Search

Kidney transplantation offers better mortality and quality of life outcomes to patients with end-stage renal failure compared to dialysis. Specifically, living donor kidney transplantation is the best treatment for end-stage renal disease, since it offers the greatest survival benefit compared to deceased donor kidney transplant or dialysis. However, not all patients from all racial/ethnic backgrounds enjoy these benefits. While black and Hispanic patients bear the predominant disease burden within the United States, they represent less than half of all kidney transplants in the country. Other factors such as cultural barriers that proliferate myths about transplant, financial costs that impede altruistic donation, and even biological predispositions create a complex maze and can also perpetuate care inaccessibility. Therefore, blanket efforts to increase the overall donation pool may not extend access to vulnerable populations, who may require more targeted attention and interventions. This review uses US kidney transplantation data to substantiate accessibility differences amongst racial minorities as well as provides examples of successful institutional and national systemic level changes that have improved transplantation outcomes for all.

BackgroundWe sought to understand how safety culture may evolve during disruption, by using the COVID-19 pandemic as an example, to identify vulnerabilities in the system that could impact patient outcomes.MethodsA cross-sectional analysis of transplant personnel at a high-volume transplant center was conducted using the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ). Survey responses were scaled and evaluated pre- and post-COVID-19 (2019 and 2021).ResultsTwo-hundred and thirty-eight responses were collected (134 pre-pandemic and 104 post-pandemic). Represented organ groups included: kidney (N = 89;38%), heart (N = 18;8%), liver (N = 54;23%), multiple (N = 66;28%), and other (N = 10;4%). Responders primarily included nurses (N = 75;34%), administration (N = 50;23%), and physicians (N = 24;11%). Workers had high safety, job satisfaction, stress recognition, and working conditions satisfaction (score >75) both before and after the pandemic with overlapping responses across both timepoints. Stress recognition, safety, and working conditions improved post-COVID-19, but teamwork, job satisfaction, and perceptions of management were somewhat negatively impacted (all p > 0.05).ConclusionsDespite the serious health care disruptions induced by the pandemic, high domain ratings were notable and largely maintained in a high-volume transplant center. The SAQ is a valuable tool for healthcare units and can be used in longitudinal assessments of transplant culture of safety as a component of quality assurance and performance improvement initiatives.

BackgroundDonation after circulatory death (DCD) liver allografts are associated with higher rates of primary non-function (PNF) and ischemic cholangiopathy (IC). Advanced recovery techniques, including thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion (TA-NRP), may improve organ utilization and patient and allograft outcomes. Given the increasing US experience with TA-NRP DCD recovery, we evaluated outcomes of DCD liver allografts transplanted after TA-NRP.MethodsLiver allografts transplanted from DCD donors after TA-NRP were identified from 5/1/2021 to 1/31/2022 across 8 centers. Donor data included demographics, functional warm ischemic time (fWIT), total warm ischemia time (tWIT) and total time on TA-NRP. Recipient data included demographics, model of end stage liver disease (MELD) score, etiology of liver disease, PNF, cold ischemic time (CIT), liver function tests, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), post-operative transplant related complications.ResultsThe donors' median age was 32 years old and median BMI was 27.4. Median fWIT was 20.5 min; fWIT exceeded 30 min in two donors. Median time to initiation of TA-NRP was 4 min and median time on bypass was 66 min. The median recipient listed MELD and MELD at transplant were 22 and 21, respectively. Median allograft CIT was 292 min. The median length of follow up was 257 days. Median ICU and hospital LOS were 2 and 7 days, respectively. Three recipients required management of anastomotic biliary strictures. No patients demonstrated IC, PNF or required re-transplantation.ConclusionLiver allografts from TA-NRP DCD donors demonstrated good early allograft and recipient outcomes.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading indications for liver transplantation and has been the treatment of choice due to the oncologic benefit for patients with advanced chronic liver disease (AdvCLD) and small tumors for the last 25 years. For HCC patients undergoing liver transplantation, alpha fetoprotein (AFP) has increasingly been applied as an independent predictor for overall survival, disease free recurrence, and waitlist drop out. In addition to static AFP, newer studies evaluating the AFP dynamic response to downstaging therapy show enhanced prognostication compared to static AFP alone. While AFP has been utilized to select HCC patients for transplant, despite years of allocation policy changes, the US allocation system continues to take a uniform approach to HCC patients, without discriminating between those with favorable or unfavorable tumor biology. We aim to review the history of liver allocation for HCC in the US, the utility of AFP in liver transplantation, the implications of weaving AFP as a biomarker into policy. Based on this review, we encourage the US transplant community to revisit its HCC organ allocation model, to incorporate more precise oncologic principles for patient selection, and to adopt AFP dynamics to better stratify waitlist dropout risk.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus precipitated the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which placed considerable strain on healthcare systems and necessitated immediate and rapid alterations in the delivery of healthcare. In the transplant population, COVID-19 directly impacts an inherently vulnerable population in the setting of immunosuppression and co-morbidities, but also further complicates the clinical evaluation and management of kidney transplant candidates and recipients in a strained healthcare environment being challenged by the pandemic. Many transplant centers around the world saw mortality rate spikes in organ recipients related to COVID-19, and changes in care delivery abound. This review evaluates the care of the kidney transplant patient through all phases of the process including pre-operative evaluations, perioperative care, post-transplantation considerations, and how the global pandemic has changed the way we care for our patients.

Background. With donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT), the goal of the recipient implantation procedure is to minimize surgical complexity to avoid a tenuous environment for an already marginal graft. The presence of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) at the time of LT adds surgical complexity, yet‚ to date, no studies have investigated the utilization of DCD liver grafts for patients with PVT. Methods. All DCD LT performed at Mayo Clinic-Florida, Mayo Clinic-Arizona, and Mayo Clinic-Rochester from 2006 to 2020 were reviewed (N = 771). Patients with PVT at the time of transplant were graded using Yerdel classification. A 1:3 propensity match between patients with PVT and those without PVT was performed. Results. A total of 91 (11.8%) patients with PVT undergoing DCD LT were identified. Grade I PVT was present in 62.6% of patients, grade II PVT in 27.5%, grade III in 8.8%, and grade 4 in 1.1%. At the time of LT, thromboendovenectomy was performed in 89 cases (97.8%). There was no difference in the rates of early allograft dysfunction (43.2% versus 52.4%; P = 0.13) or primary nonfunction (1.1% versus 1.1%; P = 0.41) between the DCD PVT and DCD without PVT groups, respectively. The rate of ischemic cholangiopathy was not significantly different between the DCD PVT (11.0%) and DCD without PVT groups (10.6%; P = 0.92). Graft (P = 0.58) and patient survival (P = 0.08) were similar between the 2 groups. Graft survival at 1-, 3-, and 5-y was 89.9%, 84.5%, and 79.3% in the DCD PVT group. Conclusions. In appropriately selected recipients with grades I–II PVT, DCD liver grafts can be utilized safely with excellent outcomes.

Background. The risk of donor-derived severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in solid organ (heart, lung, liver, kidney, pancreas, and intestine) transplant recipients is poorly understood. Since hematogenous transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has not been documented to date, nonlung solid organs might be suitable for transplantation since they likely portend a low risk of viral transmission. Methods. Abdominal solid organs from SARS-CoV-2–infected donors were transplanted into uninfected recipients. Results. Between April 18, 2021, and October 30, 2021, we performed transplants of 2 livers, 1 simultaneous liver and kidney, 1 kidney, and 1 simultaneous kidney and pancreas from SARS-CoV-2–infected donors into 5 uninfected recipients. None of the recipients developed SARS-CoV-2 infection or coronavirus disease 2019, and when tested, allograft biopsies showed no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Conclusions. Transplanting nonlung organs from SARS-CoV-2–infected donors into uninfected recipients demonstrated no evidence of virus transmission.

The best approach to adverse-event review in solid organ transplantation is unknown. We initiated a departmental case review (DCR) method based on root-cause analysis methods in a high-volume multiorgan transplant center. We aimed to describe this process and its contributions to process improvement. Methods: Using our prospectively maintained transplant center quality portfolio, we performed a retrospective review of a 30-month period (October 26, 2015, to May 14, 2018) after DCR-process initiation at our center. We used univariate statistics to identify counts of adverse events, DCRs, death and graft-loss events, and quality improvement action-plan items identified during case review. We evaluated variation among organ groups in action-plan items, associated phase of transplant care, and quality improvement theme. Results: Over 30 months, we performed 1449 transplant and living donor procedures with a total of 45 deaths and 31 graft losses; 91 DCRs were performed (kidney transplant n=43; liver transplant n=24; pancreas transplant n=10; heart transplant n=6; lung transplant n=3; living donor n=5). Seventy-nine action-plan items were identified across improvement domains, including errors in clinical decision making, communication, compliance, documentation, selection, waitlist management, and administrative processes. Median time to review was 83 days and varied significantly by program. Median time to action-plan item completion was 9 weeks. Clinical decision making in the pretransplant phase was identified as an improvement opportunity in all programs. Conclusions: DCRs provide a robust approach to transplant adverse-event review. Quality improvement targets and domains may vary based on adverse-event profiles.

Abstract 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

Background and Objectives: Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) is considered a surrogate marker for adverse post-liver transplant (LT) outcomes. With the increasing use of nonconventional donors, EAD has become a more frequent occurrence. Given this background, we aimed to assess the prevalence and impact of EAD in an updated cohort inclusive of both conventional and nonconventional liver allografts. Materials and Methods: Perioperative and one-year outcomes were assessed for a total of 611 LT recipients with and without EAD from Mayo Clinic Arizona. EAD was defined as the presence of one or more of the following: bilirubin > 10 mg/dL on day 7, INR > 1.6 on day 7, or ALT and/or AST > 2000 IU/L within the first 7 days of LT. Results: Within this cohort, 31.8% of grafts (n = 194) came from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors, 17.7% (n = 108) were nationally shared, 16.4% (n = 100) were allocated as post-cross clamp, and 8.7% contained moderate steatosis. EAD was observed in 52.2% (n = 321) of grafts in the study cohort (79% in DCD grafts and 40% in DBD grafts). EAD grafts had higher donor risk index (DRI) scores (1.9 vs. 1.6, p < 0.0001), were more likely to come from DCD donors (48% vs. 13.8%, p < 0.0001), were regionally allocated (p = 0.003), and had higher cold ischemia times (median 6.0 vs. 5.5 h, p = 0.001). Primary nonfunction events were rare in both groups (1.3% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.22). Post-LT acute kidney injury occurred at a similar frequency in recipients with and without EAD (43.6% vs. 30.3%, p = 0.41), and there were no differences in ICU (median 2 vs. 1 day, p = 0.60) or hospital (6 vs. 5 days, p = 0.24) length of stay. For DCD grafts, the rate of ischemic cholangiopathy was similar in the two groups (14.9% EAD vs. 17.5% no EAD, p = 0.69). One-year patient survival for grafts with and without EAD was 96.0% and 94.1% (HR 1.2, 95% CI 0.7–1.8; p = 0.54); one-year graft survival was 92.5% and 92.1% (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7–1.5; p = 0.88). Conclusions: In this cohort, EAD occurred in 52% of grafts. The occurrence of EAD, however, did not portend inferior outcomes. Compared to those without EAD, recipients with EAD had similar post-operative outcomes, as well as one-year patient and graft survival. EAD should be managed supportively and should not be viewed as a deterrent to utilization of non-ideal grafts.

Fewer than 25 cases of hepatoid carcinoma of the pancreas have been reported in the literature. We present a case in a 61-year-old male with a remote history of Hodgkin’s lymphoma and gastric neuroendocrine cell hyperplasia. On surveillance endoscopic ultrasound, an 8 × 5 mm cystic lesion was seen in the tail of the pancreas. MRI showed a focal pancreatic duct cut-off with mild ductal dilation. Fine needle aspiration was performed, which was concerning for acinar cell carcinoma. The patient underwent distal pancreatectomy and recovered uneventfully. Final pathology demonstrated a 1.3-cm hepatoid carcinoma of the pancreas, with a final clinicopathological stage of T1N0M0. Next-generation nucleic acid sequencing of the tumor did not suggest a viable adjuvant chemotherapeutic agent, and no adjuvant therapy was administered. The patient has no evidence of disease 6 months following resection. A further characterization and description of the outcomes of these rare tumors is warranted to help guide providers and counsel patients.

BackgroundSignificant heterogeneity exists in practice patterns and algorithms used for cardiac screening before kidney transplant. Cardiorespiratory fitness, as measured by peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak), is an established validated predictor of future cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in both healthy and diseased populations. The literature supports its use among asymptomatic patients in abrogating the need for further cardiac testing. Methods and ResultsWe outlined a pre–renal transplant screening algorithm to incorporate VO2peak testing among a population of asymptomatic high‐risk patients (with diabetes mellitus and/or >50 years of age). Only those with VO2peak 90%) negative predictive value, indicating that VO2peak ≥17 mL/kg per minute is effective to rule out future cardiac events and all‐cause mortality. However, lower VO2peak had low positive predictive value and should not be used as a reliable metric to predict future cardiac events and/or mortality. In addition, a simple mathematical calculation documented a cost savings of ≈$272 600 in the cardiac screening among our study cohort of 637 patients undergoing evaluation for kidney and/or pancreas transplant. ConclusionsWe conclude that incorporating an objective measure of cardiorespiratory fitness with VO2peak is safe and allows for a cost savings in the cardiovascular screening protocol among higher‐risk phenotype (with diabetes mellitus and >50 years of age) being evaluated for kidney transplant.

Leaf curl disease of chilli has become a big menace and destroys the crop every year during kharif season because of which the farmers have abandoned growing the crop in kharif which is the main season of cultivation. Resistance breeding is the only safe and economical solution for this problem. WBC-Sel-5 was identified as a resistant genotype to ChiLCV after 4 seasons of rigorous field evaluation. This resistant line was used to generate F1 and F2 generations with susceptible recipient parent (Phule Mukta). F2 population raised from a cross of susceptible parent Phule Mukta and resistant parent WBC-Sel-5 was screened against chilli leaf curl virus along with parents and F1 in both natural and challenged inoculation using viruliferous white flies carrying chilli leaf curl virus. All the F1 plants were susceptible to leaf curl disease and the F2 population showed susceptible and resistant individuals segregating in 3:1 ratio under both natural and artificial epiphytotic conditions indicating monogenic recessive genetic control of resistance to chilli leaf curl virus disease.

Aim: To determine whether hospital characteristics predict cirrhosis mortality and how much variation in mortality is attributable to hospital differences., Methods: We used data from the 2005-2011 Nationwide Inpatient Sample and the American Hospital Association Annual survey to identify hospitalizations for decompensated cirrhosis and corresponding facility characteristics. We created hospital-specific risk and reliability-adjusted odds ratios for cirrhosis mortality, and evaluated patient and facility differences based on hospital performance quintiles. We used hierarchical regression models to determine the effect of these factors on mortality., Results: Seventy-two thousand seven hundred and thirty-three cirrhosis admissions were evaluated in 805 hospitals. Hospital mean cirrhosis annual case volume was 90.4 (range 25-828). Overall hospital cirrhosis mortality rate was 8.00%. Hospital-adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for mortality ranged from 0.48 to 1.89. Patient characteristics varied significantly by hospital aOR for mortality. Length of stay averaged 6.0 ± 1.6 days, and varied significantly by hospital performance ( P < 0.001). Facility level predictors of risk-adjusted mortality were higher Medicaid case-mix (OR = 1.00, P = 0.029) and LPN staffing (OR = 1.02, P = 0.015). Higher cirrhosis volume (OR = 0.99, P = 0.025) and liver transplant program status (OR = 0.83, P = 0.026) were significantly associated with survival. After adjusting for patient differences, era, and clustering effects, 15.3% of variation between hospitals was attributable to differences in facility characteristics., Conclusion: Hospital characteristics account for a significant proportion of variation in cirrhosis mortality. These findings have several implications for patients, providers, and health care delivery in liver disease care and inpatient health care design., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Background: We sought to compare liver transplant waiting list access by demographics and geography relative to the pool of potential liver transplant candidates across the United States using a novel metric of access to care, termed a liver wait-listing ratio (LWR)., Methods: We calculated LWRs from national liver transplant registration data and liver mortality data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and the National Center for Healthcare Statistics from 1999 to 2006 to identify variation by diagnosis, demographics, geography, and era., Results: Among patients with ALF and CLF, African Americans had significantly lower access to the waiting list compared with whites (acute: 0.201 versus 0.280; pre-MELD 0.201 versus 0.290; MELD era: 0.201 versus 0.274; all, P<0.0001) (chronic: 0.084 versus 0.163; pre-MELD 0.085 versus 0.179; MELD 0.084 versus 0.154; all, P<0.0001). Hispanics and whites had similar LWR in both eras (both P>0.05). In the MELD era, female subjects had greater access to the waiting list compared with male subjects (acute: 0.428 versus 0.154; chronic: 0.158 versus 0.140; all, P<0.0001). LWRs varied by three-fold by state (pre-MELD acute: 0.122-0.418, chronic: 0.092-0.247; MELD acute: 0.121-0.428, chronic: 0.092-0.243)., Conclusions: The marked inequity in early access to liver transplantation underscores the need for local and national policy initiatives to affect this disparity.

Background: We aimed to examine the association between recipient race/ethnicity and sex, donor liver quality, and liver transplant graft survival., Methods: Adult non-status 1 liver recipients transplanted between March 1, 2002, and December 31, 2008, were identified using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data. The factors of interest were recipient race/ethnicity and sex. Donor risk index (DRI) was used as a donor quality measure. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between race/ethnicity and sex in relation to the transplantation of low-quality (high DRI) or high-quality (low DRI) livers. Cox regression was used to assess the association between race/ethnicity and sex and liver graft failure risk, accounting for DRI., Results: Hispanics were 21% more likely to receive low-quality grafts compared to whites (odds ratio [OR]=1.21, P=0.002). Women had greater odds of receiving a low-quality graft compared to men (OR=1.24, P<0.0001). Despite adjustment for donor quality, African American recipients still had higher graft failure rates compared to whites (hazard ratio [HR]=1.28, P<0.001). Hispanics (HR=0.89, P=0.023) had significantly lower graft failure rates compared to whites despite higher odds of receiving a higher DRI graft. Using an interaction model of DRI and race/ethnicity, we found that the impact of DRI on graft failure rates was significantly reduced for African Americans compared to whites (P=0.02)., Conclusions: This study shows that while liver graft quality differed significantly by recipient race/ethnicity and sex, donor selection practices do not seem to be the dominant factor responsible for worse liver transplant outcomes for minority recipients.