Citations

Kidney transplantation is a critical treatment option for end-stage kidney disease patients, offering improved quality of life and increased survival rates. However, the complexities of kidney transplant care necessitate continuous advancements in decision making, patient communication, and operational efficiency. This article explores the potential integration of a sophisticated chatbot, an AI-powered conversational agent, to enhance kidney transplant practice and potentially improve patient outcomes. Chatbots and generative AI have shown promising applications in various domains, including healthcare, by simulating human-like interactions and generating contextually appropriate responses. Noteworthy AI models like ChatGPT by OpenAI, BingChat by Microsoft, and Bard AI by Google exhibit significant potential in supporting evidence-based research and healthcare decision making. The integration of chatbots in kidney transplant care may offer transformative possibilities. As a clinical decision support tool, it could provide healthcare professionals with real-time access to medical literature and guidelines, potentially enabling informed decision making and improved knowledge dissemination. Additionally, the chatbot has the potential to facilitate patient education by offering personalized and understandable information, addressing queries, and providing guidance on post-transplant care. Furthermore, under clinician or transplant pharmacist supervision, it has the potential to support post-transplant care and medication management by analyzing patient data, which may lead to tailored recommendations on dosages, monitoring schedules, and potential drug interactions. However, to fully ascertain its effectiveness and safety in these roles, further studies and validation are required. Its integration with existing clinical decision support systems may enhance risk stratification and treatment planning, contributing to more informed and efficient decision making in kidney transplant care. Given the importance of ethical considerations and bias mitigation in AI integration, future studies may evaluate long-term patient outcomes, cost-effectiveness, user experience, and the generalizability of chatbot recommendations. By addressing these factors and potentially leveraging AI capabilities, the integration of chatbots in kidney transplant care holds promise for potentially improving patient outcomes, enhancing decision making, and fostering the equitable and responsible use of AI in healthcare.

Longer pre-transplant dialysis duration is known to be associated with worse post-transplant outcomes. Our study aimed to cluster kidney transplant recipients with prolonged dialysis duration before transplant using an unsupervised machine learning approach to better assess heterogeneity within this cohort. We performed consensus cluster analysis based on recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related characteristics in 5092 kidney transplant recipients who had been on dialysis ≥ 10 years prior to transplant in the OPTN/UNOS database from 2010 to 2019. We characterized each assigned cluster and compared the posttransplant outcomes. Overall, the majority of patients with ≥10 years of dialysis duration were black (52%) or Hispanic (25%), with only a small number (17.6%) being moderately sensitized. Within this cohort, three clinically distinct clusters were identified. Cluster 1 patients were younger, non-diabetic and non-sensitized, had a lower body mass index (BMI) and received a kidney transplant from younger donors. Cluster 2 recipients were older, unsensitized and had a higher BMI; they received kidney transplant from older donors. Cluster 3 recipients were more likely to be female with a higher PRA. Compared to cluster 1, cluster 2 had lower 5-year death-censored graft (HR 1.40; 95% CI 1.16–1.71) and patient survival (HR 2.98; 95% CI 2.43–3.68). Clusters 1 and 3 had comparable death-censored graft and patient survival. Unsupervised machine learning was used to characterize kidney transplant recipients with prolonged pre-transplant dialysis into three clinically distinct clusters with variable but good post-transplant outcomes. Despite a dialysis duration ≥ 10 years, excellent outcomes were observed in most recipients, including those with moderate sensitization. A disproportionate number of minority recipients were observed within this cohort, suggesting multifactorial delays in accessing kidney transplantation.

Clinical outcomes of deceased donor kidney transplants coming from diabetic donors currently remain inconsistent, possibly due to high heterogeneities in this population. Our study aimed to cluster recipients of diabetic deceased donor kidney transplants using an unsupervised machine learning approach in order to identify subgroups with high risk of inferior outcomes and potential variables associated with these outcomes. Consensus cluster analysis was performed based on recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related characteristics in 7876 recipients of diabetic deceased donor kidney transplants 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 the clusters. Consensus cluster analysis identified three clinically distinct clusters. Recipients in cluster 1 (n = 2903) were characterized by oldest age (64 ± 8 years), highest rate of comorbid diabetes mellitus (55%). They were more likely to receive kidney allografts from donors that were older (58 ± 6.3 years), had hypertension (89%), met expanded criteria donor (ECD) status (78%), had a high rate of cerebrovascular death (63%), and carried a high kidney donor profile index (KDPI). Recipients in cluster 2 (n = 687) were younger (49 ± 13 years) and all were re-transplant patients with higher panel reactive antibodies (PRA) (88 [IQR 46, 98]) who received kidneys from younger (44 ± 11 years), non-ECD deceased donors (88%) with low numbers of HLA mismatch (4 [IQR 2, 5]). The cluster 3 cohort was characterized by first-time kidney transplant recipients (100%) who received kidney allografts from younger (42 ± 11 years), non-ECD deceased donors (98%). Compared to cluster 3, cluster 1 had higher incidence of primary non-function, delayed graft function, patient death and death-censored graft failure, whereas cluster 2 had higher incidence of delayed graft function and death-censored graft failure but comparable primary non-function and patient death. An unsupervised machine learning approach characterized diabetic donor kidney transplant patients into three clinically distinct clusters with differing outcomes. Our data highlight opportunities to improve utilization of high KDPI kidneys coming from diabetic donors in recipients with survival-limiting comorbidities such as those observed in cluster 1.

Abstract Background and Aims Individuals who are most susceptible to developing PTLD are those who are EBV-negative and receive organs from EBV-positive donors (EBV R-/D+). The evidence regarding the connection between ATG induction therapy and PTLD is inconsistent. No studies have specifically examined the relationship between ATG use and PTLD in subgroups of EBV-negative transplant recipients (EBV R-). Using the UNOS database, we studied the association between the use of induction agents and PTLD in EBV R- patients. Method We analyzed data from 2007 to 2022 of EBV R- patients who underwent their first kidney-only transplant and excluded those who received induction agents other than ATG, basiliximab, or alemtuzumab. We used logistic regression to evaluate the association between induction agents and PTLD. Results Of 20,531 recipients, 50.7% received ATG, 19.13% received basiliximab, 13.42% received alemtuzumab, and 16.75% received no induction. The overall PTLD incidence was 2.14%. ATG recipients had higher rates of deceased donor transplants, higher degree of HLA mismatch, longer dialysis vintage, and were less likely to be white, compared to non-ATG recipients. Multivariate analysis showed ATG recipients had a higher risk of PTLD compared to non-ATG (odds ratio = 1.47, p<0.001). After excluding recipients who did not receive induction, ATG remained a significant independent risk factor for PTLD when compared to recipients who received either basiliximab or alemtuzumab (odds ratio = 1.35, p = 0.007). There was no statistically significant difference in PTLD risk among patients treated with basiliximab, alemtuzumab, or no induction (refer to Table 1). Conclusion The use of ATG induction in EBV-negative kidney transplant recipients is associated with a higher risk of PTLD compared to basiliximab, alemtuzumab, and no induction. The risk of PTLD should be considered when choosing induction therapy for this patient population.

Background and Objectives: The aim of our study was to categorize very highly sensitized kidney transplant recipients with pre-transplant panel reactive antibody (PRA) ≥ 98% using an unsupervised machine learning approach as clinical outcomes for this population are inferior, despite receiving increased allocation priority. Identifying subgroups with higher risks for inferior outcomes is essential to guide individualized management strategies for these vulnerable recipients. Materials and Methods: To achieve this, we analyzed the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)/United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database from 2010 to 2019 and performed consensus cluster analysis based on the recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related characteristics in 7458 kidney transplant patients with pre-transplant PRA ≥ 98%. The key characteristics of each cluster were identified by calculating the standardized mean difference. The post-transplant outcomes were compared between the assigned clusters. Results: We identified two distinct clusters and compared the post-transplant outcomes among the assigned clusters of very highly sensitized kidney transplant patients. Cluster 1 patients were younger (median age 45 years), male predominant, and more likely to have previously undergone a kidney transplant, but had less diabetic kidney disease. Cluster 2 recipients were older (median 54 years), female predominant, and more likely to be undergoing a first-time transplant. While patient survival was comparable between the two clusters, cluster 1 had lower death-censored graft survival and higher acute rejection compared to cluster 2. Conclusions: The unsupervised machine learning approach categorized very highly sensitized kidney transplant patients into two clinically distinct clusters with differing post-transplant outcomes. A better understanding of these clinically distinct subgroups may assist the transplant community in developing individualized care strategies and improving the outcomes for very highly sensitized kidney transplant patients.

In situ abdominal normothermic regional perfusion (A-NRP) has been used for liver transplantation (LT) with donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver grafts in Europe with excellent results; however, adoption of A-NRP in the United States has been lacking. The current report describes the implementation and results of a portable, self-reliant A-NRP program in the United States. Isolated abdominal in situ perfusion with an extracorporeal circuit was achieved through cannulation in the abdomen or femoral vessels and inflation of a supraceliac aortic balloon and cross-clamp. The Quantum Transport System by Spectrum was used. The decision to use livers for LT was made through an assessment of perfusate lactate (q15min). From May to November 2022, 14 A-NRP donation after circulatory death procurements were performed by our abdominal transplant team (N = 11 LT, N = 20 kidney transplants, and 1 kidney-pancreas transplant). The median A-NRP run time was 68 minutes. None of the LT recipients had post-reperfusion syndrome, nor were there any cases of primary nonfunction. All livers were functioning well at the time of maximal follow-up with zero cases of ischemic cholangiopathy. The current report describes the feasibility of a portable A-NRP program that can be used in the United States. Excellent short-term post-transplant results were achieved with both livers and kidneys procured from A-NRP.

Background: Better understanding of the different phenotypes/subgroups of non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients may help the transplant community to identify strategies that improve outcomes among non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients. This study aimed to cluster non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients using an unsupervised machine learning approach; Methods: We conducted a consensus cluster analysis based on recipient-, donor-, and transplant- related characteristics in non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients in the United States from 2010 to 2019 in the OPTN/UNOS database using recipient, donor, and transplant-related characteristics. Each cluster’s key characteristics were identified using the standardized mean difference. Post-transplant outcomes were compared among the clusters; Results: Consensus cluster analysis was performed in 11,300 non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients and identified two distinct clusters best representing clinical characteristics. Cluster 1 patients were notable for young age, preemptive kidney transplant or dialysis duration of less than 1 year, working income, private insurance, non-hypertensive donors, and Hispanic living donors with a low number of HLA mismatch. In contrast, cluster 2 patients were characterized by non-ECD deceased donors with KDPI <85%. Consequently, cluster 1 patients had reduced cold ischemia time, lower proportion of machine-perfused kidneys, and lower incidence of delayed graft function after kidney transplant. Cluster 2 had higher 5-year death-censored graft failure (5.2% vs. 9.8%; p < 0.001), patient death (3.4% vs. 11.4%; p < 0.001), but similar one-year acute rejection (4.7% vs. 4.9%; p = 0.63), compared to cluster 1; Conclusions: Machine learning clustering approach successfully identified two clusters among non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients with distinct phenotypes that were associated with different outcomes, including allograft loss and patient survival. These findings underscore the need for individualized care for non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients.

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.