Citations

Mayo Clinic

Clear

4 citation(s) found for "Wagler, Josiah".

Outcomes with transplanting kidneys offered through expedited allocation
Ohara, Stephanie , Punukollu, Rachana , Wagler, Josiah , Ruch, Brianna , Kumm, Kayla , Budhiraja, Pooja , Me, Hay Me , Mathur, Amit K. , Reddy, Kunam S. , Khamash, Hasan , Heilman, Raymond L. , Jadlowiec, Caroline , Ohara, Stephanie Y , Punukollu, Rachana , Budhiraja, Pooja , Mathur, Amit , Heilman, Raymond , Jadlowiec, Caroline C.

Clinical Transplantation | August 11, 2023 | Volume: 37 | Issue: 11 | Pages: No page available

10.1111/ctr.15094 | PMID 37563488 Get It

AbstractIntroductionExpedited out‐of‐sequence deceased donor kidney allocation is a strategy to avoid discards after early placement attempts have been unsuccessful. Our study aimed to assess outcomes and characteristics of these transplanted kidneys.MethodsKDPI matching was performed between expedited allocation (EA) and standard allocation (SA) deceased donor kidney transplants performed at our center.ResultsBetween 2018 and 2021, there were 225 EA offers, and 189 (84%) were transplanted. EA recipients were older (p = .007) and had shorter dialysis vintage (p < .0001). EA kidneys were likely to be nationally allocated (p < .001), have AKI (p < .0001) and longer CIT (p < .0001). There were no differences in EA and SA time‐zero kidney biopsies (ci, p = .07; ct, p = .89; cv, p = .95; ah, p = .79). EA kidneys had more DGF (p = .0006), but there were no differences in DGF duration (p = .83), hospital length of stay (p = .43), 1‐ and 2‐year eGFR (p = .16, p = .99), patient (p = .34), or death‐censored graft (p = .66) survival.ConclusionDuring this study period, our center transplanted 189 kidneys through EA following local‐regional declines. These kidneys often came from AKI donors and had more DGF but had similar outcomes to KDPI‐matched SA kidneys. Although it has been suggested that EA has the potential to worsen transplant disparities, transplant center level decisions on organ acceptance contribute to these variations.
Hepatocellular Carcinoma, Alpha Fetoprotein, and Liver Allocation for Transplantation: Past, Present and Future
Ruch, Brianna , Wagler, Josiah , Kumm, Kayla , Zhang, Chi , Katariya, Nitin , García-Saenz-de-Sicilia, Mauricio , Giorgakis, Emmanouil , Mathur, Amit K. , Katariya, Nitin N , Mathur, Amit , Giorgakis, Emmanouil

Current Oncology | October 8, 2022 | Volume: 29 | Issue: 10 | Pages: 7537-7551

10.3390/curroncol29100593 | PMID 36290870 Get It

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.
Outcomes of dual kidney transplants from high KDPI kidneys are superior compared to single kidney high KDPI transplants at 1 year
Das, Devika , Wagler, Josiah , Ohara, Stephanie , Nguyen, Michelle , Frasco, Peter E. , Smith, Maxwell L. , Khamash, Hasan , Mathur, Amit K. , Budhiraja, Pooja , Reddy, Kunam S. , Heilman, Raymond L. , Smith, Maxwell , Reddy, Kunam S , Heilman, Raymond , Jadlowiec, Caroline , Das, Devika , Ohara, Stephanie Y , Budhiraja, Pooja , Nguyen, Michelle C , Jadlowiec, Caroline C.

Clinical Transplantation | May 28, 2022 | Volume: 36 | Issue: 8 | Pages: No page available

10.1111/ctr.14737 | PMID 35633507 Get It

AbstractDual kidney transplantation (DKT), utilizing two adult kidneys from the same donor for one recipient, has been used as a way to expand the available donor pool. These kidneys often come from high Kidney Donor Profile Index donors (KDPI > 85%). Data comparing outcomes between high KDPI DKT and single kidney transplants (SKT) remain limited. We assessed outcomes of 336 high KDPI kidney transplants performed at our center; 11.0% (n = 37) were DKT. Recipients of DKT were older (P = .02) and donors had a higher KDPI score (median 96% vs. 91%, P < .0001). DKT operative time was higher compared to SKT (+1.4 hours, P < .0001). There were no differences in delayed graft function (54.1% vs. 51.5%, P = .77) and hospital length of stay (median 4.0 vs. 3.0 days, P = .21) between DKT and SKT. Grade I Clavien‐Dindo complications occurred in 8.1% of DKT and 13.7% of SKT (P = .008). There were no grade IVa, IVb, or V complications in either group. DKT had more glomerulosclerosis (P = .04), interstitial fibrosis (P = .02), tubular atrophy (P = .01), and arterial thickening (P = .03) on 1‐year protocol biopsies. Estimated glomerular filtration was higher for DKT at 1‐ (P = .004) and 2‐years post‐transplant (P = .01). There were no differences in patient (HR 1.3, 95% CI .5‐3.3, P = .58) or graft (HR 1.1, 95% CI .5‐2.3, P = .83) survival. Good outcomes can be achieved with DKT using high KDPI kidneys with moderate chronic changes. DKT is a good option to help further utilize high KDPI kidneys and minimize discard.
Solid Organ Transplantation From SARS-CoV-2–infected Donors to Uninfected Recipients: A Single-center Experience
Jayasekera, Channa R., Vikram, Holenarasipur R., Rifat, Zeeshan, Wagler, Josiah, Okubo, Keita, Braaksma, Brandon R., Harbell, Jack W., Jadlowiec, Caroline C., Katariya, Nitin N., Mathur, Amit K., Moss, Adyr, Reddy, K. Sudhakar, Singer, Andrew, Orenstein, Robert, Saling, Christopher F., Seville, Maria T., Mour, Girish K., Vargas, Hugo E., Byrne, Thomas J., Hewitt, Winston R., Aqel, Bashar A., Vargas, Hugo E. , Vikram, Holenarasipur R. , Katariya, Nitin , Vikram, Holenarasipur R. , Vargas, Hugo E , Katariya, Nitin N , Jayasekera, Channa R., Rifat, Zeeshan, Wagler, Josiah, Okubo, Keita, Braaksma, Brandon R., Harbell, Jack W., Jadlowiec, Caroline C., Mathur, Amit K., Moss, Adyr, Reddy, K. Sudhakar, Singer, Andrew, Orenstein, Robert, Saling, Christopher F., Seville, Maria T., Mour, Girish K., Byrne, Thomas J., Hewitt, Winston R., Aqel, Bashar A., Okubo, Keita

Transplantation Direct | January 13, 2022 | Volume: 8 | Issue: 2 | Pages: e1286

10.1097/txd.0000000000001286 | PMID 35047665 Get It

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.