Cooper, Matthew

AbstractIntroductionIn October 2021, the American Society of Transplantation (AST) hosted a virtual consensus conference aimed at identifying and addressing barriers to the broader, safe expansion of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) throughout the United States (US).MethodsA multidisciplinary group of LDLT experts convened to address issues related to financial implications on the donor, transplant center crisis management, regulatory and oversight policies, and ethical considerations by assessing the relative significance of issues in preventing LDLT growth, with proposed strategies to overcome barriers.ResultsLiving liver donors endure multiple obstacles including financial instability, loss of job security, and potential morbidity. These concerns, along with other center, state, and federal specific policies can be perceived as significant barriers to expanding LDLT. Donor safety is of paramount importance to the transplant community; however, regulatory and oversight policies aimed at ensuring donor safety can be viewed as ambiguous and complicated leading to time‐consuming evaluations that may deter donor motivation and program expansion.ConclusionTransplant programs need to establish appropriate crisis management plans to mitigate potential negative donor outcomes and ensure program viability and stability. Finally, ethical aspects, including informed consent for high‐risk recipients and use of non‐directed donors, can be perceived as additional barriers to expanding LDLT.

Abstract Introduction Significant center‐to‐center variation in attitudes and management of delayed graft function (DGF) remains common. Methods A survey to describe current DGF practices was developed by workgroup members sponsored by the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) and was distributed to both the NKF DGF workgroup members, kidney transplant program directors and the transplant community within the United States and Canada. Seventy‐one percent of NKF workgroup members completed the survey along with 70 unique the United States and three Canadian kidney transplant programs. All Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) regions were represented. Results DGF was reported to occur at rate of 20%–40% for most centers with 3.9% indicating their incidence to be >60%. Most centers reported longer hospital lengths of stay and more frequent outpatient visits. Despite the commonality of DGF, only half of centers reported having an established protocol to manage DGF. Kidney allograft biopsies were the only consistent DGF management strategy observed, although use of machine perfusion was also heavily favored. Other DGF management strategies voiced by a minority included having established outpatient practices to care for DGF patients and administering outpatient community‐based hemodialysis. Conclusion Although approximately a third of survey responders indicated that risk of DGF played a role in their willingness to accept organs, most did not feel that increased cost or clinical impact on outcomes was a deterrent. Future strategies, including broader sharing of best practices, redefining terminology specific to DGF, the establishment of DGF dialysis guidelines and improving access to machine perfusion across OPOs may help reduce discard and improve utilization of kidneys at risk for DGF.

AbstractBackgroundOur study aimed to characterize kidney retransplant recipients using an unsupervised machine‐learning approach.MethodsWe performed consensus cluster analysis based on the recipient‐, donor‐, and transplant‐related characteristics in 17 443 kidney retransplant recipients in the OPTN/UNOS database from 2010 to 2019. We identified each cluster's key characteristics using the standardized mean difference of >.3. We compared the posttransplant outcomes, including death‐censored graft failure and patient death among the assigned clustersResultsConsensus cluster analysis identified three distinct clusters of kidney retransplant recipients. Cluster 1 recipients were predominantly white and were less sensitized. They were most likely to receive a living donor kidney transplant and more likely to be preemptive (30%) or need ≤1 year of dialysis (32%). In contrast, cluster 2 recipients were the most sensitized (median PRA 95%). They were more likely to have been on dialysis >1 year, and receive a nationally allocated, low HLA mismatch, standard KDPI deceased donor kidney. Recipients in cluster 3 were more likely to be minorities (37% Black; 15% Hispanic). They were moderately sensitized with a median PRA of 87% and were also most likely to have been on dialysis >1 year. They received locally allocated high HLA mismatch kidneys from standard KDPI deceased donors. Thymoglobulin was the most commonly used induction agent for all three clusters. Cluster 1 had the most favorable patient and graft survival, while cluster 3 had the worst patient and graft survival.ConclusionThe use of an unsupervised machine learning approach characterized kidney retransplant recipients into three clinically distinct clusters with differing posttransplant outcomes. Recipients with moderate allosensitization, such as those represented in cluster 3, are perhaps more disadvantaged in the kidney retransplantation process. Potential opportunities for improvement specific to these re‐transplant recipients include working to improve opportunities to improve access to living donor kidney transplantation, living donor paired exchange and identifying strategies for better HLA matching.

AbstractWell‐selected patients with kidney disease and diabetes mellitus who undergo simultaneous kidney‐pancreas transplantation often experience dramatic improvements in quality of life and long‐term survival compared to those who remain on medical therapy. Over the past several years the importance of frailty in the pancreas transplant candidate and recipient populations has grown. More patients with advanced age have entered the waitlist, and complications from prolonged diabetes, even in younger patients, have created increased evidence of risk for frailty. Given these concerns, and the broad challenges facing pancreas transplantation volumes overall, we generated this review to help establish the impact and implications. We summarize the interplay of immunological factors, aging, environmental factors, diabetes mellitus, and chronic kidney disease that put these patients at risk for frailty. We discuss its measurement and recommend a combination of two instruments (both well‐validated and one entirely objective). We describe the outcomes for patients before and after pancreas transplantation who may have frailty, and what interventions can be taken to mitigate its effects. Broader investigation into frailty in the pancreas transplant population is needed to better understand how to select patients for pancreas transplantation and to how manage its consequences thereafter.

Background and Objectives: Our study aimed to cluster dual kidney transplant recipients using an unsupervised machine learning approach to characterize donors and recipients better and to compare the survival outcomes across these various clusters. Materials and Methods: We performed consensus cluster analysis based on recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related characteristics in 2821 dual kidney transplant recipients from 2010 to 2019 in the OPTN/UNOS database. We determined the important characteristics of each assigned cluster and compared the post-transplant outcomes between clusters. Results: Two clinically distinct clusters were identified by consensus cluster analysis. Cluster 1 patients was characterized by younger patients (mean recipient age 49 ± 13 years) who received dual kidney transplant from pediatric (mean donor age 3 ± 8 years) non-expanded criteria deceased donor (100% non-ECD). In contrast, Cluster 2 patients were characterized by older patients (mean recipient age 63 ± 9 years) who received dual kidney transplant from adult (mean donor age 59 ± 11 years) donor with high kidney donor profile index (KDPI) score (59% had KDPI ≥ 85). Cluster 1 had higher patient survival (98.0% vs. 94.6% at 1 year, and 92.1% vs. 76.3% at 5 years), and lower acute rejection (4.2% vs. 6.1% within 1 year), when compared to cluster 2. Death-censored graft survival was comparable between two groups (93.5% vs. 94.9% at 1 year, and 89.2% vs. 84.8% at 5 years). Conclusions: In summary, DKT in the United States remains uncommon. Two clusters, based on specific recipient and donor characteristics, were identified through an unsupervised machine learning approach. Despite varying differences in donor and recipient age between the two clusters, death-censored graft survival was excellent and comparable. Broader utilization of DKT from high KDPI kidneys and pediatric en bloc kidneys should be encouraged to better address the ongoing organ shortage.

Background: Our study aimed to characterize kidney transplant recipients who received high kidney donor profile index (KDPI) kidneys using unsupervised machine learning approach. Methods: We used the OPTN/UNOS database from 2010 to 2019 to perform consensus cluster analysis based on recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related characteristics in 8935 kidney transplant recipients from deceased donors with KDPI ≥ 85%. We identified each cluster’s key characteristics using the standardized mean difference of >0.3. We compared the posttransplant outcomes among the assigned clusters. Results: Consensus cluster analysis identified 6 clinically distinct clusters of kidney transplant recipients from donors with high KDPI. Cluster 1 was characterized by young, black, hypertensive, non-diabetic patients who were on dialysis for more than 3 years before receiving kidney transplant from black donors; cluster 2 by elderly, white, non-diabetic patients who had preemptive kidney transplant or were on dialysis less than 3 years before receiving kidney transplant from older white donors; cluster 3 by young, non-diabetic, retransplant patients; cluster 4 by young, non-obese, non-diabetic patients who received dual kidney transplant from pediatric, black, non-hypertensive non-ECD deceased donors; cluster 5 by low number of HLA mismatch; cluster 6 by diabetes mellitus. Cluster 4 had the best patient survival, whereas cluster 3 had the worst patient survival. Cluster 2 had the best death-censored graft survival, whereas cluster 4 and cluster 3 had the worst death-censored graft survival at 1 and 5 years, respectively. Cluster 2 and cluster 4 had the best overall graft survival at 1 and 5 years, respectively, whereas cluster 3 had the worst overall graft survival. Conclusions: Unsupervised machine learning approach kidney transplant recipients from donors with high KDPI based on their pattern of clinical characteristics into 6 clinically distinct clusters.

Background. There is no standard definition for “HLA incompatible” transplants. For the first time, we systematically assessed how HLA incompatibility was defined in contemporary peer-reviewed publications and its prognostic implication to transplant outcomes. Methods. We combined 2 independent searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from 2015 to 2019. Content-expert reviewers screened for original research on outcomes of HLA-incompatible transplants (defined as allele or molecular mismatch and solid-phase or cell-based assays). We ascertained the completeness of reporting on a predefined set of variables assessing HLA incompatibility, therapies, and outcomes. Given significant heterogeneity, we conducted narrative synthesis and assessed risk of bias in studies examining the association between death-censored graft failure and HLA incompatibility. Results. Of 6656 screened articles, 163 evaluated transplant outcomes by HLA incompatibility. Most articles reported on cytotoxic/flow T-cell crossmatches (n = 98). Molecular genotypes were reported for selected loci at the allele-group level. Sixteen articles reported on epitope compatibility. Pretransplant donor-specific HLA antibodies were often considered (n = 143); yet there was heterogeneity in sample handling, assay procedure, and incomplete reporting on donor-specific HLA antibodies assignment. Induction (n = 129) and maintenance immunosuppression (n = 140) were frequently mentioned but less so rejection treatment (n = 72) and desensitization (n = 70). Studies assessing death-censored graft failure risk by HLA incompatibility were vulnerable to bias in the participant, predictor, and analysis domains. Conclusions. Optimization of transplant outcomes and personalized care depends on accurate HLA compatibility assessment. Reporting on a standard set of variables will help assess generalizability of research, allow knowledge synthesis, and facilitate international collaboration in clinical trials.

Background: This study aimed to better characterize morbidly obese kidney transplant recipients, their clinical characteristics, and outcomes by using an unsupervised machine learning approach. Methods: Consensus cluster analysis was applied to OPTN/UNOS data from 2010 to 2019 based on recipient, donor, and transplant characteristics in kidney transplant recipients with a pre-transplant BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2. Key cluster characteristics were identified using the standardized mean difference. Post-transplant outcomes, including death-censored graft failure, patient death, and acute allograft rejection, were compared among the clusters. Results: Consensus clustering analysis identified 3204 kidney transplant recipients with a BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2. In this cohort, five clinically distinct clusters were identified. Cluster 1 recipients were predominantly white and non-sensitized, had a short dialysis time or were preemptive, and were more likely to receive living donor kidney transplants. Cluster 2 recipients were older and diabetic. They were likely to have been on dialysis >3 years and receive a standard KDPI deceased donor kidney. Cluster 3 recipients were young, black, and had kidney disease secondary to hypertension or glomerular disease. Cluster 3 recipients had >3 years of dialysis and received non-ECD, young, deceased donor kidney transplants with a KDPI < 85%. Cluster 4 recipients were diabetic with variable dialysis duration who either received non-ECD standard KDPI kidneys or living donor kidney transplants. Cluster 5 recipients were young retransplants that were sensitized. One-year patient survival in clusters 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 was 98.0%, 94.4%, 98.5%, 98.7%, and 97%, and one-year death-censored graft survival was 98.1%, 93.0%, 96.1%, 98.8%, and 93.0%, respectively. Cluster 2 had the worst one-year patient survival. Clusters 2 and 5 had the worst one-year death-censored graft survival. Conclusions: With the application of unsupervised machine learning, variable post-transplant outcomes are observed among morbidly obese kidney transplant recipients. Recipients with earlier access to transplant and living donation show superior outcomes. Unexpectedly, reduced graft survival in cluster 3 recipients perhaps underscores socioeconomic access to post-transplant support and minorities being disadvantaged in access to preemptive and living donor transplants. Despite obesity-related concerns, one-year patient and graft survival were favorable in all clusters, and obesity itself should be reconsidered as a hard barrier to kidney transplantation.

Background: There have been concerns regarding increased perioperative mortality, length of hospital stay, and rates of graft loss in kidney transplant recipients with functional limitations. The application of machine learning consensus clustering approach may provide a novel understanding of unique phenotypes of functionally limited kidney transplant recipients with distinct outcomes in order to identify strategies to improve outcomes. Methods: Consensus cluster analysis was performed based on recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related characteristics in 3205 functionally limited kidney transplant recipients (Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) < 40% at transplant) in the OPTN/UNOS database from 2010 to 2019. Each cluster’s key characteristics were identified using the standardized mean difference. Posttransplant outcomes, including death-censored graft failure, patient death, and acute allograft rejection were compared among the clusters Results: Consensus cluster analysis identified two distinct clusters that best represented the clinical characteristics of kidney transplant recipients with limited functional status prior to transplant. Cluster 1 patients were older in age and were more likely to receive deceased donor kidney transplant with a higher number of HLA mismatches. In contrast, cluster 2 patients were younger, had shorter dialysis duration, were more likely to be retransplants, and were more likely to receive living donor kidney transplants from HLA mismatched donors. As such, cluster 2 recipients had a higher PRA, less cold ischemia time, and lower proportion of machine-perfused kidneys. Despite having a low KPS, 5-year patient survival was 79.1 and 83.9% for clusters 1 and 2; 5-year death-censored graft survival was 86.9 and 91.9%. Cluster 1 had lower death-censored graft survival and patient survival but higher acute rejection, compared to cluster 2. Conclusion: Our study used an unsupervised machine learning approach to characterize kidney transplant recipients with limited functional status into two clinically distinct clusters with differing posttransplant outcomes.