RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Living donor kidney transplantation is the optimal treatment for end-stage kidney disease; however, few living donor candidates (LDCs) who begin evaluation actually donate. While some LDCs are deemed medically ineligible, others discontinue for potentially modifiable reasons. METHODS: At five transplant centers, we conducted a prospective cohort study measuring LDCs' clinical and psychosocial characteristics, educational preparation, readiness to donate, and social determinants of health. We followed LDCs for 12 months after evaluation to determine whether they donated a kidney, opted to discontinue, had modifiable reasons for discontinuing, were medically ineligible, or had other recipient-related reasons for discontinuing. RESULTS: Among 2184 LDCs, 18.6% donated, 38.2% opted to or had modifiable reasons for discontinuing, and 43.2% were deemed ineligible due to medical or recipient-related reasons. Multivariable analyses comparing successful LDCs with those who did not complete donation for modifiable reasons (N = 1241) found that LDCs who discussed donation with the recipient before evaluation (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.54-3.46), had completed high school (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.21-3.35), or were a "close relation" to their recipient (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.33-2.69) were more likely to donate. Conversely, LDCs who reported religion as important (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.38-0.80), were Non-White (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49-1.00), or had overall higher anxiety scores (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.99) were less likely to donate. CONCLUSION: With fewer than a fifth of LDCs donating, developing programs to provide greater emotional support and facilitate open discussions between LDCs and recipients earlier may increase living donation rates.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Advanced practice providers (APPs) are trained, licensed health care providers. The American Society of Transplant APP community of practice developed an electronic survey to investigate transplant APP demographics, scope of practice, and academic activities. We defined the top of scope of practice as delivering health care to the fullest extent of APP education and training as allowed by state laws and regulations. From July 11, 2020, to August 31, 2020, 307 invitations were e-mailed and survey links were distributed electronically on the community of practice hub and social media. Two hundred fifty-three APPs responded. APPs practice in inpatient and outpatient settings. Among the respondent APPs, 11.5% assist in the operating room (OR), 46.3% of inpatient and 46.6% of outpatient APPs perform procedures, and 17.8% run specialized APP clinics. 26.2% feel they do not function at the top of their scope of practice and 29.7% were expected to function as a coordinator some or all of the time. Forty-three percent gave invited lectures, 41.5% have published, and 69.2% teach physician trainees. 74.7% and 35.1%, respectively, would like to participate in research and teach but are limited by time, opportunity, and experience. APPs should practice at the top of their scope of practice. Clinical workloads and lack of time limit the ability of APP to teach and contribute to evidence-based practice.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: The pandemic disrupted the care of patients with rheumatic diseases; difficulties in access to care and its psychological impact affected quality of life. Telemedicine as an alternative to traditional face-to-face office visits has the potential to mitigate this impact. Objective: To evaluate patient and provider experience with telemedicine and its effect on care. Methods: We surveyed patients with rheumatic diseases and their rheumatology providers. The surveys were conducted in 2020 and repeated in 2021. We assessed data on quality of care and health-related quality of life. Results: Hundred patients and 17 providers responded to the survey. Patients reported higher satisfaction with telemedicine in 2021 compared to 2020 (94 vs. 84%), felt more comfortable with (96 vs. 86%), expressed a stronger preference for (22 vs. 16%), and higher intention to use telemedicine in the future (83 vs. 77%); patients thought physicians were able to address their concerns. While providers' satisfaction with telemedicine increased (18-76%), 14/17 providers believed that telemedicine visits were worse than in-person visits. There were no differences in annualized office visits and admissions. Mean EQ-5D score was 0.74, lower than general population (0.87) but equivalent to a subset of patients with SLE (0.74). Conclusion: Our data showed a high level of satisfaction with telemedicine. The lower rheumatology provider satisfaction raises concern if telemedicine constitutes an acceptable alternative to in-person care. The stable number of office visits, admissions, and the similar quality of life to pre-pandemic level suggest effective management of rheumatic diseases using telemedicine/in-person hybrid care.

RESUMEN

Background: There are increasing calls to establish heart failure (HF) clinics due to their effectiveness in the interdisciplinary management of people living with HF. However, although a recommendation exists for palliative care (PC) providers to be part of the interdisciplinary team, few of the established HF clinics include them in their teams. Therefore, in this qualitative study, we aimed to understand the unmet PC needs of patients with HF attending an already established HF clinic. Methods: Secondary qualitative analysis of structured interviews undertaken within a larger study to validate the German version of the Needs Assessment Tool: Progressive Disease-Heart Failure (NAT: PD-HF). The NAT: PD-HF is a tool that aims to assess unmet needs in patients with HF. The interviews took place between January and March 2020 with patients from the ambulatory HF Clinic of a University Hospital in Switzerland. For this analysis, we transcribed and thematically analyzed the longest and most content-rich interviews until we reached data saturation at 31 participants. The interviews lasted 31 min on average (24-48 min). Results: Participants (n = 31) had a median age of 64 years (IQR 56-77), the majority had reduced ejection fraction, were men, and were classified as having a New York Heart Association functional class II. Participants were in general satisfied with the treatment and information received at the HF clinic. However, they reported several unmet needs. We therefore identified three ambivalences as main themes: (I) "feeling well-informed but missing essential discussions", (II) "although feeling mostly satisfied with the care, remaining with unmet care needs", and (III) "fearing a referral to palliative care but acknowledging its importance". Conclusion: Although patients who are receiving multidisciplinary management in ambulatory HF clinics are generally satisfied with the care received, they remain with unmet needs. These unmet needs, such as the need for advance care planning or the need for timely and tactful end-of-life discussions, can be fulfilled by PC providers. Including personnel trained in PC as part of the multidisciplinary team could help to address patients' needs, thus improving the quality of care and the quality of life of people living with HF.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Early extubation in liver transplantation (LT) and its potential benefits such as reduction in pulmonary complications and enhanced postoperative recovery have been described. The extent of the effect of early extubation on short-term outcomes after LT across the published literature is to the best of our knowledge unknown. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine whether early extubation improves immediate and short-term outcomes after LT and to provide expert recommendations. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis on short-term outcomes after early extubation in LT was performed (CRD42021241402), following PRISMA guidelines and quality of evidence (QOE) and recommendations grading using the GRADE approach, derived from an international experts panel. Endpoints were reintubation rates, pulmonary and other complications/organ dysfunction, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: Of 831 screened articles, 20 observational studies with a total of 3573 patients addressing early extubation protocols were included, of which 12 studies compared results after early versus deferred extubation. Reintubation and pulmonary complication rates were lower in the early versus deferred extubation groups (OR 0.29, CI 0.22-0.39; OR 0.17, CI 0.09-0.33, respectively). ICU and hospital LOS were shorter in eight out of eight and seven out of eight comparative studies, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Early extubation after LT is associated with improved short-term outcomes after LT and should be performed in the majority of patients (QOE; Moderate to low | Grade of Recommendation; Strong). Randomized controlled trials using standardized definitions of early extubation and short-term outcomes are needed to demonstrate causality, validate and allow comparability of the results.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 has declined over the course of the pandemic. Mortality trends specifically in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR) are unknown. Using data from a multicenter registry of SOTR hospitalized for COVID-19, we compared 28-day mortality between early 2020 (March 1, 2020-June 19, 2020) and late 2020 (June 20, 2020-December 31, 2020). Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess comorbidity-adjusted mortality. Time period of diagnosis was available for 1435/1616 (88.8%) SOTR and 971/1435 (67.7%) were hospitalized: 571/753 (75.8%) in early 2020 and 402/682 (58.9%) in late 2020 (p < .001). Crude 28-day mortality decreased between the early and late periods (112/571 [19.6%] vs. 55/402 [13.7%]) and remained lower in the late period even after adjusting for baseline comorbidities (aOR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.98, p = .016). Between the early and late periods, the use of corticosteroids (≥6 mg dexamethasone/day) and remdesivir increased (62/571 [10.9%] vs. 243/402 [61.5%], p < .001 and 50/571 [8.8%] vs. 213/402 [52.2%], p < .001, respectively), and the use of hydroxychloroquine and IL-6/IL-6 receptor inhibitor decreased (329/571 [60.0%] vs. 4/492 [1.0%], p < .001 and 73/571 [12.8%] vs. 5/402 [1.2%], p < .001, respectively). Mortality among SOTR hospitalized for COVID-19 declined between early and late 2020, consistent with trends reported in the general population. The mechanism(s) underlying improved survival require further study.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing kidney transplantation traditionally receive liberal amounts of fluid during surgery. However, excessive fluids can lead to fluid overload and ileus. In this retrospective cohort study, we compared the effect of restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy on kidney transplantation outcomes. METHODS: Patients who underwent deceased-donor kidney transplantation at Mayo Clinic from January 2014 to March 2019 were included. Those who received <3 L of intravenous fluids intraoperatively were categorized as "restrictive;" those who received ≥3 L were categorized as "liberal." The primary outcome was incidence of delayed graft function (DGF). Secondary outcomes included length of stay, readmission within 30 days, time to return of bowel function, and incidence of postoperative complications. RESULTS: Of the 1171 patients included, 557 were in the restrictive group and 614 in the liberal group. The mean (SD) fluid intake was 2.17 (.54) L in the restrictive group and 3.67 (.68) L in the liberal group (P<.001). There was no difference in DGF (relative risk, 1.03; P = .56), length of stay (P = .34), readmission (P = .80), return of bowel function (P = .71), or other postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative restrictive fluid therapy during kidney transplantation was not associated with DGF or worse outcomes when compared with liberal fluid therapy.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Aim: This study aimed to investigate the safety of transfusing red blood cell concentrates (RBCCs) through small [24 gauge (24G)] and extra-small [28 gauge [28G)] peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), according to guidelines of transfusion practice in Switzerland. Methods: We performed a non-inferiority in vitro study to assess the safety of transfusing RBCC for 4 h at a 4 ml/h speed through 24G silicone and 28G polyurethane PICC lines, compared with a peripheral 24G short catheter. The primary endpoint was hemolysis percentage. Secondary endpoints were catheter occlusion, inline pressure, and potassium and lactate values. Results: For the primary outcome, hemolysis values were not statistically different among catheter groups (0.06% variation, p = 0.95) or over time (2.75% variation, p = 0.72). The highest hemolysis values in both 24G and 28G PICCs were below the non-inferiority predefined margin. We did not observe catheter occlusion. Inline pressure varied between catheters but followed the same pattern of rapid increase followed by stabilization. Potassium and lactate measurements were not statistically different among tested catheters (0.139% variation, p = 0.98 for potassium and 0.062%, p = 0.96 for lactates). Conclusions: This study shows that RBCC transfusion performed in vitro through 24G silicone and 28G polyurethane PICC lines is feasible without detectable hemolysis or pressure concerns. Also, it adds that, concerning hemolysis, transfusion of RBCC in small and extra-small PICC lines is non-inferior to peripheral short 24G catheters. Clinical prospective assessment in preterm infants is needed to confirm these data further.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The use of non-opioid analgesics following surgery has proven beneficial in managing pain and decreasing adverse outcomes following surgery. Data assessing outcomes related to opioid use is limited in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). We evaluated the effectiveness of implementing a reduced to no opioid use protocol in KTRs. This retrospective cohort study included adult KTRs between January 2017 and July 2019 with a multimodal analgesic protocol (MAP), focused on limiting opioids, implemented in August 2018. We compared analgesic requirements in morphine milligram equivalents (MME) during transplant admissions between the MAP cohort and traditional cohort. There were 217 KTRs who met the criteria. Inpatient opioid use was significantly reduced in the MAP cohort (16.5 ± 19.2 MME/day vs 24.7 ± 19.7 MME/day; P <.05) with no significant difference in pain scores. No use of opioids within six months of discharge was significantly increased in the MAP cohort (50% vs 7%; P <.001), and there were no reported deaths at six months in either cohort. The use of multimodal analgesia is beneficial in KTRs to provide adequate pain control with limited to no exposure of opioids during admission or at discharge.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is one of the most common and significant complications after solid organ transplant (SOT). Severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes the novel betacoronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19), has become the first global pandemic in 100 years. The world's attention has turned to address this unanticipated development; however, the viral infection that has long plagued outcomes after solid organ transplantation still requires vigilance. With physical distancing as the key intervention to reduce the healthcare burden, and the unease related to healthcare contact within the transplant population given the associated morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 in transplant recipients, providers have struggled to evaluate and streamline essential in-person healthcare contact, including laboratory visits. Owing to this, the COVID-19 pandemic has placed a significant strain on the delivery of CMV prophylaxis and treatment after solid organ transplantation. In this piece, we will describe issues our CMV antiviral stewardship service has encountered in the care of the transplant recipient with CMV during the this unprecedented time and share our expert opinion to approaches to providing optimal, evidenced based care during a pandemic associated with a seemingly unrelated viral infection.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Kidney transplant is a life-changing procedure, and transplant nephrologists, as part of a larger transplant team, play an important role in the field by managing the complex medical needs of transplant patients. The subspecialty of transplant nephrology, however, faces structural challenges related to its workforce, reporting structures, compensation, research and innovation, and health care information technology. The position of transplant nephrology at the academic and operational intersection of medicine and surgery may limit its access to critical resources, hinder academic promotion, and contribute to physician burnout. The authors provide an overview of the subspecialty transplant nephrology and propose solutions. Collaborative efforts that fortify the subspecialty of transplant nephrology will ultimately improve the lives of patients suffering from kidney disease.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Despite extraordinary achievements in over the past 20 years, the field of transplantation remains hindered by relatively narrow metrics for success. Eudaimonia is an Aristotelian concept that refers to flourishing, or achieving the best conditions possible, in every sense. The vast amounts of patient data that are collected throughout the transplant care continuum, ranging from social determinants of health to genomic profiles and patient-reported outcomes, afford us unprecedented opportunity to enhance our definition of success for our transplant patients. We must engage the technologies available for data integration and analysis and apply them in an insightful way, such that our clinical practice evolves beyond patient and graft survival and toward a more comprehensive state of wellness.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The management of a kidney transplant program has evolved significantly in the last decades to become a highly specialized, multidisciplinary standard of care for end-stage kidney disease. Transplant center job descriptions have similarly morphed with increasing responsibilities to address a more complex patient mix, increasing medical and surgical therapeutic options, and increasing regulatory burden in the face of an ever-increasing organ shortage. Within this evolution, the role of the Kidney Transplant Medical Director (KTMD) has expanded beyond the basic requirements described in the United Network for Organ Sharing bylaws. Without a clear job description, transplant nephrology trainees may be inadequately trained and practicing transplant nephrologists may face opaque expectations for the roles and responsibilities of Medical Director. To address this gap and clarify the key areas in which the KTMD interfaces with the kidney transplant program, American Society of Transplantation (AST) formed a Task Force of 14 AST KTMDs to review and define the role of the KTMD in key aspects of administrative, regulatory, budgetary, and educational oversight of a kidney transplant program.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Kidney transplant program performance in the United States is commonly measured by posttransplant outcomes. Inclusion of pretransplant measures could provide a more comprehensive assessment of transplant program performance and necessary information for patient decision-making. In this study, we propose a new metric, the waitlisting rate, defined as the ratio of patients who are waitlisted in a center relative to the person-years referred for evaluation to a program. Furthermore, we standardize the waitlisting rate relative to the state average in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The new metric was used as a proof-of-concept to assess transplant-program access compared to the existing transplant rate metric. The study cohorts were defined by linking 2017 United States Renal Data System (USRDS) data with transplant-program referral data from the Southeastern United States between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2016. Waitlisting rate varied across the 9 Southeastern transplant programs, ranging from 10 to 22 events per 100 patient-years, whereas the program-specific waitlisting rate ratio ranged between 0.76 and 1.33. Program-specific waitlisting rate ratio was uncorrelated with the transplant rate ratio (r = -.15, 95% CI, -0.83 to 0.57). Findings warrant collection of national data on early transplant steps, such as referral, for a more comprehensive assessment of transplant program performance and pretransplant access.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Disparities that affect equity in access to kidney transplantation for patients with kidney failure have been well described. Many robust clinical trials have tested the effectiveness of interventions to reduce disparities and equilibrate access to kidney transplantation. Moreover, policy changes have been enacted to achieve the same aims. Despite these efforts, rates of kidney transplant waitlisting within the first year of end-stage kidney disease have remained unchanged over the past 2 decades, while incident rates of end-stage kidney disease have climbed. Because prior interventions have not durably increased transplant access, disruptive change is clearly needed. The Advancing American Kidney Health Executive Order sets bold goals to transform kidney care for patients and caregivers. In this spirit, we discuss an Opt-Out for Transplant Referral Model as a compelling solution to improve equity in access to kidney transplantation.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Islet allotransplantation in the United States (US) is facing an imminent demise. Despite nearly three decades of progress in the field, an archaic regulatory framework has stymied US clinical practice. Current regulations do not reflect the state-of-the-art in clinical or technical practices. In the US, islets are considered biologic drugs and "more than minimally manipulated" human cell and tissue products (HCT/Ps). In contrast, across the world, human islets are appropriately defined as "minimally manipulated tissue" and not regulated as a drug, which has led to islet allotransplantation (allo-ITx) becoming a standard-of-care procedure for selected patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. This regulatory distinction impedes patient access to islets for transplantation in the US. As a result only 11 patients underwent allo-ITx in the US between 2016 and 2019, and all as investigational procedures in the settings of a clinical trials. Herein, we describe the current regulations pertaining to islet transplantation in the United States. We explore the progress which has been made in the field and demonstrate why the regulatory framework must be updated to both better reflect our current clinical practice and to deal with upcoming challenges. We propose specific updates to current regulations which are required for the renaissance of ethical, safe, effective, and affordable allo-ITx in the United States.

Asunto(s)