Long-Term Results of Kidney Transplantation in the Elderly: Comparison between Different Donor Settings

With scarce organ supply, a selection of suitable elderly candidates for transplant is needed, as well as auditing the long-term outcomes after transplant. We conducted an observational cohort study among our patient cohort >60 years old with a long follow up. (1). Patients and Methods: We used our database to study the results after transplant for 593 patients >60 years old who underwent a transplant between 2000–2017. The outcome was compared between live donor (LD; n = 257) recipients, an old-to-old (OTO, n = 215) group using an extended criteria donor (ECD) kidney, and a young-to-old (YTO, n = 123) group using a standard-criteria donor. The Kaplan−Meir method was used to calculate the patient and graft survival and Cox regression analysis in order to find risk factors associated with death. (2). Results: The 5- and 10-year patient survival was significantly better in the LD group (92.7% and 66.9%) compared with the OTO group (73.3% and 42.8%) and YTO group (70.9% and 40.6%) (p < 0.0001). The 5- and 10-year graft survival rates were 90.3% and 68.5% (LD), 61.7% and 30.9% (OTO), and 64.1% and 39.9%, respectively (YTO group; p < 0.0001 between the LD and the two DD groups). There was no difference in outcome between patients in their 60’s and their 70’s. Factors associated with mortality included: age (HR-1.060), DM (HR-1.773), IHD (HR-1.510), and LD/DD (HR-2.865). (3). Conclusions: Our 17-years of experience seems to justify the rational of an old-to-old allocation policy in the elderly population. Live-donor transplant should be encouraged whenever possible. Each individual decision of elderly candidates for transplant should be based on the patient’s comorbidity and predicted life expectancy.

Circuitous Path to Live Donor Liver Transplantation from the Coordinator’s Perspective

Background: The live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) process is circuitous and requires a considerable amount of coordination and matching in multiple aspects that the literature does not completely address. From the coordinators’ perspective, we systematically analyzed the time and risk factors associated with interruptions in the LDLT process. Methods: In this retrospective single center study, we reviewed the medical records of wait-listed hospitalized patients and potential live donors who arrived for evaluation. We analyzed several characteristics of transplant candidates, including landmark time points of accompanied live donation evaluation processes, time of eventual LDLT, and root causes of not implementing LDLT. Results: From January 2014 to January 2021, 417 patients (342 adults and 75 pediatric patients) were enrolled, of which 331 (79.4%) patients completed the live donor evaluation process, and 205 (49.2%) received LDLT. The median time from being wait-listed to the appearance of a potential live donor was 19.0 (interquartile range 4.0–58.0) days, and the median time from the appearance of the donor to an LDLT or a deceased donor liver transplantation was 68.0 (28.0–188.0) days. The 1-year mortality rate for patients on the waiting list was 34.3%. Presence of hepatitis B virus, encephalopathy, and hypertension as well as increased total bilirubin were risk factors associated with not implementing LDLT, and biliary atresia was a positive predictor. The primary barriers to LDLT were a patient’s critical illness, donor’s physical conditions, motivation for live donation, and stable condition while on the waiting list. Conclusions: Transplant candidates with potential live liver donors do not necessarily receive LDLT. The process requires time, and the most common reason for LDLT failure was critical diseases. Aggressive medical support and tailored management policies for these transplantable patients might help reduce their loss during the process.

Formative Usability of the Kidneytime Online Live Donor Kidney Transplant Education Tool Among Transplant Candidates

Background Web-based education may be a powerful tool to support transplant candidates’ learning and communication about live donor kidney transplantation. Few educational interventions are web-based and have education sharing for living donor transplant as a primary goal. Methods Through user-centered design and iterative usability testing, we developed a web platform, called KidneyTIME, to support an educational intervention for adult transplant candidates. KidneyTIME delivers animated videos to improve candidate knowledge, motivation, and self-efficacy to pursue living donor transplantation and to promote outreach through video sharing. The animated-video educational content was previously produced by the researchers. We conducted a formative usability evaluation of the KidneyTIME web platform to enable users to find, view, and share the previously produced videos. A total of 30 kidney transplant candidates were involved in 4 rounds of testing at one transplant center, with amendments made after each round. Results Transplant candidates were predominantly White non-Hispanic; 47% had incomes <$30 000 and >43% had vision or motor impairment. Readability, navigation, and failure to find videos were the main usability issues identified. Substantial improvements were found in the usability of most functions after implementing certain features, such as enlarging text and buttons, enhancing contrast, and simplifying presentation. Participants reported that the intervention was user friendly and easy to navigate. Conclusion Considering feedback from a wide spectrum of users has improved the usability of KidneyTIME. A salient concern for End stage kidney disease populations is ensuring online accessibility despite vision and motor impairments.