased risk of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection. This natural experiment compared 12-month clinical outcomes in low-risk KTR without CMV prophylaxis (January/3/13-September/16/15) receiving no induction or a single 3 mg/kg dose of rATG. We used logistic regression to characterize delayed graft function (DGF), negative binomial to characterize length of hospital stay (LOS), and Cox regression to characterize acute rejection (AR), CMV infection, graft loss, death, and hospital readmissions. Recipients receiving 3 mg/kg rATG had an 81% lower risk of AR (aHR 0.14 0.190.25 , P < 0.001) but no increased rate of hospital readmissions because of infections (0.68 0.911.21 , P = 0.5). There was no association between 3 mg/kg rATG and CMV infection/disease (aHR 0.86 1.101.40 , P = 0.5), even when the analysis was stratified according to recipient CMV serostatus positive (aHR 0.94 1.251.65 , P = 0.1) and negative (aHR 0.28 0.571.16 , P = 0.1). There was no association between 3 mg/kg rATG and mortality (aHR 0.51 1.253.08 , P = 0.6), and graft loss (aHR 0.34 0.731.55 , P = 0.4). Among low-risk KTR receiving no CMV pharmacological prophylaxis, 3 mg/kg rATG induction was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of AR without an increased risk of CMV infection, regardless of recipient pretransplant CMV serostatus.

Role for Social Media in Pediatric Liver Disease: Caregiver and Provider Perspectives.

PURPOSE: To better understand the benefits and harms of engagement with online pediatric liver disease communities within social media. METHODS: We conducted a survey of caregivers of children with liver disease participating in online pediatric liver disease communities within social media, as well as a survey of healthcare providers (e.g., physicians, surgeons, nurse coordinators) from this field to better understand the perceived benefits and harms of participation. RESULTS: Among 138 caregivers of children with liver disease that completed the survey, 97.8% agreed social media was a good place to learn about patient experiences and 88% agreed it was a good source of general information. Among caregivers, 84.8% agreed social media helps them to better advocate for their child. While 18% agreed that the information over social media was equal to the information from their healthcare team and 19% neither agreed/disagreed, only 3% indicated they would use this information to change care without telling their provider; in contrast, among 217 healthcare providers, 55% believed social media may lead caregivers to change management without telling their team. CONCLUSION: Engagement with online disease-specific communities in social media yields several benefits for caregivers and, in contrast to healthcare providers' concerns, participation is unlikely to lead to problems including caregivers changing the treatment plan without first discussing these plans with their team. Openness between caregivers and medical teams about the role for social media can help to improve trust and maximize the potential benefits of engagement with these groups.

Brief Report: Willingness to Accept HIV-Infected and Increased Infectious Risk Donor Organs Among Transplant Candidates Living With HIV.

BACKGROUND: HIV-infected (HIV+) donor to HIV+ recipient (HIV D+/R+) transplantation might improve access to transplantation for people living with HIV. However, it remains unknown whether transplant candidates living with HIV will accept the currently unknown risks of HIV D+/R+ transplantation. METHODS: We surveyed transplant candidates living with HIV from 9 US transplant centers regarding willingness to accept HIV+ donor organs. RESULTS: Among 116 participants, the median age was 55 years, 68% were men, and 78% were African American. Most were willing to accept HIV+ living donor organs (87%), HIV+ deceased donor organs (84%), and increased infectious risk donor organs (70%). Some (30%) were concerned about HIV superinfection; even among these respondents, 71% were willing to accept an HIV D+ organ. Respondents from centers that had already performed a transplant under an HIV D+/R+ transplantation research protocol were more willing to accept HIV+ deceased donor organs (89% vs. 71%, P = 0.04). Respondents who chose not to enroll in an HIV D+/R+ transplantation research protocol were less likely to believe that HIV D+/R+ transplantation was safe (45% vs. 77%, P = 0.02), and that HIV D+ organs would work similar to HIV D- organs (55% vs. 77%, P = 0.04), but more likely to believe they would receive an infection other than HIV from an HIV D+ organ (64% vs. 13%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Willingness to accept HIV D+ organs among transplant candidates living with HIV does not seem to be a major barrier to HIV D+/R+ transplantation and may increase with growing HIV D+/R+ transplantation experience.

Language impairment in adults with end-stage liver disease: application of natural language processing towards patient-generated health records.

End-stage liver disease (ESLD) is associated with cognitive impairment ranging from subtle alterations in attention to overt hepatic encephalopathy that resolves after transplant. Natural language processing (NLP) may provide a useful method to assess cognitive status in this population. We identified 81 liver transplant recipients with ESLD (4/2013-2/2018) who sent at least one patient-to-provider electronic message pre-transplant and post-transplant, and matched them 1:1 to "healthy" controls-who had similar disease, but had not been evaluated for liver transplant-by age, gender, race/ethnicity, and liver disease. Messages written by patients pre-transplant and post-transplant and controls was compared across 19 NLP measures using paired Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. While there was no difference overall in word length, patients with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Score (MELD) ≥ 30 (n = 31) had decreased word length in pre-transplant messages (3.95 [interquartile range (IQR) 3.79, 4.14]) compared to post-transplant (4.13 [3.96, 4.28], p = 0.01) and controls (4.2 [4.0, 4.4], p = 0.01); there was no difference between post-transplant and controls (p = 0.4). Patients with MELD ≥ 30 had fewer 6+ letter words in pre-transplant messages (19.5% [16.4, 25.9] compared to post-transplant (23.4% [20.0, 26.7] p = 0.02) and controls (25.0% [19.2, 29.4]; p = 0.01). Overall, patients had increased sentence length pre-transplant (12.0 [9.8, 13.7]) compared to post-transplant (11.0 [9.2, 13.3]; p = 0.046); the same was seen for MELD ≥ 30 (12.3 [9.8, 13.7] pre-transplant vs. 10.8 [9.6, 13.0] post-transplant; p = 0.050). Application of NLP to patient-generated messages identified language differences-longer sentences with shorter words-that resolved after transplant. NLP may provide opportunities to detect cognitive impairment in ESLD.

Acute Care Surgery for Transplant Recipients: A National Survey of Surgeon Perspectives and Practices.

BACKGROUND: Transplant recipients are living longer than ever before, and occasionally require acute care surgery for nontransplant-related issues. We hypothesized that while both acute care surgeons (ACS) and transplant surgeons would feel comfortable operating on this unique patient population, both would believe transplant centers provide superior care. METHODS: To characterize surgeon perspectives, we conducted a national survey of ACS and transplant surgeons. Surgeon- and center-specific demographics were collected; surgeon preferences were compared using χ2, Fisher's exact, and Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS: We obtained 230 responses from ACS and 204 from transplant surgeons. ACS and transplant surgeons believed care is better at transplant centers (78% and 100%), and transplant recipients requiring acute care surgery should be transferred to a transplant center (80.2% and 87.2%). ACS felt comfortable operating (97.5%) and performing laparoscopy (94.0%) on transplant recipients. ACS cited transplant medication use as the most important underlying cause of increased surgical complications for transplant recipients. Transplant surgeons felt it was their responsibility to perform acute care surgery on transplant recipients (67.3%), but less so if patient underwent transplant at a different institution (26.5%). Transplant surgeons cited poor transplanted organ resiliency as the most important underlying cause of increased surgical complications for transplant recipients. CONCLUSIONS: ACS and transplant surgeons feel comfortable performing laparoscopic and open acute care surgery on transplant recipients, and recommend treating transplant recipients at transplant centers, despite the lack of supportive evidence. Elucidating common goals allows surgeons to provide optimal care for this unique patient population.

The future of HIV Organ Policy Equity Act is now: the state of HIV+ to HIV+ kidney transplantation in the United States.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We report the current state of HIV+ to HIV+ kidney transplantation in the United States and remaining challenges in implementing this practice nationally. RECENT FINDINGS: The HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act, which was the first step in unlocking the potential of HIV+ organ donors, mandates clinical research on HIV+ to HIV+ transplantation. As of March 2019, there have been 57 HOPE donors, including both true and false positive HOPE donors resulting in more than 120 transplants. SUMMARY: The HOPE Act, signed in 2013, reversed the federal ban on the transplantation of organs from HIV+ donors into HIV+ recipients. Ongoing national studies are exploring the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of both kidney and liver transplantation in this population. If successfully and fully implemented, HIV+ to HIV+ transplantation could attenuate the organ shortage for everyone waiting, resulting in a far-reaching public health impact.

The changing landscape of live kidney donation in the United States from 2005 to 2017.

The number of live kidney donors has declined since 2005. This decline parallels the evolving knowledge of risk for biologically related, black, and younger donors. To responsibly promote donation, we sought to identify declining low-risk donor subgroups that might serve as targets for future interventions. We analyzed a national registry of 77 427 donors and quantified the change in number of donors per 5-year increment from 2005 to 2017 using Poisson regression stratified by donor-recipient relationship and race/ethnicity. Among related donors aged <35, 35 to 49, and ≥50 years, white donors declined by 21%, 29%, and 3%; black donors declined by 30%, 31%, and 12%; Hispanic donors aged <35 and 35 to 49 years declined by 18% and 15%, and those aged ≥50 increased by 10%. Conversely, among unrelated donors aged <35, 35 to 49, and ≥50 years, white donors increased by 12%, 4%, and 24%; black donors aged <35 and 35 to 49 years did not change but those aged ≥50 years increased by 34%; Hispanic donors increased by 16%, 21%, and 46%. Unlike unrelated donors, related donors were less likely to donate in recent years across race/ethnicity. Although this decline might be understandable for related younger donors, it is less understandable for lower-risk related older donors (≥50 years). Biologically related older individuals are potential targets for interventions to promote donation.

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.

Early Hospital Readmission in Older and Younger Kidney Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Up to 31% of kidney transplant (KT) recipients experience early hospital readmission (EHR). We hypothesized that EHR among older KT recipients is higher than younger recipients due to increased comorbidities and higher prevalence of frailty. METHODS: We identified 22,458 older (age ≥65) and 86,372 younger (18 to < 65) first-time KT recipients (December 1, 1999 - December 31, 2014) using United States Renal Data System data. We estimated the association between patient-level characteristics and EHR (30 days post-KT discharge) with modified Poisson regression among older and younger KT recipients, separately. We estimated the association between graft loss and mortality and EHR using Cox proportional hazards. RESULTS: EHR was more common in older KT recipients (30.1 vs. 27.6%; p < 0.001). Risk factors for EHR that differed by recipient age included female sex, African American race, diabetes, smoking, dialysis vintage, donor age, and length of stay. Risk of graft loss associated with EHR was greater among older KT recipients (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.64, 95% CI 1.51-1.77, p < 0.001) than younger KT recipients (aHR 1.43, 95% CI 1.38-1.48, p < 0.001; interaction p < 0.01). However, the risk of mortality associated with EHR was greater among younger recipients (aHR 1.52, 95% CI 1.47-1.57, p < 0.001) than that in older -recipients (aHR 1.40, 95% CI 1.34-1.47, p < 0.001; interaction p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Older KT recipients are more likely to experience EHR and are at a higher risk of graft loss after EHR than younger recipients. Targeted interventions to prevent EHR and subsequent graft loss in this population should be identified.

Changes in practice and perception of hepatitis C and liver transplantation: Results of a national survey.

With new practice guidelines, it is important to understand how liver transplant (LT) centers have incorporated direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) into the management of hepatitis C virus-infected (HCV+) candidates and recipients. To explore how DAAs have affected LT centers' willingness to treat HCV+ candidates and recipients and to use HCV+ donors, we surveyed high volume US LT centers (11/2014-12/2015) regarding practices for HCV+ candidates, recipients, and donors, before vs after DAAs. We used the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients to compare centers' number of LTs, HCV+ recipients, and HCV+ donors in the years before (1/1/2012-12/31/2013) and after (1/1/2016-12/31/2017) survey administration. Of 80 centers contacted, 57 (71.3%) responded, representing 69.0% of the total volume of LTs in 2013. After DAAs, most centers increased treating candidates with low (≤15) model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) (85.2%), intermediate/high (>15) MELD (92.6%), and hepatocellular carcinoma (79.6%). There was consensus to treat low MELD candidates (90.8% "most of the time/always"), but less certainty for intermediate/high MELD candidates (48.2% "sometimes"). Universal post-LT HCV treatment increased (7.4% vs 57.4%). After DAAs, 42.6% were more willing to use HCV+ donors for HCV+ candidates, and 38.9% were willing to consider using HCV+ donors for HCV- candidates. Overall, with DAAs, centers were more willing to treat HCV+ candidates and recipients and to use HCV+ donors; recent recommendations may help to guide treatment decisions for intermediate/high MELD candidates.

Knowledge, attitudes, and planned practice of HIV-positive to HIV-positive transplantation in US transplant centers.

BACKGROUND: HIV+ donor organs can now be transplanted into HIV+ recipients (HIV D+/R+) following the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act. Implementation of the HOPE Act requires transplant center awareness and support of HIV D+/R+ transplants. METHODS: To assess center-level barriers to implementation, we surveyed 209 transplant centers on knowledge, attitudes, and planned HIV D+/R+ protocols. RESULTS: Responding centers (n = 114; 56%) represented all UNOS regions. Fifty centers (93 organ programs) planned HIV D+/R+ protocols (kidney n = 48, liver n = 34, pancreas n = 8, heart n = 2, lung = 1), primarily in the eastern United States (28/50). Most (91.2%) were aware that HIV D+/R+ transplantation is legal; 21.4% were unaware of research restrictions. Respondents generally agreed with HOPE research criteria except the required experience with ≥5 HIV+ transplants by organ type. Centers planning HIV D+/R+ protocols had higher transplant volume, HIV+ recipient volume, increased infectious risk donor utilization, and local HIV prevalence (P < 0.01). Centers not planning HIV D+/R+ protocols were more likely to believe their HIV+ candidates would not accept HIV+ donor organs (P < 0.001). Most centers (83.2%) supported HIV+ living donation. CONCLUSIONS: Although many programs plan HIV D+/R+ transplantation, center-level barriers remain including geographic clustering of kidney/liver programs and concerns about HIV+ candidate willingness to accept HIV+ donor organs.

Landscape of Living Multiorgan Donation in the United States: A Registry-Based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The donation of multiple allografts from a single living donor is a rare practice, and the patient characteristics and outcomes associated with these procedures are not well described. METHODS: Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we identified 101 living multiorgan donors and their 133 recipients. RESULTS: The 49 sequential (donations during separate procedures) multiorgan donors provided grafts to 81 recipients: 21 kidney-then-liver, 15 liver-then-kidney, 5 lung-then-kidney, 3 liver-then-intestine, 3 kidney-then-pancreas, 1 lung-then-liver, and 1 pancreas-then-kidney. Of these donors, 38% donated 2 grafts to the same recipient and 15% donated 2 grafts as non-directed donors. Compared to recipients from first-time, single organ living donors, recipients from second-time living donors had similar graft and patient survival. The 52 simultaneous (multiple donations during one procedure) multiorgan donors provided 2 grafts to 1 recipient each: 48 kidney-pancreas and 4 liver-intestine. Donors had median of 13.4 years (interquartile range, 8.3-18.5 years) of follow-up. There was one reported death of a sequential donor (2.5 years after second donation). Few postdonation complications were reported over a median of 116 days (interquartile range, 0-295 days) of follow-up; however, routine living donor follow-up data were sparse. Recipients of kidneys from second-time living donors had similar graft (P = 0.2) and patient survival (P = 0.4) when compared with recipients from first-time living donors. Similarly, recipients of livers from second-time living donors had similar graft survival (P = 0.9) and patient survival (P = 0.7) when compared with recipients from first-time living donors. CONCLUSIONS: Careful documentation of outcomes is needed to ensure ethical practices in selection, informed consent, and postdonation care of this unique donor community.

Shipping living donor kidneys and transplant recipient outcomes.

Kidney paired donation (KPD) is an important tool to facilitate living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). Concerns remain over prolonged cold ischemia times (CIT) associated with shipping kidneys long distances through KPD. We examined the association between CIT and delayed graft function (DGF), allograft survival, and patient survival for 1267 shipped and 205 nonshipped/internal KPD LDKTs facilitated by the National Kidney Registry in the United States from 2008 to 2015, compared to 4800 unrelated, nonshipped, non-KPD LDKTs. Shipped KPD recipients had a median CIT of 9.3 hours (range = 0.25-23.9 hours), compared to 1.0 hour for internal KPD transplants and 0.93 hours for non-KPD LDKTs. Each hour of CIT was associated with a 5% increased odds of DGF (adjusted odds ratio: 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.09, P < .01). However, there was not a significant association between CIT and all-cause graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.98-1.04, P = .4), death-censored graft failure ( [aHR]: 1.02, 95% CI, 0.98-1.06, P = .4), or mortality (aHR 1.00, 95% CI, 0.96-1.04, P > .9). This study of KPD-facilitated LDKTs found no evidence that long CIT is a concern for reduced graft or patient survival. Studies with longer follow-up are needed to refine our understanding of the safety of shipping donor kidneys through KPD.

HIV+ deceased donor referrals: A national survey of organ procurement organizations.

BACKGROUND: HIV-infected (HIV+) donor organs can be transplanted into HIV+ recipients under the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act. Quantifying HIV+ donor referrals received by organ procurement organizations (OPOs) is critical for HOPE Act implementation. METHODS: We surveyed the 58 USA OPOs regarding HIV+ referral records and newly discovered HIV+ donors. Using data from OPOs that provided exact records and CDC HIV prevalence data, we projected a national estimate of HIV+ referrals. RESULTS: Fifty-five (95%) OPOs reported HIV+ referrals ranging from 0 to 276 and newly discovered HIV+ cases ranging from 0 to 10 annually. Six OPOs in areas of high HIV prevalence reported more than 100 HIV+ donor referrals. Twenty-seven (47%) OPOs provided exact HIV+ referral records and 28 (51%) OPOs provided exact records of discovered HIV+ cases, totaling 1450 HIV+ referrals and 39 discovered HIV+ donors in the prior year. These OPOs represented 67% and 59% of prevalent HIV cases in the USA; thus, we estimated 2164 HIV+ referrals and 66 discovered HIV+ cases nationally per year. CONCLUSIONS: OPOs reported a high volume of HIV+ referrals annually, of which a subset will be medically eligible for donation. Particularly in areas of high HIV prevalence, OPOs require ongoing support to implement the HOPE Act.

Mortality and Graft Loss Attributable to Readmission After Kidney Transplantation: Immediate and Long-term Risk.

BACKGROUND: After kidney transplantation, early readmission is independently associated with graft loss and mortality. The mechanism of this association is poorly understood. Understanding the timeline of risk, that is, during the readmission hospitalization versus periods postreadmission, will provide additional insights. METHODS: We used national registry data to study 56 076 adult Medicare-primary first-time kidney transplant recipients from December 1999 to October 2011. Piecewise Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the association between graft loss, mortality, and readmission for 2 periods: readmission hospitalization and postreadmission. RESULTS: During the readmission hospitalization, graft loss was substantially higher (deceased donor kidney transplant [DDKT] without delayed graft function [DGF] hazard ratio: 24.634.447.9, P < 0.001; with DGF: 10.815.221.4, P < 0.001; live donor kidney transplant [LDKT]: 18.136.774.2, P < 0.001) and mortality was substantially higher (DDKT without DGF: 14.120.830.7, P < 0.001; with DGF: 9.0312.818.0, P < 0.001; LDKT: 9.0018.241.3, P < 0.001). Immediately after readmission discharge, graft loss (DDKT without DGF: 2.082.402.77, P < 0.001; with DGF: 1.832.142.51, P < 0.001; LDKT: 2.002.503.13, P < 0.001), and mortality (DDKT without DGF: 2.162.432.73, P < 0.001; with DGF: 1.832.162.88, P < 0.001; LDKT: 1.902.342.88, P < 0.001) remained elevated, but much less so. After readmission, the hazard of graft loss remained, but decreased 19% per year for DDKT recipients (time varying coefficient 0.780.810.85, P < 0.001) and 14% per year for LDKT recipients (0.790.860.93, P < 0.001). The hazard of mortality remained, but decreased 14% per year for DDKT recipients (0.830.860.89, P < 0.001) and 9% per year for LDKT recipients (0.850.910.98, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, readmission is most strongly associated with graft loss and mortality during the readmission hospitalization, but also portends a lasting, albeit attenuated, risk postreadmission.