APDS Task Force on Resident Transfers: Guidelines for Program Directors.

OBJECTIVE: Resident attrition from the field of General Surgery has been extensively studied. Attrition from one General Surgery program to the benefit of another has not. General Surgery programs can be negatively affected when a resident decides to leave the program for another. When a resident in a general surgery residency program decides to attempt transfer to another program several decisions must be made. The resident applies for the open position, interviews and then may be offered a position in that program. If an offer is made and the resident accepts, at what point is the resident's current Program Director notified? At what point in the process does the resident leave his/her current program to begin the new program? At what point does the new Program Director obtain a summative evaluation of the resident? Does the resident experience retribution as a result of informing his/her fellow residents and faculty that s/he is leaving? These are all questions that Program Directors struggle with when they find themselves with an unexpected opening to fill. The APDS Task Force on Resident Transfers attempted to answer these and other questions. DESIGN: A 19-question survey was distributed via the APDS to all General Surgery Program Directors who utilize the list serve. The survey asked questions related to the following: acceptable reasons for transfer; timeline for the application, interview and transfer process; retaliation against residents who chose to transfer; and transparency in the transfer process. SETTING: The survey was distributed via e-mail nationwide. PARTICIPANTS: General Surgery Residency Program Directors are participated in the survey. RESULTS: The majority of the 99 respondents agreed to the following guidelines: (1) Program Directors must promote transparency in the transfer process; (2) Program Directors must make a statement against retaliation; (3) personal or family preference is the most acceptable reason for transfer; (4) an established transfer date must be agreeable to both programs; and, (5) a recruitment timeline should be established for both programs. All data are included below. CONCLUSIONS: The reasons that a resident chooses to leave a program and the effect this has on the program and the other residents requires further study. Program Directors should educate residents about the transfer process and that procedure should be available as a written policy. When a resident desires transfer to another program, following these guidelines may make the transition easier for all involved. The APDS supports putting them into practice.

Hospital readmissions following HLA-incompatible live donor kidney transplantation: A multi-center study.

Thirty percent of kidney transplant recipients are readmitted in the first month posttransplantation. Those with donor-specific antibody requiring desensitization and incompatible live donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) constitute a unique subpopulation that might be at higher readmission risk. Drawing on a 22-center cohort, 379 ILDKTs with Medicare primary insurance were matched to compatible transplant-matched controls and to waitlist-only matched controls on panel reactive antibody, age, blood group, renal replacement time, prior kidney transplantation, race, gender, diabetes, and transplant date/waitlisting date. Readmission risk was determined using multilevel, mixed-effects Poisson regression. In the first month, ILDKTs had a 1.28-fold higher readmission risk than compatible controls (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-1.46; P < .001). Risk peaked at 6-12 months (relative risk [RR] 1.67, 95% CI 1.49-1.87; P < .001), attenuating by 24-36 months (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.10-1.40; P < .001). ILDKTs had a 5.86-fold higher readmission risk (95% CI 4.96-6.92; P < .001) in the first month compared to waitlist-only controls. At 12-24 (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77-0.95; P = .002) and 24-36 months (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66-0.84; P < .001), ILDKTs had a lower risk than waitlist-only controls. These findings of ILDKTs having a higher readmission risk than compatible controls, but a lower readmission risk after the first year than waitlist-only controls should be considered in regulatory/payment schemas and planning clinical care.

Survival Benefit with Kidney Transplants from HLA-Incompatible Live Donors.

BACKGROUND: A report from a high-volume single center indicated a survival benefit of receiving a kidney transplant from an HLA-incompatible live donor as compared with remaining on the waiting list, whether or not a kidney from a deceased donor was received. The generalizability of that finding is unclear. METHODS: In a 22-center study, we estimated the survival benefit for 1025 recipients of kidney transplants from HLA-incompatible live donors who were matched with controls who remained on the waiting list or received a transplant from a deceased donor (waiting-list-or-transplant control group) and controls who remained on the waiting list but did not receive a transplant (waiting-list-only control group). We analyzed the data with and without patients from the highest-volume center in the study. RESULTS: Recipients of kidney transplants from incompatible live donors had a higher survival rate than either control group at 1 year (95.0%, vs. 94.0% for the waiting-list-or-transplant control group and 89.6% for the waiting-list-only control group), 3 years (91.7% vs. 83.6% and 72.7%, respectively), 5 years (86.0% vs. 74.4% and 59.2%), and 8 years (76.5% vs. 62.9% and 43.9%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons with the two control groups). The survival benefit was significant at 8 years across all levels of donor-specific antibody: 89.2% for recipients of kidney transplants from incompatible live donors who had a positive Luminex assay for anti-HLA antibody but a negative flow-cytometric cross-match versus 65.0% for the waiting-list-or-transplant control group and 47.1% for the waiting-list-only control group; 76.3% for recipients with a positive flow-cytometric cross-match but a negative cytotoxic cross-match versus 63.3% and 43.0% in the two control groups, respectively; and 71.0% for recipients with a positive cytotoxic cross-match versus 61.5% and 43.7%, respectively. The findings did not change when patients from the highest-volume center were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter study validated single-center evidence that patients who received kidney transplants from HLA-incompatible live donors had a substantial survival benefit as compared with patients who did not undergo transplantation and those who waited for transplants from deceased donors. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.).

Sharing kidneys across donor-service area boundaries with sensitized candidates can be influenced by HLA C.

The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) implemented the virtual crossmatch system in UNet as a way to improve the likelihood of a negative crossmatch when kidneys are shared with HLA-sensitized candidates across donor service area (DSA) boundaries. The role of HLA C in that process is not universally appreciated. We recently experienced an unexpected positive flow T and B cell crossmatch for an imported, HLA zero-mismatched kidney because of donor-specific HLA C antibodies and transplanted it into the backup candidate. HLA C locus antigens were not typed by the OPO's laboratory that sent the kidney so the UNet virtual crossmatch could not "strike" our candidate from the UNOS match run. HLA C locus typing data of donors for kidneys our DSA imported from other DSAs revealed that C typing was not performed in 23% (14/60) and was discrepant with our molecular type for 10% (6/60) and was concordant in 67% (40/60) of cases. The rate of positive donor-specific crossmatches was higher (83%) for HLA C discrepantly typed donors than for concordantly typed donors (44%). Sensitization for HLA C (42%) is less frequent than for A (80%) or B (83%) locus antigens but the immunogenicity of C locus antigens in patients who make C locus antibodies is equivalent in black and white patients. Finally, the transplant rate of imported kidneys into class I-sensitized candidates was 24%, and C locus-sensitized candidates comprised 55% of those transplanted.

Clinical management of discolored teeth.

Discolored teeth are seen frequently in the dental office and present a major challenge to dentists. Discoloration may be limited to a single tooth or several teeth in a single arch or it may be generalized and evident on all of the teeth. It is essential to recognize the cause and to manage the discoloration accordingly. Generally, dentists' intervention is essential for treating substantial tooth discoloration. In some cases, scaling and polishing the teeth will improve the situation; however, more extensive treatment often is needed to achieve a satisfying result. Treatment options include vital and non-vital bleaching, microabrasion, composite and porcelain veneers, and porcelain crowns. Sometimes these treatments are combined for a more successful outcome.

Is trauma centre care helpful for less severely injured patients?

BACKGROUND: Trauma centres have been shown to reduce the number of preventable deaths from serious injuries. This is due largely to the rapid response of surgeons and health care teams to resuscitate, evaluate, and operate if necessary. Less is known about the effectiveness of trauma centre care on those patients who have not incurred immediate life-threatening problems and may not be as critically injured. The purpose of this study was to review the use of physician and hospital resources for this patient population to determine whether trauma team and trauma centre care is helpful or even needed. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of consecutive trauma patients (n=1592) admitted from 1998 to 2002 to the trauma service of an urban level I trauma centre and recorded in the hospital trauma registry. Patients were triaged in a tiered response to more or less severely injured. All patients' care was directed by trauma surgeons. RESULTS: Of the 1592 patients, 398 (25%) received a full trauma team response (Class I), 1194 were less seriously injured (Class II). The ISS for the Class I patients was 19+/-18 and for Class II patients 10+/-10. Nineteen percent of Class II patients had an ISS>15. Overall mortality in Class II patients was 2% including 20 unexpected deaths. Four hundred and three Class II patients (34%) had multisystem injuries. Of the Class II patients 423 (35%) were sent to the ICU or OR from the ED, 106 of whom required an immediate operation and 345 required an operation prior to discharge. Complications developed in 129 patients (11%), the majority of which were pulmonary. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of those patients thought initially to be less severely injured required resources available in a trauma centre, including specialty care, intensive care, and operating room accessibility. Over one-third of these patients had multisystem injuries and almost 20% were considered major trauma, needing prioritisation of care and expertise ideally found in a trauma centre environment. Complications developed in a sizable number of patients. This patient population, because of its heterogeneity and propensity for critical illness, deserves the resources of a trauma centre.

Improving access to kidney transplantation without decreasing graft survival: long-term outcomes of blood group A2/A2B deceased donor kidneys in B recipients.

BACKGROUND: The transplantation of blood group A2/A2B deceased donor kidneys into B recipients could improve access to transplantation for blood group B recipients. However, this practice is controversial, and long-term data are lacking. This study analyzed the long-term outcomes of A2/A2B deceased donor kidneys transplanted into selected B recipients. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed the outcomes (graft survival, transplant rates, and acute rejection) of deceased-donor kidneys using an allocation system that transplanted A2/A2B donors into B recipients with low anti-A blood group antibody titers between 1994 and 2003. Patients received conventional immunosuppression without any specific antibody reduction procedures. We further assessed the impact this system had on access to transplantation by blood group. RESULTS: Of 1,400 kidney transplants, 56 (4.0%) were A2/A2B to B recipients. The system reduced waiting time for all B recipients, even shorter than for blood group A recipients (median waiting times of A2/A2B to B transplants=182 days vs. B to B transplants=297 days; and A to A=307 days). Although there was a trend toward increased acute rejection in A2/A2B to B transplants, the actuarial 7-year death censored graft survival was 72% for B recipients regardless of donor type. CONCLUSIONS: Transplanting A2/A2B deceased donor kidneys into B recipients leads to an equalization of waiting time between blood groups with similar patient and graft survival using conventional immunosuppression. This protocol could lead to more equal access to kidney transplantation in blood group B recipients.

The risk for Chagas' disease in the Midwestern United States organ donor population is low.

PURPOSE: Several recent publications have increased awareness that transplanted organs can transmit infectious diseases. In light of the recent report describing the transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi infection by an organ donor in the United States (MMWR 2002: 51: 210), we have tested archived serum samples from our Organ Procurement Organization's (OPO's) deceased organ donors and live donors from 23 October 1995 through 1 March 2002. METHODS: A total of 1117 serum samples from 558 locally recovered deceased donors, 178 imported deceased donors, and 212 live donors were tested (several duplicates were included). Samples were screened for antibodies to T. cruzi, the protozoan parasite that causes Chagas' disease, with a passive particle agglutination assay (Fujirebio, Inc., Tokyo, Japan). Indeterminate samples (those agglutinating both sensitized and control particles) were absorbed with control antigen and re-tested. Inconclusive samples (those not yielding clearly negative or positive results) were re-tested using the original test format, and if persistently inconclusive, were assayed by radio-immune precipitation (RIPA). RESULTS: Of the 770 local OPO donors (deceased and live donor) and the 178 imported donors tested, 52 (5.5%) were indeterminate, but following absorption, all were negative. Forty-four samples (4.6%) were inconclusive and after re-testing 34 were negative while 10 remained inconclusive. Those 10 samples were found to be negative by RIPA. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of transmission of Chagas' disease by organ transplantation in the Midwestern United States is low because during a 6.5 year period, none of our deceased or live donors tested positive for antibodies to T. cruzi. Although the passive particle agglutination test is simple to perform, easy to interpret and rapid enough to be used in screening organ donors, because of the rate of false positive results, it should only be utilized when the donor population is at high risk for previous exposure to T. cruzi.

ABO blood group influences a candidate's likelihood of receiving an HLA zero antigen mismatch kidney.

National sharing of HLA zero-mismatched kidneys has improved long-term graft survival. The distribution of those HLA-matched kidneys by ABO blood group, however, has not been examined. Utilizing the UNOS/OPTN (United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement Transplantation Network) database, we analysed 112 971 kidney waiting list registrations added during 6/3/95-31/12/00, and 8162 HLA zero-mismatched (0 mm) primary kidney transplants in the USA during 1/1/88-31/3/02. We also analyzed A isoagglutinin titer histories for 87 blood group B end stage renal disease (ESRD) patients for whom at least 1 yr of testing was done. Blood group A patients received 40.1% of the HLA-0 mm kidneys while having a 26.5% representation on the national waiting list. Blood group B patients comprised 17.4% of the waiting list, but received only 10.4% of the HLA-0 mm kidneys. Most (89.6%) blood group B patients awaiting kidney transplantation have low levels of A isoagglutinins, making them eligible to receive a blood group A(2) kidney transplant. The national HLA-0 mm kidney allocation sharing system's imbalance by ABO blood group could be partially resolved in the future by allocating HLA-0 mm blood group A(2) kidneys to B patients.

Transplantation of A2 and A2B kidneys from deceased donors into B waiting list candidates increases their transplantation rate.

Transplant centers in the Midwest Transplant Network began transplanting kidneys from A2 or A2B donors into blood group B and O patients in 1986. Since 1991, an OPTN/UNOS variance has permitted us to allocate these kidneys preferentially into B and O waiting list patients. With more than 10 years of experience we have noted the following: 1. Thirty-one percent more blood group B patients were transplanted by allocating them A2 or A2B kidneys from our deceased donors. 2. Ten-year graft survival for B recipients of an A2 or A2B kidney (72%) was equivalent to that for B recipients of a B kidney (69%). 3. Type B recipients of simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants (n=4) also did well with A2 or A2B organs. 4. Non-A recipients were transplanted only when their anti-A IgG titer history was consistently low (< or =4). 5. Most (90%) blood group B patients had a low anti-A IgG titer history; whereas, only one-third of blood group O patients had a low titer history. 6. Neither ethnicity nor HLA class I sensitization level influenced the anti-A IgG titer history. 7. In an OPO with mostly (87%) white donors, nearly 20% of blood group A donors were A2. 8. Waiting time until transplantation was lower for B patients who received an A2 or A2B kidney than for those who received a B or O kidney. 9. Our OPO blood group B waiting list was reduced from 25 low PRA (<40%) B candidates in 1994 to 4 in July, 2004. 10. Blood group A candidates received 6.4% fewer transplants with our A2/A2B--> B allocation algorithm. 11. Minority patients were transplanted at the same rate when using the A2/A2B--> B allocation algorithm as when using the standard UNOS algorithm for allocating B and O kidneys--> B patients.

The presence of in-house attending trauma surgeons does not improve management or outcome of critically injured patients.

BACKGROUND: The presence of a surgeon at the initial assessment and care of the trauma patient has been the focal point of trauma center designation. However, for Level I verification, the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma currently does not require the presence of an attending trauma surgeon in the hospital (IH), provided senior surgical residents are immediately available. Likewise, the state of Missouri does not mandate an IH presence of the attending trauma surgeon but requires senior (postgraduate year 4 or 5) level surgical residents to immediately respond, with a 20-minute response time mandated for the attending surgeon if IH or out of the hospital (OH). Nevertheless, some claim that IH coverage by attending surgeons provides better care for seriously injured patients. METHODS: This retrospective study assessed patient care parameters over the past 10 years on critically injured patients to detect any difference in outcome whether the surgeon was IH or OH at the time of the trauma team activation (cardiopulmonary instability, Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] score < 9, penetrating truncal injury). Patients were subcategorized into blunt/penetrating, shock (systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg) on arrival, GCS score < 9, Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15, or ISS > 25. Response was examined from 8 am to 6 pm weekdays (IH) or 6 pm to 8 am weekdays and all weekends (OH). Patient care parameters examined were mortality, complications, time in the emergency department, time to the operating room, time to computed tomographic scanning, intensive care unit length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS. RESULTS: For all patients (n = 766), there was no significant difference in any parameters except intensive care unit LOS (IH, 4.90 +/- 7.96 days; OH, 3.58 +/- 7.69 days; p < 0.05). For blunt trauma (n = 369), emergency department time was shorter (99.71 +/- 88.26 minutes vs. 126.51 +/- 96.68 minutes, p < 0.01) and hospital LOS was shorter (8.04 +/- 1.02 days vs. 11.08 +/- 1.15 days, p < 0.05) for OH response. For penetrating trauma (n = 377), shock (n = 187), GCS score < 9 (n = 248), ISS > 15 (n = 363), and ISS > 25 (n = 230), there were no statistically significant differences in any patient care parameter between IH and OH response. For those in most need of urgent operation-penetrating injuries and shock-there were no differences in time to operating room or mortality for OH or IH response. CONCLUSION: As long as initial assessment and care is provided by senior level IH surgical residents and as long as the attending surgeon responds in a defined period of time (if OH) to guide critical decision-making, the IH presence of an attending surgeon has not been shown in this retrospective study to improve care of the critically injured patient.

HLA points assigned in cadaveric kidney allocation should be revisited: an analysis of HLA class II molecularly typed patients and donors.

The points now assigned for the quality of HLA match have received significant scrutiny to be modified in an effort to help reduce disparity in access to kidneys of minority groups, and since differences in graft survival between groups of patients in each of the HLA matched groups is less now than in the past. We analyzed long-term (5-year) graft survival in 746 DR DNA typed recipients of cadaveric kidneys transplanted from 1994-2001 whose donors were also DR DNA typed, with allocation based on those DNA-based typings. Five-year graft survival was not significantly different for recipient groups irrespective of if they had zero (84%), one (92%), two (89%), or three to four B, DR mismatches (79%) (log-rank = 0.15; died with a functioning graft [DWFG] censored). Mismatching of three and four DR and DQ antigens in black but not white patients was associated with significantly worse survival (Relative Risk = 2.9) (p = 0.002). The incidence of minority transplants in the well-matched group (zero and one B, DR mismatch), 12.8% (20/156) was over half that of the less well-matched group, 27.1% (160/590) (p < 0.001). Our data indicate that the current HLA-B, DR-based point system used to allocate kidneys warrants re-evaluation. Our data, taken in the context of the UNOS data, which has recently been re-evaluated, suggest that the only HLA-DR remain as a component of the national kidney allocation algorithm so as to increase access of kidneys to minorities and minimize graft loss.

Flow cytometry beads rather than the antihuman globulin method should be used to detect HLA Class I IgG antibody (PRA) in cadaveric renal regraft candidates.

HLA Class I antibody screening can be performed by flow cytometry using a mixture of 30 distinct bead populations each coated with the Class I antigen phenotype derived from different cell lines. In this study we compared the efficacy of Class I antibody screens done by flow cytometry beads with the antihuman globulin (AHG) method for patients awaiting cadaveric renal retransplantation. Class I panel reactive antibody (PRA) screening by flow cytometric beads of 21 regraft serum samples that had all been found to be negative by AHG DTT Class I PRA, revealed that 57.1% (12 of 21) had a flow Class I PRA of > or = 10%. Furthermore, when five regraft sera with an intermediate PRA were screened (mean AHG DTT PRA = 33.2 +/- 13%) the mean flow Class I PRA almost doubled (mean flow PRA = 72.4 +/- 10.2%) (p < 0.01). When active UNOS waiting list regraft candidates, after several months of screening the Class I PRA by flow beads, were divided into the three PRA categories based on their peak flow Class I PRA value (0-20%, 21-79% and > or = 80%), the incidence of a positive flow cross-match was 0%, 72% and 85% and the incidence of retransplantation was 60%, 22% and 10%, in each of these groups, respectively. These data provided our histocompatibility laboratory with the rationale to stop performing the AHG PRA and perform only the flow Class I PRA method for regraft candidates.

Increased access to transplantation for blood group B cadaveric waiting list candidates by using A2 kidneys: time for a new national system?

Since blood group B end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients have less access to donor kidneys and a higher minority composition than any other blood group, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) approved a voluntary national kidney allocation variance to allow organ procurement organizations (OPOs) to preferentially allocate A2 and A2B kidneys to B candidates. The Midwest Transplant Network OPO has preferentially allocated and transplanted kidneys from blood group A2 and A2B donors to our blood group B waiting list candidates for more than 7 years to increase access to kidneys for the B candidates on our OPO-wide waiting list. Between 1994 and 2000, a total of 121 blood group B ESRD patients from our OPO-wide cadaveric kidney waiting list were transplanted. Thirty-four per cent (41/121) of those B candidates received either an A2 or an A2B kidney. One- and 5-year graft survival rates for the group of B recipients of A2 or A2B kidneys were 91 and 85% (died with functioning graft [DWFG] censored), respectively, which were not significantly different from those of 91 and 80% for the 80 B recipients of B or O kidneys (Wilcoxon = 0.48; log-rank = 0.55). These data support the national trial for additional OPOs to voluntarily allocate A2 and A2B kidneys preferentially to B waiting list candidates, thus increasing access of blood group B patients to renal transplantation.