Pretransplant Patient Education in Solid-organ Transplant: A Narrative Review

Expanding the access to kidney transplantation: Strategies for kidney transplant programs

Kidney transplantation is the most successful kidney replacement therapy available, resulting in improved recipient survival and societal cost savings. Yet, nearly 70 years after the first successful kidney transplant, there are still numerous barriers and untapped opportunities that constrain the access to transplant. The literature describing these barriers is extensive, but the practices and processes to solve them are less clear. Solutions must be multidisciplinary and be the product of strong partnerships among patients, their networks, health care providers, and transplant programs. Transparency in the referral, evaluation, and listing process as well as organ selection are paramount to build such partnerships. Providing early culturally congruent and patient-centered education as well as maximizing the use of local resources to facilitate the transplant work up should be prioritized. Every opportunity to facilitate pre-emptive kidney transplantation and living donation must be taken. Promoting the use of telemedicine and kidney paired donation as standards of care can positively impact the work up completion and maximize the chances of a living donor kidney transplant.

Racialized and Immigrant Status and the Pursuit of Living Donor Kidney Transplant - a Canadian Cohort Study

Introduction

Both immigrant and racialized status may be associated with the pursuit of living donor kidney transplant (LDKT).

Methods

This study was a secondary analysis of a convenience cross-sectional sample of patients with kidney failure in Toronto, obtained from our "Comprehensive Psychosocial Research Data System" research database. The exposures included racialized, immigrant, and combined immigrant and racialized status (White nonimmigrant, racialized nonimmigrant, White immigrant and racialized immigrant). Outcomes include the following: (i) having spoken about LDKT with others, (ii) having a potential living donor (LD) identified, (iii) having allowed others to share the need for LDKT, (iv) having directly asked a potential donor to be tested, and (v) accept a hypothetical LDKT offer. We assessed the association between exposure and outcomes using univariable, and multivariable binary or multinominal logistic regression (reference: White or White nonimmigrant participants).

Results

Of the 498 participants, 281 (56%) were immigrants; 142 (28%) were African, Caribbean, and Black (ACB); 123 (25%) were Asian; and 233 (47%) were White. Compared to White nonimmigrants, racialized immigrants (relative risk ratio [RRR]: 2.98; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.76-5.03) and racialized nonimmigrants (RRR: 2.84; 95% CI: 1.22-6.65) were more likely not to have spoken about LDKT with others (vs. having spoken or planning to do so). Both racialized immigrant (odds ratio [OR]: 4.07; 95% CI: 2.50-6.34), racialized nonimmigrants (OR: 2.68; 95% CI: 1.31-5.51) and White immigrants (OR: 2.68; 95% CI: 1.43-5.05) were more likely not to have a potential LD identified.

Conclusion

Both racialized and immigrant status are associated with less readiness to pursue LDKT. Supporting patients to communicate their need for LDKT may improve equitable access to LDKT.

Days Alive and Out of the Hospital After Heart Transplantation: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate days alive and out of the hospital (DAOH) as an outcome measure after orthotopic heart transplantation in patients with mechanical circulatory support (MCS) as a bridge to transplant compared to those patients without prior MCS.

DESIGN

A retrospective observational study of adult patients who underwent cardiac transplantation between January 1, 2015, and January 1, 2020. The primary outcome was DAOH at 365 days (DAOH365) after an orthotopic heart transplant. A Poisson regression model was fitted to detect the association between independent variables and DAOH365.

SETTING

An academic tertiary referral center.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 235 heart transplant patients were included-103 MCS as a bridge to transplant patients, and 132 direct orthotopic heart transplants without prior MCS.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The median DAOH365 for the entire cohort was 348 days (IQR 335.0-354.0). There was no difference in DAOH365 between the MCS patients and patients without MCS (347.0 days [IQR 336.0-353.0] v 348.0 days [IQR 334.0-354.0], p = 0.43). Multivariate analysis identified patients who underwent a transplant after the 2018 heart transplant allocation change, pretransplant pulmonary hypertension, and increased total ischemic time as predictors of reduced DAOH365.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis of patients undergoing orthotopic heart transplantation, there was no significant difference in DAOH365 in patients with prior MCS as a bridge to transplant compared to those without MCS. Incorporating days alive and out of the hospital into the pre-transplant evaluation may improve understanding and conceptualization of the post-transplantation patient experience and aid in shared decision-making with clinicians.

Alcohol consumption, alcohol use disorder and organ transplantation

In the present experience we have evaluated the link alcohol consumption/alcohol use disorder (AUD) and organ transplantation (OT) in order to provide adequate suggestions. The data used for the preparation of these recommendations are based on a detailed analysis of the scientific literature published before August 31, 2022 (Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar). Furthermore, in the process of developing this work, we consulted the guidelines/position papers of the scientific societies. With regard to the liver transplantation, there are position papers/guidelines that clearly define indications and contraindications for including the AUD patient in the transplant list. One of the major difficulties in this area is psychosocial assessment which can be influenced by stigma. To solve this problem, it is necessary to use objective tools. However, this assessment should be carried out after providing the patient and family adequate tools to be able to create or recreate reliable socio-family support. This behavior should also be used in the case of other OTs. For the latter, however, adequate guidelines must be created which at the moment do not exist or if there are, as in the case of heart transplantation, they are not sufficient. Even in the absence of obvious alcohol addiction, it is recommended to use alcohol use disorder identification test and to include the addiction specialist in the multidisciplinary transplant team. Besides, providing family members with the tools necessary to better support the patient is essential. They are patients with alcohol use disorder/ possible presence of psychopathological manifestations and alcohol-related pathology (cirrhosis, cardiomyopathy, liver-kidney disfunction, etc.). A cardiovascular and oncologic surveillance post-OT is recommended. For the selection of patients to be included in the list for non-LT (heart, lung, kidney, multivisceral, etc.) it is mandatory to include the diagnosis and treatment of AUDs in the guidelines. What has already been indicated for LT may be useful. Timing of alcoholic abstention in relation to clinical severity, optimal psychosocial activity, anticraving therapy in relation to the type of underlying disease and clinical severity. Close collaboration between scientific societies is required to better manage AUD patients who need OT.

Knowledge About Renal Transplantation Among African, Caribbean, and Black Canadian Patients With Advanced Kidney Failure

Introduction

Variable transplant-related knowledge may contribute to inequitable access to living donor kidney transplant (LDKT). We compared transplant-related knowledge between African, Caribbean, and Black (ACB) versus White Canadian patients with kidney failure using the Knowledge Assessment of Renal Transplantation (KART) questionnaire.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional cohort study. Data were collected from a cross-sectional convenience sample of adults with kidney failure in Toronto. Participants also answered an exploratory question about their distrust in the kidney allocation system. Clinical characteristics were abstracted from medical records. The potential contribution of distrust to differences in transplant knowledge was assessed in mediation analysis.

Results

Among 577 participants (mean [SD] age 57 [14] years, 63% male), 25% were ACB, and 43% were White Canadians. 45% of ACB versus 26% of White participants scored in the lowest tertile of the KART score. The relative risk ratio to be in the lowest tertile for ACB compared to White participants was 2.22 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11, 4.43) after multivariable adjustment. About half of the difference in the knowledge score between ACB versus White patients was mediated by distrust in the kidney allocation system.

Conclusion

Participants with kidney failure from ACB communities have less transplant-related knowledge compared to White participants. Distrust is potentially contributing to this difference.

Identifying the barriers to kidney transplantation for patients in rural and remote areas: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Populations in rural and remote areas have higher rates of chronic kidney disease and kidney failure than those in urban or metropolitan areas, and mortality rates for chronic kidney disease are almost twice as high in remote areas compared to major cities. Despite this, patients residing in regional, rural, or remote areas are less likely to be wait-listed for or receive a kidney transplant. The objective of this scoping review is to identify specific barriers to kidney transplantation for adult patients residing in rural and remote areas from the perspectives of health professionals and patients/carers.

METHODS

Studies were identified through database (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Emcare, Scopus) searches and assessed against inclusion criteria to determine eligibility. A descriptive content analysis was undertaken to identify and describe barriers as key themes.

RESULTS

The 24 selected studies included both quantitative (n = 5) and qualitative (n = 19) methodologies. In studies conducted in health professional populations (n = 10) the most prevalent themes identified were perceived social and cultural issues (80%), burden of travel and distance from treatment (60%), and system-level factors as barriers (60%). In patient/carer populations (n = 14), the most prevalent themes were limited understanding of illness and treatment options (71%), dislocation from family and support network (71%), and physical and psychosocial effects of treatment (71%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in regional, rural, and remote areas face many additional barriers to kidney transplantation, which are predominantly associated with the need to travel or relocate to access required medical testing and transplantation facilities.

Do patient decision aids help people who are facing decisions about solid organ transplantation? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Decisions about solid organ transplantation are complex. Patient decision aids (PDAs) enhance traditional education, by improving knowledge and supporting patients to align their values with treatments. There are increasing numbers of transplantation PDAs, however, it is unclear whether these are effective. We conducted a systematic review of studies assessing the impact of PDA use in transplantation.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases from database inception to October 26, 2020. We included primary studies of solid organ transplantation PDAs defined by the International Patient Decision Aids Standards. All comparators and reported outcomes were included. Mean difference in knowledge (before vs. after) was standardized on a 100-point scale. Pooled-effect for PDAs was calculated and compared to the standard of care for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyzed using random effects. Analysis of all other outcomes was limited due to heterogeneity (PROSPERO registration, CRD42020215940).

RESULTS

Seven thousand four hundred and sixty-three studies were screened, 163 underwent full-text review, and 15 studies with 4278 participants were included. Nine studies were RCTs. Seven RCTs assessed knowledge; all demonstrated increased knowledge with PDA use (mean difference, 8.01;95%CI 4.69-11.34, p < .00001). There were many other outcomes, including behavior and acceptability, but these were too heterogenous and infrequently assessed for meaningful synthesis.

CONCLUSIONS

This review found that PDAs increase knowledge compared to standard education, though the effect size is small. PDAs are mostly considered acceptable; however, it is difficult to determine whether they improve other decision-making components due to the limited evidence about non-knowledge-based outcomes.

Potential living kidney donors' positive experiences of an information letter from healthcare: a descriptive qualitative study

Background

Patients who need a live donor kidney transplant (LDKT) must often ask potential donors (PLDs) themselves. This is a difficult task and healthcare could unburden them by making this first contact, ensuring also that PLDs receive correct information. We investigated how PLDs experience receiving a letter from healthcare about LDKT, live kidney donation, and inviting them to meet with professionals to get more information.

Methods

The letter (LD-letter) was sent to a cohort of 46 individuals, from which a purposeful sample of 15 were interviewed using a semi-structured guide covering their experience of the letter, views on being approached by healthcare, and opinions on style and content. Interviews were analyzed using conventional inductive analysis.

Results

We identified three categories of experiences: Category (1) Reflections on receiving the letter, contains three subcategories relating to how the letter did not induce pressure to donate, did not affect the PLD’s relationship with the patient with kidney disease, and made the letter-receiver feel important in the transplant process; Category (2) The letter creates clarification and trust, also contains three subcategories, relating to how it clarified the voluntariness of donation and neutrality of healthcare providers with respect to the PLD’s decision, elucidated the patient with kidney disease’s current stage of disease (where transplantation was approaching), and unburdened patients from the responsibility of contacting PLDs on their own; Category (3) Opinions and suggestions about the letter and further communication, with four subcategories, relating to preference of a letter as the first step for communication about LDKT, suggestions on style and content, views on following up the letter, and how open meetings about LDKT were an important information source. Furthermore, 80% of the interviewees found the letter’s information comprehensive, 67% found it easy to read and respectful, and 86% rated it as good or very good.

Conclusion

Potential donors prefer and recommend a letter as the first step for communication regarding LD. The LD-letter unburdens patients from the task of asking PLDs and stresses the voluntariness of donation, does not leave PLDs feeling coerced or lead to negative effects in their relationship with the patient.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12882-022-02959-5.

Ethical Issues in Kidney Transplant and Donation During COVID-19 Pandemic

The coronavirus disease-19 pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus has faced the transplant community with unprecedented clinical challenges in a highly vulnerable patient category. These were associated with many uncertainties for patients and health care professionals and prompted many ethical debates regarding the safe delivery of kidney transplantation. In this article, we highlight some of the most important ethical questions that were raised during the pandemic and attempt to analyze ethical arguments in light of core principles of medical ethics to either suspend or continue kidney transplantation, and to mandate vaccination in transplant patients, transplant candidates, and, finally, health care providers. We have come up with frameworks to deal responsibly with these ethical challenges, and formulated recommendations to cope with the issues imposed on patients and transplant professionals.