Transplantation Direct最新文献

Background: Organ donation registration rates in the United States are lowest among Asian Americans. This study aimed to investigate the reasons for low organ donation registration rates among Asian Americans and develop educational material to help improve organ donation rates and awareness.

Methods: We conducted a 2-phase study. In phase 1, a cross-sectional observational survey was distributed in-person on an iPad to members of the Asian community in Queens, New York, to investigate their knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs toward organ donation. Based on the results, an educational video was developed, and the efficacy of the video was assessed with an independent cohort of participants in phase 2 using a pre-/post-video comprehension assessment survey.

Results: Among 514 Chinese or Korean Americans who participated in the phase 1 survey, 97 participants (19%) reported being registered organ donors. Registered donors were more likely to have previously discussed their organ donation wishes with their family (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.56-8.85; P < 0.01), knowledge of the different registration methods (aOR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.24-5.31; P < 0.01), or know a registered organ donor (aOR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.39-4.95; P < 0.01). For the educational video efficacy assessment given pre-/post-video, the majority (90%) of the respondents reported learning something new from the video. After watching the video, there was a significant improvement in the mean knowledge score regarding organ donation (63% versus 92%; P < 0.01) and an increase in intention to have discussion regarding organ donation with family.

Conclusions: We found varies factors associated with low organ donation registration rates among Asian Americans and demonstrated the potential of our educational video to impart organ donation knowledge to viewers and instigate the intention to have family discussions regarding organ donation. Further research is needed to assess the impact of videos in motivating actual organ donation registration.

Background: Demographic analyses may reveal current patterns of change in the outcomes of rapidly developing medical procedures because they incorporate the period perspective.

Methods: We analyzed the changes in size, age structure, and hospitalizations in the population of liver transplantation (LT) survivors in our center during the last 30 y (n = 1114 patients) and generated projections, including life expectancy (LE), considering cohort and period effects. Life tables were used to project the complete LE (overall 1990-2020 experience), the cohort LE (according to the decade of surgery: 1990-2000, 2000-2010, and 2010-2020), and the period LE (current 2015-2020 experience).

Results: The population of LT recipients in follow-up continued to experience progressive growth and aging since 1990 (492 patients [41.9% >65 y] in 2020), and the magnitude of these phenomena may double in the next 30 y. However, the number of admissions and days of admission has been decreasing. The complete LE at LT was 12.4 y, whereas the period LE was 15.8 y. The cohort LE (limited to 10 y) was 5.3, 6.3, and 7.3 y for the 1990-2000, 2000-2010, and 2010-2020 cohorts, respectively.

Conclusions: The target population of our medical care after LT is growing and aging. The prevalence of both of these phenomena is expected to increase in the coming years and is associated with a current improvement in LE. However, the hospitalization burden associated with LT survivors is declining. The period effect should be considered for generating up-to-date information on these current trends, which are crucial when designing health policies for LT survivors.

Background: Innovative solutions are crucial as the demand for liver transplants continues to outpace available grafts. Dual graft liver transplantation offers a promising avenue to address graft volume challenges while minimizing donor risks. This report introduces a groundbreaking approach, combining a full organ domino donor graft with a living donor graft for a hybrid dual graft liver transplant.

Brief report: A 2-y-old child with Maple syrup urine disease and a 40-y-old adult with end-stage liver disease became the focus of this unique case. A hybrid dual graft liver transplant was executed, uniting the domino donor's full organ graft with a living donor's left lateral segment. Precise vascular and biliary reconstructions facilitated a successful transplant.

Conclusions: The hybrid dual graft liver transplant, merging domino donor and living donor grafts, presents a viable strategy to combat graft shortages, particularly in regions predominantly reliant on living donor transplants. Despite challenges, this pioneering approach should be embraced by established liver transplant centers because it enables concurrent living donor liver transplantation while prioritizing donor safety and recipient outcomes.

Background: In kidney transplant recipients with positive serology (R+) for the cytomegalovirus (CMV), 2 strategies are used to prevent infection, whose respective advantages over the other are still debated. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost utility of antiviral prophylaxis against CMV versus preemptive therapy, considering CMV infection-free survival over the first year posttransplantation as the main clinical outcome.

Methods: Clinical, laboratory, and economic data were collected from 186 kidney transplant patients CMV (R+) included in the cohort study (85 patients who benefited from CMV prophylaxis and 101 from preemptive therapy). Costs were calculated from the hospital perspective and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) using the EQ5D form. Using nonparametric bootstrapping, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and cost utility were estimated (euros) for each case of infection avoided and each QALY gained for 1 y, respectively.

Results: Prophylaxis significantly decreased the risk of CMV infection over the first year posttransplantation (hazard ratio 0.22, 95% confidence interval = 0.12-0.37, P < 0.01). Compared with preemptive therapy, prophylaxis saved financial resources (€1155 per patient) and was more effective (0.42 infection avoided per patient), resulting in an ICER = €2769 per infection avoided. Prophylaxis resulted in a net gain of 0.046 in QALYs per patient and dominated over preemptive therapy with €1422 cost-saving for 1 QALY gained.

Conclusions: This study shows that CMV prophylaxis, although considered as a more expensive strategy, is more cost-effective than preemptive therapy for the prevention of CMV infections in renal transplant patients. Prophylaxis had a positive effect on quality of life at reasonable costs and resulted in net savings for the hospital.

Background: Organ allocation in the United States to non-US citizen, non-US residents who travel for transplant (NC/NRTx) is controversial. Current policies may not be informed by stakeholder opinions, as limited data exist assessing the knowledge or opinions of providers or patients on this issue.

Methods: A cross-sectional, hospital-based pilot survey was distributed to providers and patients from December 2019 to June 2020 at a single large urban transplant institute. Providers were members of the departments of surgery and medicine and included both transplant and nontransplant providers. Surveys included 10 questions on eligibility, prioritization, and limitations for deceased donor transplantation and 12 demographic questions.

Results: A total of 209 providers responded (61% women, median age 40) and 119 patients responded (62% women, median age 54). Awareness of eligibility for transplantation of US citizens, non-US citizens residing in the United States (NC/R), and NC/NRTx was high in both groups, though providers and patients lacked awareness of the eligibility of nonlegal NC/R (those who live in the United States who are not citizens and are not legal residents) to donate and receive organs. Overall, 79.3% of patients stated that NC/NRTx should be eligible for transplant in the United States compared with only 60.7% of providers (P = 0.001). Providers were more likely than patients to prioritize transplant to legal NC/NR over NC/NRTx (58.2% versus 35.1%, P < 000.1) and reported that families should be able to limit donations to NC/NRTx (34.9% versus 23.2%, P = 0.03).

Conclusions: Surveyed patients and providers generally support transplant in non-US citizens; however, the strength of support varied considerably based on the legal status of the patient and the occupation of those surveyed. Larger studies are necessary to develop data-informed policy.

Background: Solid organ transplant recipients have a high risk of severe outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection. A comprehensive understanding of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic across multiple waves in the solid organ transplant population and how this compares to the general population is limited. We conducted a population-based cohort study using linked administrative healthcare databases from Ontario, Canada to answer this question.

Methods: We included 15 306 solid organ transplant recipients and 12 160 904 individuals from the general population. Our primary outcome was the rate (per 100 person-years) of severe COVID-19 (ie, hospitalization or death with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test) occurring between January 25, 2020, and November 30, 2022.

Results: Compared with the general population, solid organ transplant recipients had almost a 6 times higher rate of severe COVID-19 (20.39 versus 3.44 per 100 person-years), with almost 5.5 times as high a rate of death alone (4.19 versus 0.77 per 100 person-years). Transplant recipients with severe COVID-19 were substantially younger (60.1 versus 66.5 y) and had more comorbidities. The rate of severe COVID-19 declined over time in the solid organ transplant population, with an incidence rate of 41.25 per 100 person-years in the first wave (January 25, 2020, to August 31, 2020) and 18.41 in the seventh wave (June 19, 2022, to November 30, 2022, Omicron era).

Conclusions: Solid organ transplant recipients remain at high risk of severe outcomes when they are infected with SARS-CoV-2. Resources and strategies to mitigate the impact of SARS-CoV-2 exposure are needed in this vulnerable patient population.

Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways represent a comprehensive approach to optimizing perioperative management and reducing hospital stay and cost. In living donor kidney transplantation, key impediments to postoperative discharge include pain, and opioid associated complications such as nausea, vomiting, and the return of gastrointestinal function.

Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, living kidney transplantation donors were assigned to either the ERAS or control group. The ERAS group patients received 15 preoperative, 17 intraoperative, 19 postoperative element intervention. The control group received standard care. The ERAS group received a multimodal opioid sparing pain management including an intraoperative transverse abdominis plane block. Our primary outcome measure was postoperative opioid consumption. The secondary outcome measures were postoperative pain scores, first oral intake, and hospital length of stay.

Results: There were no significant differences in demographics between the 2 groups. The ERAS group had a statistically significant reduction in total postoperative opioid consumption calculated in intravenous morphine equivalents (24.2 ± 20.2 versus 71 ± 39.5 mg, P < 0.01). Postoperative pain scores were significantly lower (P < 0.001) from 1 h postoperatively to 48 h. Surgical time was 45 min shorter (P = 0.037). Intraoperative PlasmaLyte administration was lower (PlasmaLyte: 1444 ± 907 versus 2168 ± 1347 mL, P = 0.049). Time to tolerating regular diet was shorter by 2 h (P < 0.008), and length of hospital stay was decreased by 10.1 h.

Conclusions: The ERAS group experienced superior postoperative analgesia and a shorter length of hospital stay compared with controls.

Background: Ex situ machine perfusion is increasingly used to preserve and assess donor livers before transplantation. Compared with traditional static cold storage (SCS), machine perfusion exposes livers to an additional risk of microbial contamination. However, information on the risk of microbial transmission during machine perfusion is lacking.

Methods: All livers that underwent either hypothermic oxygenated machine perfusion (HOPE) or normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) in our center between September 2021 and September 2023, and during which samples were taken from SCS fluid and/or machine perfusion solution for microbiological examination, were included in this retrospective, observational clinical study. Microbial transmission was examined from SCS fluid to machine perfusion solution fluid and, subsequently, to recipients of these livers.

Results: A total of 90 cases of liver machine perfusion were included: 59 HOPE and 31 NMP. SCS preservation fluid cultures before HOPE or NMP were positive for at least 1 microorganism in 52% of the cases. After HOPE, there were no cases of positive machine perfusion fluid or evidence of microbial transmission to the recipients. After NMP, in 1 (3%) patient Escherichia coli was grown from abdominal drain fluid, the same bacterial strain that was also grown from the SCS preservation fluid before NMP. This E coli was resistant to the antibiotics that are routinely added to the NMP perfusion fluid.

Conclusions: The risk of microbial transmission after machine perfusion is very low but not absent. We recommend routine sampling of machine perfusion fluid at the end of the procedure for microbiological analysis.