Web-based image transmission: a novel approach to aid communication in split liver transplantation

The digital transformation of hepatology: The patient is logged in

The rise in innovative digital health technologies has led a paradigm shift in health care toward personalized, patient-centric medicine that is reaching beyond traditional brick-and-mortar facilities into patients' homes and everyday lives. Digital solutions can monitor and detect early changes in physiological data, predict disease progression and health-related outcomes based on individual risk factors, and manage disease intervention with a range of accessible telemedicine and mobile health options. In this review, we discuss the unique transformation underway in the care of patients with liver disease, specifically examining the digital transformation of diagnostics, prediction and clinical decision-making, and management. Additionally, we discuss the general considerations needed to confirm validity and oversight of new technologies, usability and acceptability of digital solutions, and equity and inclusivity of vulnerable populations.

Accurate assessment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease lesions in liver allograft biopsies by a smartphone platform: A proof of concept

Macrovesicular steatosis (MS) is a major risk factor for liver graft failure after transplantation and pathological microscopic examination of a frozen tissue section remains the gold standard for its assessment. However, the latter requires an experienced in-house pathologist for correct and rapid diagnosis as well as specific equipment that is not always available. Smartphones, which are must-have tools for everyone, are very suitable for incorporation into promising technology to generate moveable diagnostic tools as for telepathology. The study aims to compare the microscopic assessment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) spectrum in liver allograft biopsies by a smartphone microscopy platform (DIPLE device) to standard light microscopy. Forty-two liver graft biopsies were evaluated in transmitted light, using an iPhone X and the microscopy platform. A significant correlation was reported between the two different approaches for graft MS assessment (Spearman's correlation coefficient: r = .93; p < .001) and for steatohepatitis feature (r = .56; p < .001; r = .45; p < .001). Based on these findings, a smartphone integrated with a cheap microscopy platform can achieve adequate accuracy in the assessment of NAFLD in liver graft and could be used as an alternative to standard light microscopy when the latter is unavailable.

Use of Telehealth Expedites Evaluation and Listing of Patients Referred for Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Liver transplantation is the only treatment that increases survival times of patients with decompensated cirrhosis. Patients who live farther away from a transplant center are disadvantaged. Health care delivery via telehealth is an effective way to manage patients with decompensated cirrhosis remotely. We investigated the effects of telehealth on the liver transplant evaluation process.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of 465 patients who underwent evaluation for liver transplantation at the Richmond Veterans Affairs Medical Center from 2005 through 2017. Of these, 232 patients were evaluated via telehealth, and 233 via in-person evaluation. Using regression models, we evaluated the differential effects of telehealth vs usual care on placement on the liver transplant waitlist. We also investigated the effects of telehealth on time from referral to initial evaluation by a transplant hepatologist, liver transplantation, and mortality.

RESULTS

Patients in the telehealth group were evaluated significantly faster than patients evaluated in person, without or with adjustment for potential confounders (21.7 vs 79.5 d; P < .01). Telehealth also was associated with a significantly shorter time on the liver transplant waitlist (138.8 vs 249 d; P < .01). After propensity-matched analysis, telehealth was associated with a reduction in the time from referral to evaluation (hazard ratio, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.09-0.21; P < .01) and listing (hazard ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.12-0.40; P < .01), but not to transplantation. In the intent-to-treat analysis of all referred patients, we found no significant difference in pretransplant mortality between patients evaluated via telehealth vs in-person. There was statistically significant interaction between model for end-stage liver disease (MELD)-Na scores and time to evaluation (P = .009) and placement on the transplant waitlist (P = .002), with telehealth offering greater benefits to patients with low MELD-Na scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of telehealth is associated with a substantial reduction in time from referral to initial evaluation by a hepatologist and placement on the liver transplant waitlist, especially for patients with low MELD scores, with no changes in time to transplantation or pretransplant mortality. More studies are needed, particularly outside of the Veterans Administration Health System, to confirm that telehealth is a safe and effective way to expand access for patients undergoing evaluation for liver transplantation.

Hard-to-place kidney offers: Donor- and system-level predictors of discard

Understanding risk factors for deceased-donor kidney nontransplantation is important since discard rates remain high. We analyzed DonorNet^® data of consecutive deceased-donor nonmandatory share primary kidney-only offers to adult candidates at our center and beyond between July 1, 2015 and March 31, 2016 for donor- and system-level risk factors of discard, defined as nontransplantation at our or subsequent transplant centers. Exclusions were hepatitis C virus/hepatitis B virus core antibody status, blood type AB, and donor <1 year based on low candidate waitlist size. Of 456 individual kidney offers, from 296 donors, 73% were discarded. Most were national (93%) offers from Kidney Donor Profile Index 35-85% (n = 233) or >85% (n = 208) donors late in the allocation sequence with prior refusals logged for numerous candidates. On multivariate regression, factors significantly associated with discard were donor cerebrovascular accident (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 3.32), cancer transmission concern (aOR: 6.5), renal artery luminal compromise (aOR: 3.97), biopsy score ≥3 (aOR: 5.09), 2-hour pump resistive index >0.4 (aOR: 3.27), absence of pump (aOR: 2.58), nonspecific kidney abnormality (aOR: 2.76), increasing offer cold ischemia time category 11-15, 16-20, and >21 hours (aOR: 2.07, 2.33, 2.82), nighttime notification (aOR: 2.19), and neither kidney placed at time of offer (aOR: 2.74). Many traditional determinants of discard lack discriminatory value when granular factors are assessed. System-level factors also influence discard and warrant further study.

Telemedicine pharmacy services implementation in organ transplantation at a metropolitan academic medical center

Transplant patients represent a complex patient population for which telemedicine may allow enhanced access to the healthcare team and promote active engagement in health improvement. This retrospective study summarizes a multi-pronged approach that was instituted to implement a pharmacy telemedicine practice at our institution. Telemedicine visits included the provision of six key elements for our patients: (1) medication reconciliation, (2) vaccination history, (3) medication teaching, (4) pharmacotherapy review, (5) medication adherence, and (6) triage to other providers. From January through June 2017, 46 patients were registered for a visit (recipients n = 32 and living donors n = 14). Three-fourths of the patients who completed a visit connected using a mobile device. Time from discharge to the visit was 5.4 days. The average visit duration was 11.6 ± 8 minutes. Medication reconciliation was performed for 24 patients where 6 (25%) required medication list adjustments. An average of 1.2 ± 0.4 medication changes were updated in the medical record. During visits, patients were asked questions to assess adherence to their regimen, all patients responded favorably indicating that they were following instructions provided by the healthcare team. Telemedicine has the potential to improve the healthcare delivery model by providing increased patient-to-healthcare team interactions and access, which optimize engagement and outcomes.

Mobile Health in Solid Organ Transplant: The Time Is Now

Despite being in existence for >40 years, the application of telemedicine has lagged significantly in comparison to its generated interest. Detractors include the immobile design of most historic telemedicine interventions and the relative lack of smartphones among the general populace. Recently, the exponential increase in smartphone ownership and familiarity have provided the potential for the development of mobile health (mHealth) interventions that can be mirrored realistically in clinical applications. Existing studies have demonstrated some potential clinical benefits of mHealth in the various phases of solid organ transplantation (SOT). Furthermore, studies in nontransplant chronic diseases may be used to guide future studies in SOT. Nevertheless, substantially more must be accomplished before mHealth becomes mainstream. Further evidence of clinical benefits and a critical need for cost-effectiveness analysis must prove its utility to patients, clinicians, hospitals, insurers, and the federal government. The SOT population is an ideal one in which to demonstrate the benefits of mHealth. In this review, the current evidence and status of mHealth in SOT is discussed, and a general path forward is presented that will allow buy-in from the health care community, insurers, and the federal government to move mHealth from research to standard care.