Access to robotic assisted kidney transplant for recipients: a systematic review and call for reporting standards.

Robot-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) is a relatively novel, minimally invasive option for kidney transplantation. However, clarity on recipient selection in the published literature is lacking thereby significantly limiting interpretation of safety and other outcomes. This systematic review aimed to identify and synthesize the data on selection of RAKT recipients, compare the synthesized data to kidney transplant recipients across the USA, and explore geographical clusters of availability of RAKT. Systematic literature review, in accordance with PRISMA, via OVID MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of science from inception to March 5, 2023. All data entry double blinded and quality via Newcastle Ottawa Scale. 44 full-text articles included, encompassing approximately 2402 kidney transplant recipients at baseline but with considerable suspicion for overlap across publications. There were significant omissions of information across studies on patient selection for RAKT and/or analysis. Overall, the quality of studies was very low. Given suspicion of overlap across studies, it is difficult to determine how many RAKT recipients received living (LD) versus deceased donor (DD) organs, but a rough estimate suggests 89% received LD. While the current RAKT literature provides preliminary evidence on safety, there are significant omissions in reporting on patient selection for RAKT which limits interpretation of findings. Two recommendations: (1) international consensus is needed for reporting guidelines when publishing RAKT data and (2) larger controlled trials consistently reporting recipient characteristics are needed to clearly determine selection, safety, and outcomes across both LD and DD recipients.

Non-pharmacological interventions engaging organ transplant caregivers: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Lay-caregivers in organ transplantation (to candidates, recipients, and donors) are essential to pre- and postoperative care, but report significant caregiving-related stressors. This review aims to summarize studies testing nonpharmacological interventions aimed at improving organ transplant caregiver-reported outcomes. METHODS: In accordance with PRISMA, we conducted a systematic review (searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, PsycInfo, and CINAHL, no start-date restriction through 7/1/2021). Quality of comparative studies assessed by ROBS-2 or ROBINS. RESULTS: Twelve studies met inclusion. Study designs, interventions, and outcomes varied. Sample sizes were small across caregivers to adults (nine studies, five with caregiver samples ns≤50) and pediatric patients (three studies, caregiver samples ns≤16). Study designs included seven single-arm interventions, two prepost with comparison cohorts, and three randomized-controlled trials. Eight studies included transplant-specific education as the intervention, an interventional component, or as the comparison group. Outcomes included transplant specific knowledge, mental health, and intervention acceptability. Of the nine prepost caregiver assessments and/or comparison groups, four studies demonstrated no statistically significant intervention effects. CONCLUSION: Few interventions addressing the needs of organ transplant caregivers have been empirically evaluated. Existing interventions were well-received by caregivers. Given complexities of care in transplantation, research is needed evaluating interventions using rigorous trial methodology with adequate samples.

Prerenal Transplant Education and Evaluation Positively Impacts Outcomes.

Introduction: An outstanding question in kidney transplantation is how to prepare candidates and their social supports for optimal posttransplant outcomes. Project Aims: This program evaluation assessed whether a pretransplant quality improvement clinic improved clinical outcomes in the year posttransplant compared to recipients receiving standard of care. Design: The Countdown to Transplant Clinic was implemented with kidney transplant candidates expected to receive a transplant within the next few months. The clinic included an enhanced education session on posttransplant lifestyle management, confirmation of support (≥2 adults), and evaluations by transplant social work, psychology, and nephrology. Results: Seventy-five patients participated in the clinic and underwent a transplant. A retrospective chart review of posttransplant laboratory values, rehospitalizations (within 3-months posttransplant), biopsy-confirmed graft failure, and mortality (within 1-year posttransplant) were collected from both groups. Univariate and multivariate propensity score-weighted linear or logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between clinic participation and outcomes. In models adjusting for relevant covariates, participation in The Countdown to Transplant Clinic (vs standard care) was associated with a lower coefficient of variation of serum tacrolimus (all values collected 3-12 months posttransplant), 30-day posttransplant white blood cell counts (but not 90-day), 90-day posttransplant potassium, and 30 and 31 to 90 days rehospitalizations. Clinic participation did not predict serum glucose levels at 30- or 90-days posttransplant. Due to low rates of rejection and mortality, meaningful comparisons were not possible. Conclusion: Participation in a pretransplant, multicomponent clinic may improve certain outcomes of interest posttransplantation. Pilot testing for feasibility for randomized controlled trials is a necessary next step.