Explore the vast range of titles available.

On the contrary, accepting a DCD liver, even from higher-risk donors, as evidenced by the subgroup analysis on DCD livers from donors age≥ 50, BMI≥30, and with a medical history of DM or HTN, lowers mortality risk compared to remaining on the waitlist, with the greatest survival benefit seen in the higher acuity recipients (10,11). Compared to static cold storage (SCS), these modalities have all been shown in randomized clinical trials and cohort studies to reduce the incidence of early allograft dysfunction, post-reperfusion syndrome, and ischemic cholangiopathy in DCD-LT (12–17). Conflict of interest The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. (2021)384:1391–401. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2031532 13NasrallaDCoussiosCCMergentalHAkhtarMZButlerAJCeresaCDL.A randomized trial of normothermic preservation in liver transplantation.Nature.

Background There is controversy regarding the impact of delayed graft function (DGF) on kidney transplant outcomes. We hypothesize that the duration of DGF, rather than DGF itself, is associated with long-term kidney graft function. Methods We analyzed all deceased donor kidney transplants (DDKT) done at our center between 2008 to 2020. We determined factors associated with DGF duration. DGF duration was assessed at three 14-day intervals: < 14 DGF days, 14–27 DGF days, > 28 DGF days. We studied the impact of DGF duration on survival and graft function and resource utilization, including hospital length of stay and readmissions. Results 1714 DDKT recipients were included, 59.4% ( n  = 1018) had DGF. The median DGF duration was 10 days IQR (6,15). The majority of recipients (95%) had resolution of DGF within 28 days. Donor factors associated with DGF days were longer cold ischemia time, donor on inotropes, older age, donation after circulatory death, higher terminal creatinine, and hypertension. Recipient factors associated with increased DGF duration included male sex, length on dialysis before transplant, and higher body mass index. There were no differences in acute rejection events or interstitial fibrosis progression by 4 months when comparing DGF days. The median length of stay was 3 days. However, readmissions increased with increasing DGF duration. Death-censored graft survival was not associated with the length of DGF except when DGF lasted > 28 days. Conclusions Inferior graft survival was observed only in recipients of DDKT with DGF lasting beyond 28 days. DGF lasting < 28 days had no impact on graft survival. Duration of DGF, rather than DGF itself, is associated with graft survival. Trial Registration Retrospective study approved by Mayo Clinic IRB number ID: 20-011561.

Background and Objectives: Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) is considered a surrogate marker for adverse post-liver transplant (LT) outcomes. With the increasing use of nonconventional donors, EAD has become a more frequent occurrence. Given this background, we aimed to assess the prevalence and impact of EAD in an updated cohort inclusive of both conventional and nonconventional liver allografts. Materials and Methods: Perioperative and one-year outcomes were assessed for a total of 611 LT recipients with and without EAD from Mayo Clinic Arizona. EAD was defined as the presence of one or more of the following: bilirubin > 10 mg/dL on day 7, INR > 1.6 on day 7, or ALT and/or AST > 2000 IU/L within the first 7 days of LT. Results: Within this cohort, 31.8% of grafts (n = 194) came from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors, 17.7% (n = 108) were nationally shared, 16.4% (n = 100) were allocated as post-cross clamp, and 8.7% contained moderate steatosis. EAD was observed in 52.2% (n = 321) of grafts in the study cohort (79% in DCD grafts and 40% in DBD grafts). EAD grafts had higher donor risk index (DRI) scores (1.9 vs. 1.6, p < 0.0001), were more likely to come from DCD donors (48% vs. 13.8%, p < 0.0001), were regionally allocated (p = 0.003), and had higher cold ischemia times (median 6.0 vs. 5.5 h, p = 0.001). Primary nonfunction events were rare in both groups (1.3% vs. 0.3%, p = 0.22). Post-LT acute kidney injury occurred at a similar frequency in recipients with and without EAD (43.6% vs. 30.3%, p = 0.41), and there were no differences in ICU (median 2 vs. 1 day, p = 0.60) or hospital (6 vs. 5 days, p = 0.24) length of stay. For DCD grafts, the rate of ischemic cholangiopathy was similar in the two groups (14.9% EAD vs. 17.5% no EAD, p = 0.69). One-year patient survival for grafts with and without EAD was 96.0% and 94.1% (HR 1.2, 95% CI 0.7–1.8; p = 0.54); one-year graft survival was 92.5% and 92.1% (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7–1.5; p = 0.88). Conclusions: In this cohort, EAD occurred in 52% of grafts. The occurrence of EAD, however, did not portend inferior outcomes. Compared to those without EAD, recipients with EAD had similar post-operative outcomes, as well as one-year patient and graft survival. EAD should be managed supportively and should not be viewed as a deterrent to utilization of non-ideal grafts.

OBJECTIVE: New-onset diabetes after kidney transplantation (NODAT) has adverse clinical and economic implications. A risk score for NODAT could help identify research subjects for intervention studies. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study using pretransplant clinical and laboratory measurements to construct a risk score for NODAT. NODAT was defined by hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥6.5%, fasting serum glucose ≥126 mg/dL, or prescribed therapy for diabetes within 1 year posttransplant. Three multivariate logistic regression models were constructed: 1) standard model, with both continuous and discrete variables; 2) dichotomous model, with continuous variables dichotomized at clinically relevant cut points; and 3) summary score defined as the sum of the points accrued using the terms from the dichotomous model. RESULTS: A total of 316 subjects had seven pretransplant variables with P < 0.10 in univariate logistic regression analyses (age, planned corticosteroid therapy posttransplant, prescription for gout medicine, BMI, fasting glucose and triglycerides, and family history of type 2 diabetes) that were selected for multivariate models. Areas under receiver operating curves for all three models were similar (0.72, 0.71, and 0.70). A simple risk score calculated as the sum of points from the seven variables performed as well as the other two models in identifying risk of NODAT. CONCLUSIONS: A risk score computed from seven simple pretransplant variables can identify risk of NODAT.

(1) Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) kidneys have high non-utilization rates due to concerns regarding unfavorable outcomes. In this paper, we aimed to review the past, present, and future opinions on AKI kidneys. (2) Methods: A PubMed search was conducted for topics relevant to AKI kidney transplantation. (3) Results: Current short- and long-term data on AKI kidneys have demonstrated good outcomes including favorable graft function and survival. The role of procurement biopsies is controversial, but they have been shown to be beneficial in AKI kidneys by allowing clinicians to differentiate between reversible tubular injury and irreversible cortical necrosis. Machine perfusion has also been applied to AKI kidneys and has been shown to reduce delayed graft function (DGF). The incidence of DGF increases with AKI severity and its management can be challenging. Strategies employed to counteract this have included early initiation of dialysis after kidney transplantation, early targeting of adequate immunosuppression levels to minimize rejection risk, and establishment of outpatient dialysis. (4) Conclusions: Despite good outcomes, there continue to be barriers that impact AKI kidney utilization. Successful strategies have included use of procurement biopsies or machine perfusion and expectant management of DGF. With increasing experience, better use of AKI kidneys can result in additional opportunities to expand the donor pool.

Background Kidney transplant (KT) patients presenting with cardiovascular (CVD) events are being managed increasingly in non-transplant facilities. We aimed to identify drivers of mortality and costs, including transplant hospital status. Methods Data from the 2009–2011 Nationwide Inpatient Sample, the American Hospital Association, and Hospital Compare were used to evaluate post-KT patients hospitalized for MI, CHF, stroke, cardiac arrest, dysrhythmia, and malignant hypertension. We used generalized estimating equations to identify clinical, structural, and process factors associated with risk-adjusted mortality and high cost hospitalization (HCH). Results Data on 7803 admissions were abstracted from 275 hospitals. Transplant hospitals had lower crude mortality (3.0% vs. 3.8%, p  = 0.06), and higher un-adjusted total episodic costs (Median $33,271 vs. $28,022, p  < 0.0001). After risk-adjusting for clinical, structural, and process factors, mortality predictors included: age, CVD burden, CV destination hospital, diagnostic cardiac catheterization without intervention (all, p  < 0.001). Female sex, race, documented co-morbidities, and hospital teaching status were protective (all, p  < 0.05). Transplant and non-transplant hospitals had similar risk-adjusted mortality. HCH was associated with: age, CVD burden, CV procedures, and staffing patterns. Hospitalizations at transplant facilities had 37% lower risk-adjusted odds of HCH. Cardiovascular process measures were not associated with adverse outcomes. Conclusion KT patients presenting with CVD events had similar risk-adjusted mortality at transplant and non-transplant hospitals, but high cost care was less likely in transplant hospitals. Transplant hospitals may provide better value in cardiovascular care for transplant patients. These data have significant implications for patients, transplant and non-transplant providers, and payers.

The log-rank test was used to compare the outcomes based on PVT extent, as described by the Yerdel classification.4 Evaluation of the effect of donor type and PVT extent on overall and graft failure free survival in the context of other relevant clinical factors was performed using a multivariable Cox proportional-hazards model. Independent variables included age, race, donor and recipient body mass index (BMI), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) at transplant, LT indication, cold ischemia time (CIT), and number of PRBC units transfused. The hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval were reported. Perhaps the most important finding in this analysis is that DCD grafts can safely be utilized in a liver transplant candidate with PVT. DCD organ donation is rising precipitously, and PVT patients cannot always compete for DBD grafts due to frequently lower relative MELD scores.7 While we have adopted the use of mechanical perfusion in our program, the present cohort demonstrates safety in utilizing DCD grafts for PVT patients with the use of static cold storage and does not introduce biases related to the benefits of machine perfusion, as machine perfusion is still somewhat nascent with many transplant centers still in the process of acquiring access due to financial and staffing caveats.

It is unclear if preimplantation frozen section biopsy correlates with outcomes after deceased donor kidney transplantation. To assess if chronic histologic changes on the preimplant frozen section correlates with graft loss and estimated glomerular filtration rate independently of kidney donor profile index (KDPI). Seven hundred three preimplantation biopsies were reviewed and a Banff sum score was calculated using glomerular sclerosis, interstitial fibrosis, vascular intimal thickening, and arteriolar hyalinosis. The posttransplant outcomes were compared for preimplantation biopsy Banff sum 0-1, 2-3, and 4-9. The cohort was also stratified by KDPI 85 or less versus more than 85. For the entire biopsy cohort, graft survival, estimated glomerular filtration rate at 1 year, and chronic changes on a 1-year posttransplant biopsy were superior in the group with preimplantation Banff sum 0-1. After stratifying by KDPI, the Banff sum no longer correlated with graft survival. In a univariate mode, using the Banff sum score as a continuous variable, a higher Banff sum score was significantly associated with graft failure (P = .03); however, after adjusting the KDPI, the Banff sum score no longer correlated with graft failure (P = .45). The 1-year estimated glomerular filtration rate and 1-year biopsy changes were superior in the group with Banff sum 0-1 only in the cohort with KDPI 85 or less. In donor kidneys used for transplant, preimplantation biopsy chronic changes correlate with estimated glomerular filtration rate and biopsy findings at 1 year, but biopsies with mostly mild chronicity and Banff sum scores less than or equal to 5 did not impact graft survival beyond KDPI.

Introduction With the recent increase in popularity of cannabinoids in the management of chronic pain, the inquisitiveness among our patients and health care professionals are probably now at its peak. Many treating health care professionals in their clinical practice come across patients who either use cannabinoids or are interested in their efficacy and side effects. As there is paucity of data and research about their use in rheumatology, patient's self-reported responses and experience of primary care physicians (General Practitioners [GPs]) can guide in expanding our knowledge. Methods Ours was an observational, cross-sectional study among rheumatology patients and GPs in the Leicestershire area. Initial questionnaire was designed by authors addressing demographics, knowledge, experience and perception. This was piloted among patients and GPs and improvised, redesigned and used for the study. The study design consisted of two arms: first arm including GPs and second arm rheumatology patients. Results Arm 1 consisted of 100 GPs with median age group of 30-40 years. 34% GPs experienced their patients inquiring about cannabinoids. 78% did not believe cannabinoids benefited the patients. On a scale of 0-10, the mean benefit in managing pain 3.2 + 2.5. Arm 2 consisted of 102 patients. 16% reported using cannabinoids for managing their chronic pain. The users reported significant improvement in pain compared to non-users (p=0.002). On comparing the perception of cannabinoids between GPs and patients, there was a statistically significant difference regarding awareness and effectiveness (p<0.001). Conclusion With the paucity of data and research about the use of cannabinoids in rheumatology, the patient self-reported responses provided an estimate as to their efficacy. This was significantly different from the GP perception. Disease and drug-focused research is need of the hour. To our knowledge, this is the First Single Centre study in the UK evaluating GP and rheumatology patient perception on cannabinoids.