Wadei, Hani M.

AbstractOptimizing immunity against vaccine‐preventable diseases improves outcomes in kidney transplant (KT) patients (Arora et al,World J Transplant, 2019, 9:1; Sester et al,Transplant Rev, 2008, 22:274; Fishman,N Engl J Med, 2007, 357:2601). The American Society for Transplantation (AST) Clinical Practice Guidelines advises that serologic screening for measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) be conducted for all KT candidates, since live‐attenuated vaccines are contraindicated post‐transplantation (Malinis et al,Clin Transplant, 2019, 33:e13548). Our team at Mayo Clinic Florida (MCF) conducted a quality improvement (QI) initiative to establish a best MMR screening and immunizations clinical practice in KT candidates using a Plan‐Do‐Study‐Act (PDSA) model. By retrospective chart review of all KT candidates evaluated at our institution from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017, baseline data determining the rate of MMR serologic screening was established. PDSA cycles were implemented to adopt protocol‐driven testing for MMR serologies, immunization documentation, and vaccination in cases of seronegativity to any of the three MMR viruses in all pre‐KT candidates. Two PDSA cycles were completed in 4 months. The study population totaled 447 patients (baseline n = 283, PDSA 1 n = 61, PDSA 2 n = 103). Baseline data showed that 83% (n = 235) of pre‐KT candidates received infectious disease consultation (IDC). Complete MMR (all three viruses) serological screening in KT candidates improved from baseline 3.9%‐87.4% post‐PDSA cycle 2 (P < .001). Necessary immunizations per AST guidelines were ordered in only 41.1% (n = 23) of the control cohort vs 100% (n = 12) and 96.9% (n = 31) of PDSA cycles 1 and 2, respectively (P < .001). The data reflect significant practice improvements in MMR screening and immunization rates among KT candidates by using protocol‐driven orders combined with our pre‐existing IDCs.

Abstract Introduction. COVID-19 presents a special challenge to the kidney transplant population. Methods. A systematic review of articles that examined COVID-19 in kidney transplant recipients was performed. Patients’ demographics, clinical, laboratory and radiological presentations, immunosuppression modification, and COVID-19 specific management were abstracted and analyzed. COVID-19 severity was classified into mild, moderate, and severe. Disease outcome was classified by whether the patient was discharged, still hospitalized, or died. Results. 44 articles reporting individual data and 13 articles reporting aggregated data on 149 and 561 kidney transplant recipients respectively with COVID-19 from Asia, Europe and America fulfilled all inclusion and exclusion criteria. Among studies reporting case specific data, 76% of cases had severe disease. Compared to patients with mild/moderate disease, patients with severe disease had higher CRP, LDH, Ferritin, D-dimer and were more likely to have bilateral lung involvement at presentation and longer time since transplantation (P < 0.05 for all). Recipients’ age, gender and comorbidities did not impact disease severity. Patients with severe disease had a more aggressive CNI reduction and more antiviral medications utilization. Outcome was reported on 145 cases, of those 34 (23%) died all with severe disease. Longer duration from transplant to disease diagnosis, hypoxia and higher LDH were associated with mortality (P < 0.05). Different immunosuppression reduction strategies, high dose parenteral corticosteroids use and various antiviral combinations did not demonstrate survival advantage. Similar finding was observed for studies reporting aggregated data. Conclusion. COVID-19 in kidney transplant patients is associated with high rate of disease severity and fatality. Higher LDH and longer time since transplantation predicted both disease severity and mortality. None of the COVID-19 specific treatment correlated with, or improved disease outcome in kidney transplant recipients.

Abstract Background and Aims Hypertension (HTN) and psychiatric disorders frequently co-exist in general population. Serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine re-uptake inhibitors (SNRIs) affect serotonin and norepinephrine and may lead to variation in blood pressure (BP). There is paucity of data on blood pressure variations using 24 hours ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) with the use of SSRIs/NSRIs. Method Subjects who underwent psychiatric evaluation and ABPM within six month of each other between 1/1/2012 to 12/31/2016 at Mayo Clinic Florida were identified using billing data. Demographics, co-morbidities, medications, ABPM, and laboratory results were retrospectively collected from medical records. Subjects were divided into groups – subjects with no psychiatric diagnosis and no psychiatric medicine (Group 1) and subjects with psychiatric diagnosis and on SSRIs/NSRIs (Group 2). BP systolic and diastolic levels (day time, night time) were compared between groups controlling for age, sex, race, presence or absence of HTN, diabetes mellitus (DM) and smoking. Single and multivariable linear regression models were used to analyze group differences. Results Total of 367 subjects met inclusion criteria – Group 1=135; Group 2=232. The subjects in group 2 were older (median age 57 yrs vs 47 yrs p&lt;0.001), white (69.8 vs 60% p=0.002), smokers (15.9 vs 3.0% p&lt;0.001), history of HTN (62.5 vs 9.6%), and DM (21.1% vs 0%). ABPM showed that subjects in group 2 had higher median daytime systolic BP (131 vs 124), higher median night time systolic BP (120 vs 110), and higher median night time diastolic BP (68 vs 63). Multivariable linear regression controlling for age, sex, race, presence or absence of HTN, DM, and smoking showed that use of SSRIs/NSRIs (group 2) was significantly associated with higher night time systolic BP (8.36 mm; 95% CI 4.2, 12.5; p &lt;0.0001) and higher night time diastolic BP (4.6 mm, 95% CI 1.9, 7.29, p=0.001). On subgroup analysis comparing subjects with use of SSRIs vs NSRIs, there was no statistically significant difference in the daytime or night time systolic or diastolic BP. Conclusion Use of SSRIs and NSRIs are associated with higher nocturnal systolic and diastolic BP, which can potentially increase the risk of adverse cardiovascular outcome in this population. Higher nocturnal BP may be due to ongoing sympathetic activation during sleep with serotonin and norepinephrine with the use of SRRIs and NSRI. Further well designed prospective studies using ABPM are needed to determine the risk of nocturnal hypertension with the use of SSRIs/NSRIs that could have potential adverse cardiovascular outcome.

Abstract Background There are few studies of histologic acute graft pyelonephritis (HAGPN) following kidney transplant (KT). The goals of this study are to determine incidence, identify potential risk factors and describe outcomes of HAGPN in a large cohort of KT recipients. Methods Renal allograft biopsies of all patients undergoing first KT at our medical center between 2008 and 2017 were reviewed. HAGPN was defined as the presence of neutrophils within the interstitium and tubules (casts). Medical charts of patients with HAGPN were reviewed. Episodes of bacteriuria (≥10:5 cfu/mL growth in culture) were classified as urinary tract infection (UTI) or asymptomatic bacteruria (ASB) based upon documented symptoms. An episode of acute rejection was defined as pulse parenteral immunosuppressive therapy for histologic evidence of rejection. Results HAGPN was identified in 43 of 1,391 (3.1%) KT recipients at a median of 298 days post-transplant. There were no significant differences between recipient age or gender, donor age or transplant type (deceased, living related, living unrelated) between recipients with and without HAGPN. Urologic malformation was diagnosed in 14 (33%) by day 30 post-transplant. Twenty-five (58%), 17 (40%), and 13 (30%) sustained one or more episodes of acute rejection, UTI and ASB, respectively, prior to HAGPN. At diagnosis of HAGPN, 28 (65%), 7 (16%), and 16 (37%) had histologic evidence of rejection, UTI and ASB, respectively. Twenty-two (51%) and 37 (86%) were treated with pulse immunosuppression and antibiotics, respectively. Median nadir serum creatinine before HAGPN was 1.1 mg/day while median serum creatinine at 6 and 12 months after HAGPN were 1.5 and 1.6. Three patients (7%) developed graft failure within 1 year after HAGPN. Conclusion HAGPN is an infrequent complication of KT. A majority of patients with HAGPN have histologic evidence of rejection and either UTI or ASB at diagnosis, though over 40% have neither UTI nor ASB. When rejection accompanying HAGPN is routinely treated with pulse immunosuppression and antibiotic therapy is administered, graft function is preserved for most patients but a minority (7%) loses graft function within 1 year. Potential risk factors to be assessed in further study include post-transplant urologic dysfunction, acute rejection and UTI. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Previous large registry studies have demonstrated inferior outcomes for simultaneous liver‐kidney transplantation (SLKT) recipients of grafts from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors compared with those from donation after brain death (DBD) donors in the era from 2000 to 2010. Given the improving national results in liver transplantation alone using grafts from DCD donors, the present study aimed to investigate if results with DCD‐SLKT have improved in the modern era. Patients undergoing SLKT between 2000 and 2018 were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Analysis and Research file and divided into 2 eras based on the date of SLKT: era 1 (2000‐2010) and era 2 (2011‐2018). Improvement in DCD‐SLKT patient, liver graft, and kidney graft survival rates was seen between era 1 and era 2 (P < 0.001). Concurrently, there was a decrease in the proportion of critically ill (P = 0.02) and retransplant (P = 0.006) candidates undergoing DCD‐SLKT. When DCD‐SLKT in era 2 was compared with a propensity‐matched cohort of DBD‐SLKT in era 2, no differences in patient (P = 0.99), liver graft (P = 0.19), or kidney graft (P = 0.90) survival were observed. In addition, both bilirubin (0.5 versus 0.5 mg/dL; P = 0.86) and creatinine (1.2 versus 1.2 mg/dL; P = 0.68) at last follow‐up were not different between the DCD‐SLKT and DBD‐SLKT patients in era 2. In conclusion, in the most recent era, patients undergoing DCD‐SLKT were able to achieve similar outcomes compared with matched patients undergoing DBD‐SLKT. DCD‐SLKT represents a viable option for appropriately selected recipients.

Renal dysfunction is common in liver transplantation (LT) candidates, but differentiating between reversible and irreversible renal injury can be difficult. Kidney biopsy might be helpful in differentiating reversible from irreversible renal injury, but it is associated with significant complications. We aimed to identify pre‐LT predictors of potentially reversible renal injury using histological information obtained on pre‐LT renal biopsy. Data on 128 LT candidates who underwent pre‐LT kidney biopsy were retrospectively collected and correlated with renal histological findings. Indications for kidney biopsy were iothalamate glomerular filtration rate (iGFR) ≤40 mL/minute, proteinuria >500 mg/day, and/or hematuria. According to the biopsy diagnosis, patients were grouped into the following categories: normal (n = 13); acute tubular necrosis (ATN; n = 25); membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis (n = 19); minimal histological changes (n = 24); and advanced interstitial fibrosis (IF) and glomerulosclerosis (GS) (n = 47). Compared with patients having advanced IF/GS, patients with normal biopsies and those with ATN had lower systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and higher international normalized ratio and total bilirubin levels (<0.05 for all). Both SBP and DBP directly correlated with the degree of IF and GS (R = 0.3, P ≤ 0.02 for all). SBP ≤90 mm Hg was 100% sensitive and 98% specific in correlating with normal biopsies or ATN, whereas SBP ≥140 mm Hg was 22% sensitive and 90% specific in correlating with advanced IF/GS. Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease score, serum creatinine, iGFR, urinary sodium excretion, and renal size did not correlate with biopsy diagnosis or degree of IF or GS. In conclusion, SBP at the time of LT evaluation correlates with renal histology, and it should be included along with other clinical and laboratory markers in the decision‐making process to list patients with renal dysfunction for LT alone versus simultaneous liver‐kidney transplantation.

Abstract Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) identifies allografts with marginal function soon after liver transplantation (LT) and is associated with poor LT outcomes. The impact of EAD on post-LT renal recovery, however, has not been studied. Data on 69 primary LT recipients (41 with and 28 without history of renal dysfunction) who received renal replacement therapy (RRT) for a median (range) of 9 (13-41) days before LT were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcome was renal nonrecovery defined as RRT requirement 30 days from LT. Early allograft dysfunction developed in 21 (30%) patients, and 22 (32%) patients did not recover renal function. Early allograft dysfunction was more common in the renal nonrecovery group (50% vs 21%, P = 0.016). Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that EAD (odds ratio, 7.25; 95% confidence interval, 2.0-25.8; P = 0.002) and baseline serum creatinine (odds ratio, 3.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-8.1; P = 0.007) were independently associated with renal nonrecovery. History of renal dysfunction, duration of renal dysfunction, and duration of RRT were not related to renal recovery ( P > 0.2 for all). Patients who had EAD and renal nonrecovery had the worst 1-, 3-, and 5-year patient survival, whereas those without EAD and recovered renal function had the best outcomes ( P < 0.001). Post-LT EAD was independently associated with renal nonrecovery in LT recipients on RRT for a short duration before LT. Furthermore, EAD in the setting of renal nonrecovery resulted in the worst long-term survival. Measures to prevent EAD should be undertaken in LT recipients on RRT at time of LT.