Transplantation Reviews最新文献

Background

The kidney is the most needed organ for transplantation in the United States. However, demand and scarcity of this organ has caused significant inequities for historically marginalized groups. In this review, we report on the frequency of inequities in all steps of kidney transplantation from 2016 to 2022. Search criteria was based on the National Institute of Health's (NIH) 2022 list of populations who experience health inequities, which includes: race and ethnicity; sex or gender; Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer + (LGBTQ+); underserved rural communities; education level; income; and occupation status. We outline steps for future research aimed at assessing interventions and programs to improve health outcomes.

Methods

This scoping review was developed following guidelines from the Joanna Briggs Institute and PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. In July 2022, we searched Medline (via PubMed) and Ovid Embase databases to identify articles addressing inequities in access to kidney transplantation in the United States. Articles had to address at least one of the NIH's 2022 health inequity groups.

Results

Our sample of 44 studies indicate that Black race, female sex or gender, and low socioeconomic status are negatively associated with referral, evaluation, and waitlisting for kidney transplantation. Furthermore, only two studies from our sample investigated LGBTQ+ identity since the NIH's addition of SGM in 2016 regarding access to transplantation. Lastly, we found no detectable trend in studies for the four most investigated inequity groups between 2016 and 2022.

Conclusion

Investigations in inequities for access to kidney transplantation for the two most studied groups, race/ethnicity and sex or gender, have shown no change in frequencies. Regarding race and ethnicity, continued interventions focused on educating Black patients and staff of dialysis facilities may increase transplant rates. Studies aimed at assessing effectiveness of the Kidney Paired Donation program are highly warranted due to incompatibility problems in female patients. The sparse representation for the LGBTQ+ population may be due to a lack of standardized data collection for sexual orientation. We recommend this community be engaged via surveys and further investigations.

Background

A standard graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) ≥0.8% is widely accepted in living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT); however, the potential donor pool is expanded to patients adopting small-for-size graft (SFSGs) with GRWR <0.8%. This study aimed to investigate the effect of SFSG on short- and long-term outcomes following LDLT.

Methods

Electronic databases were searched from January 1995 to January 2022 for studies comparing short- or long-term outcomes between patients with SFSG (GRWR <0.8%, SFSG group) and sufficient volume graft (GRWR ≥0.8%, non-SFSG group). The primary outcomes were one-, three-, and five-year overall survival (OS) and graft survival (GS), while the secondary outcome was postoperative complications.

Results

Twenty-four studies comprising 7996 patients were included. In terms of OS, SFSG group had poor three-year OS (HR: 1.48, 95% CI [1.01, 2.15], p = 0.04), but there were no significant differences between two groups in one-year OS (HR: 1.50, 95% CI [0.98, 2.29], p = 0.06) and five-year OS (HR: 1.40, 95% CI [0.95, 2.08], p = 0.02). In GS, there were no significant differences in one-year (HR 1.31, 95% CI [1.00, 1.72], p = 0.05), three-year (HR 1.33, 95% CI [0.97, 1.82], p = 0.07), and five-year GS (HR 1.17, 95% CI [0.95, 1.44], p = 0.13). The SFSG group had comparable postoperative complications, except for a high incidence of vascular complications and small-for-size syndromes.

Conclusions

Expanding the potential donor pool in LDLT to SFSG with GRWR <0.8% can be acceptable in terms of comparable long-term OS and GS, despite the risk for vascular complications and small-for-size syndrome.

Aim

To collate and summarize the current international literature on the transplant recipient outcomes of organs from Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) donors, as well as the actual and potential impact of organ donation following MAiD on the donation and transplantation system.

Background

The provision of organ donation following MAiD can impact the donation and transplantation system, as well as potential recipients of organs from the MAiD donor, therefore a comprehensive understanding of the potential and actual impact of organ donation after MAiD on the donation and transplantation systems is needed.

Design

Scoping review using the JBI framework.

Methods

We searched for published (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Academic Search Complete), and unpublished literature (organ donation organization websites worldwide). Included references discussed the actual and potential impact of organ donation following MAiD on the donation and transplantation system. All references were screened, extracted and analysed by two independent reviewers.

Results

We included 78 references in this review and our finding were summarized across three categories: (1) Impact in the donor pool: (2) statistics on organ donation following MAiD; and (3) potential and actual impact of MAiD on the donation and transplant system.

Conclusions

The potential impact of the MAiD donor on the transplant waiting list is relatively small as this process is still rare, however, due to the current organ shortage worldwide the contribution of this procedure should not be disregarded. Additionally, despite being limited, the existing research provided scanty evidence that organs retrieved from MAiD donors are associated with satisfactory graft function and survival rates and that outcomes from transplant recipients are comparable to those of organs from donation following brain death and may be better than those of organs from other types of donation after circulatory determined death. Still, further studies are required for comprehensive and reliable evidence.

The clinical outcomes of kidney donors with a prior history of nephrolithiasis are poorly defined. We conducted a systematic review assessing the post-donation clinical outcomes of kidney donors with a history of nephrolithiasis. Electronic databases (Ovid and Embase) were searched between 1960 and 2021 using key terms and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) – nephrolithiasis, renal stones, renal transplantation and renal graft. Articles included conference proceedings and journal articles and were not excluded based on patient numbers. Primary outcome was donor stone-related event. Secondary outcomes were renal function upon follow-up or post-operative nephrectomy complications. In summary, 340 articles were identified through database search. We identified 14 studies (16 cohorts) comprising 432 live donors followed up for a median of 26 months post live kidney donation. Six donors donated the stone-free kidney whilst 23 live donors had bilateral stones. Mean stone size was 4.2 ± 1.4 mm (1–16) with average follow up duration of 21.1 months (1–149). Twelve studies provided primary outcome (n = 138 patients) and eight (n = 348) for secondary outcomes. One donor had a stone-related event upon follow up. A total of 195 patients had eGFR <60 upon follow up. However, they were not significantly different when compared to renal function of live donors that didn't have pre-donation nephrolithiasis. Many of the studies couldn't provide long term follow up, coupled with limited data regarding the nature of the pre-donation stone disease. In conclusion, this systematic review shows that we have very limited information upon which to base recommendation regarding pre-donation risk of post-donation complications. Longer term follow up is required and lifelong follow up with live donor registries will aid further understanding.

Clinical management of transplant patients abruptly changed during the first months of COVID-19 pandemic (March to May 2020). The new situation led to very significant challenges, such as new forms of relationship between healthcare providers and patients and other professionals, design of protocols to prevent disease transmission and treatment of infected patients, management of waiting lists and of transplant programs during state/city lockdown, relevant reduction of medical training and educational activities, halt or delays of ongoing research, etc.

The two main objectives of the current report are: 1) to promote a project of best practices in transplantation taking advantage of the knowledge and experience acquired by professionals during the evolving situation of the COVID-19 pandemic, both in performing their usual care activity, as well as in the adjustments taken to adapt to the clinical context, and 2) to create a document that collects these best practices, thus allowing the creation of a useful compendium for the exchange of knowledge between different Transplant Units.

The scientific committee and expert panel finally standardized 30 best practices, including for the pretransplant period (n = 9), peritransplant period (n = 7), postransplant period (n = 8) and training and communication (n = 6). Many aspects of hospitals and units networking, telematic approaches, patient care, value-based medicine, hospitalization, and outpatient visit strategies, training for novelties and communication skills were covered.

Massive vaccination has greatly improved the outcomes of the pandemic, with a decrease in severe cases requiring intensive care and a reduction in mortality. However, suboptimal responses to vaccines have been observed in transplant recipients, and health care strategic plans are necessary in these vulnerable populations. The best practices contained in this expert panel report may aid to their broader implementation.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation (LDLT) emerged as an alternative treatment option for patients with end-stage liver disease waiting for an organ from a deceased donor. In addition to allowing for a faster access to transplantation, LDLT provides improved recipient outcomes when compared to deceased donor LT. However, it represents a more complex and demanding procedure for the transplant surgeon. In addition to a comprehensive preoperative donor assessment and stringent technical considerations during the donor hepatectomy to ensure upmost donor safety, the recipient procedure also comes with intrinsic challenges during LDLT. A proper approach during both procedures will result in favorable donor and recipient's outcomes. Hence, it is critical for the transplant surgeon to know how to overcome such technical challenges and avoid deleterious complications. One of the most feared complications following LDLT is small-for-size syndrome (SFSS). Although, surgical advances and deeper understanding of the pathophysiology behind SFSS has allowed for a safer implementation of LDLT, there is currently no consensus on the best strategy to prevent or manage this complication. Therefore, we aim to review current practices in technically challenging situations during LDLT, with a particular focus on management of small grafts and venous outflow reconstructions, as they possess one of the biggest technical challenges faced during LDLT.

Kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice for patients with end-stage renal disease. Although an improvement in graft survival has been observed in the last decades with the use of different immunosuppressive drugs, this is still limited in time with antibody-mediated rejection being a main cause of graft-loss. Immune monitoring and risk assessment of antibody-mediated rejection before and after kidney transplantation with useful biomarkers is key to tailoring treatments to achieve the best outcomes. Here, we provide a review of the rationale and several accessible tools for immune monitoring, from the most classic to the modern ones. Finally, we end up discussing a practical proposal for alloimmune risk assessment in kidney transplantation, including histocompatibility leukocyte antigen (HLA) and non-HLA antibodies, HLA molecular mismatch analysis and characterization of peripheral blood immune cells.

Cannabinoid use in patients seeking solid organ transplantation (SOT) is an important and unsettled matter which all transplantation clinicians regularly encounter. It is also a multifaceted, interprofessional issue, difficult for any specialty alone to adequately address in a research article or during clinical care. Such uncertainty lends itself to bias for or against cannabinoid use accompanied by inconsistent policies and procedures. Scientific literature in SOT regarding cannabinoids often narrowly examines the issue and exists mostly in liver and kidney transplantation. Published recommendations from professional societies are mosaics of vagueness and specificity mirroring the ongoing dilemma. The cannabinoid information SOT clinicians need for clinical care may require data and perspectives from diverse medical literature which are rarely synthesized. SOT teams may not be adequately staffed or trained to address various neuropsychiatric cannabinoid effects and risks in patients. In this article, authors from US transplantation centers conduct a systematized review of the few existing studies regarding clinician perceptions, use rates, and clinical impact of cannabinoid use in SOT patients; collate representative professional society guidance on the topic; draw from diverse medical literature bases to detail facets of cannabinoid use in psychiatry and addiction pertinent to all transplantation clinicians; provide basic clinical and policy recommendations; and indicate areas of future study.

Psychiatric and substance use disorders (SUD) commonly cause and contribute to advanced liver diseases and psychosocial phenomena remain some of the most challenging matters that liver transplantation (LT) teams encounter. Patients are often most focused on biomedical aspects of their treatment and LT course rather than subtler psychosocial factors which must be addressed alongside medical and surgical problems. This means that patients may not accept teams' recommendations for psychiatric and SUD treatment despite their primary role in treating liver disease and promoting successful LT. Alcohol-related liver disease is the archetype of these challenges. A crucial, actionable, and rarely discussed factor in creating a therapeutic interface between liver patients and psychiatric and SUD specialists is medical and surgical clinicians' interprofessional psychosocial communication (IPC; i.e., a clinician's personal ability to communicate effectively with patients about psychiatric and substance-related matters). In this article, we describe three crucial IPC timepoints during a typical ALD transplantation timeline, briefly review and synthesize diverse literature and perspectives into an overview of potential IPC pitfalls, propose practical IPC strategies for institutions and clinicians, and indicate future areas of study.