Woodside, Kenneth

ABSTRACT Background Adolescent and young adult (AYA) kidney transplant recipients (KTR) are susceptible to risk‐taking behaviors that peak during transfer from pediatric to adult healthcare, resulting in poorer outcomes. Professional guidelines support healthcare transition (HCT) practices to mitigate this risk; however, HCT perspectives and practices among providers, especially adult providers caring for KTR in the US, have not been widely studied. Methods An online survey of American Society of Transplantation (AST) members was conducted targeting both adult providers (AP) and pediatric providers (PP). Results The survey was completed by 135 respondents (predominantly US), including 61 PP and 74 AP. US respondents who disclosed their center ID represented 30% of all programs. Providers agreed that HCT was important (PP 97%, AP 94%) and a shared responsibility (PP 91% and AP 84%). Respondents to our survey frequently worked within transition programs (PP 70% vs. AP 48%), but the majority did not have a formal HCT policy to guide them (PP 43%, AP 21%). Multidisciplinary transition clinics were rare (PP 27%, AP 23%). Only 64% of PP included targeted HCT education either as part of a routine visit or a HCT session. Perceived barriers to providing HCT interventions were similar in both groups, including a lack of provider resources, outcomes tracking, provider communication, and patient/caregiver feedback. Conclusion Providers recognize the importance of HCT and the joint responsibility of PP and AP but have difficulty following best practices. A multipronged approach will be necessary to address barriers. Our survey reminds us of the gap that persists in providing AYAs with a seamless transfer from pediatric to adult care.

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.

AbstractBackgroundDue to a substantial decline in pancreas transplantation (PT) across the United States over the past 15 years, we sought to understand the perceptions and practices of US PT programs.MethodsSurveys were sent to members of the American Society of Transplantation Surgeons and the American Society of Transplantation by email and professional society postings between August 2019 and November 2019.ResultsOne hundred twenty three responses were recorded from 56 unique programs. Program characteristics were obtained from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Respondents were transplant surgeons (71%), transplant nephrologists (17%), trainees (9%), and allied professionals (3%). Programs were defined according to annual volume as: low (<5 PT/year), intermediate (6–20), or high (>20). High‐volume programs reported that these factors were most important for increased PT: expansion of recipient selection, more aggressive donor utilization, and hiring of PT program‐specific personnel. At both the program and national level, the vast majority (82% and 79%, respectively) felt the number of PTs currently performed are not in balance with patients' needs.ConclusionsOverall, programs reported that the option of PT is not offered adequately to diabetic patients and that strategies to maintain higher PT volume are most evident at intermediate, and especially, high‐volume programs.