Impact of OPTN policy 3.7D providing waiting time modification for candidates affected by race-inclusive eGFR calculations: Early results from a single center.

INTRODUCTION: OPTN Policy 3.7D, implemented January 5, 2023, mandates that all kidney transplant programs modify waiting time for candidates affected by race-inclusive eGFR calculations. We report the early impact of this policy change. METHODS: Our transplant program reviewed all listed transplant candidates and identified patients potentially eligible for waiting time modification. Eligible candidates received waiting time modification after submission of supporting evidence to the OPTN. We reviewed the impact on waiting time and transplant activity through October 1, 2023. RESULTS: Forty-six adult patients on our center's active waiting list self-identified as Black/African American. 25 (54.3%) candidates qualified for waiting time modification. A median 451 (321, 1543.5) additional days of waiting time was added for qualifying patients. Of the 25 patients who qualified for waiting time modification, 11 patients received a deceased donor kidney in the early period following waiting time modification, including 5 patients transplanted within 1 month after modification. CONCLUSIONS: Policy 3.7D is one of few national mandates to address specifically structural racism within transplantation. Implementation has yielded near immediate effects with greater than 40% of time-adjusted patients at our center receiving a deceased donor kidney transplant in the initial months after policy enactment. Early assessment demonstrates great potential impact for this policy.

Improved Early Post-Transplant Outcomes and Organ Use in Kidney Transplant Using Normothermic Regional Perfusion for Donation after Circulatory Death: National Experience in the US.

BACKGROUND: Normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) is a technique that is intended to enhance organ transplant outcomes from donation circulatory death (DCD) donors. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was performed. DCD donors were screened for inclusion based on date of donation 2020 or later, and whether the heart was also recovered for transplantation. We grouped donors as either donation after brain death or DCD. DCD donors were further divided into groups including those in which the heart was not recovered for transplant (Non-Heart DCD) and those in which it was, based on recovery technique (thoracoabdominal-NRP [TA-NRP] Heart DCD and Super Rapid Recovery Heart DCD). RESULTS: A total of 219 kidney transplant recipients receiving organs from TA-NRP Heart DCD donors were compared to 436 SRR Super Rapid Recovery DCD, 10,630 Super Rapid Recovery non-heart DCD, and 27,820 donations after brain death recipients. Kidney transplant recipients of TA-NRP DCD allografts experienced shorter length of stay, lower rates of delayed graft function, and lower serum creatinine at the time of discharge when compared with recipients of other DCD allografts. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis demonstrates superior early kidney allograft function when TA-NRP is used for DCD organ recovery.

Evaluation of Medicare Reimbursement and Surgical Patterns for Male and Female Colorectal Surgeons.

INTRODUCTION: There are documented differences in salary for male and female surgeons. Understanding the differences in the clinical practice, composition of male and female surgeons may provide a better understanding of reimbursement differences. We aim to evaluate the differences of Medicare reimbursement for different categories of clinical practice for male and female colorectal surgeons. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study compared Medicare claims made by male and female board-certified colorectal surgeons from the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data between 2013 and 2017. Medicare claims were categorized by surgeon gender. Submitted claims were evaluated based on the following seven procedure categories: open abdominal surgery, laparoscopic abdominal surgery, anorectal surgery, diagnostic endoscopy, therapeutic endoscopy, and inpatient/outpatient services. The main outcomes were number of charges submitted by clinical activity category and procedural code variation billed through Medicare. Secondary outcome was category of procedure activity that each surgeon cohort had participated in. RESULTS: A total of 62,866 claims were reviewed, of which 10,058 (16.0%) were made by female surgeons and 52,808 (84.0%) were made by male surgeons. On average, male surgeons submitted more claims per year, a greater variety of claims per year, and higher revenue generating claims than female surgeons (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Male and female colorectal surgeons may participate in different categories of clinical activities that result in male surgeons performing more and higher relative value units-generating activity than female surgeons.

Gender differences in authorship among Hepato-pancreatico-biliary surgeons.

BACKGROUND: While studies have explored the gender gap in scientific publications, no study has investigated surgical literature in much detail. We examined the gender gap in Hepato-pancreato-biliary publications over the last decade. METHODS: All physician authored original clinical science articles published in HPB, Annals of Surgery, Surgery, Annals of Surgical Oncology, and JAMA Surgery were reviewed from 2008 to 2017. Chi square analysis was used to compare the proportions of female and male authors and Cochrane-Armitage test was used for comparisons over time. RESULTS: Of the 1067 publications, 84.0% of all authorships were held by men. Women physicians made up 10.3% of senior and 21.4% of first authorships with increased representation from 2.13% in 2007 to 14.8% in 2017 (p = 0.001). Women physicians comprised 14.1% of senior authors in JAMA Surgery, but only 2.46% in Annals of Surgical Oncology. Male authors were five times more likely to publish multiple articles compared to their female counterparts. Female first authors progressed to senior authors at a rate of 1.13% versus 5.73% for male authors (p = 0.89). CONCLUSION: These findings elucidate the continued underrepresentation of women in senior research roles and the need to recruit and mentor women in all stages of their academic careers.

Gender Differences in Authorship Among Transplant Physicians: Are We Bridging the Gap?

BACKGROUND: Despite an increase in the number of practicing female physicians, gender disparities in academic medicine persist. For investigating gender gap in the transplantation field, this study examined the relationship between gender and authorship among medical and surgical transplant physicians. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this observational study, all original clinical science articles published in the journals of Transplantation, American Journal of Transplantation, and Clinical Transplantation were reviewed from January 2008 to December 2017. Chi-square analysis was used to compare the proportions of female and male authors, and the Cochrane-Armitage test was used for comparisons over time. RESULTS: A total of 2530 publications and 2988 individual authors met the inclusion criteria for the study. Male physicians published significantly more articles compared to female physicians as first (67.4% versus 30.4%) and senior authors (82.9% versus 16.2%), respectively. There were increases in the proportion of female first and senior authors between 2008 and 2017. The majority of authors with multiple publications were male (73.6%), specifically male medical physicians (44.3%). Male medical physicians were the most productive in publication amount and authorship positions. CONCLUSIONS: While research activity among female physicians increased over time, gender disparity continues to exist among female and male physicians in the transplantation field. Academic activity is lower among females in publication amount and authorship positions. These trends emphasize the need to identify barriers to female physician academic productivity within the transplantation field.

Public health service increased risk donor kidney grafts for transplant into children, a survey of pediatric nephrologists.

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplant is the best treatment for end-stage renal disease (ESRD); however, access is limited by severe organ shortage. Public Health Service increased risk donors (PHS-IRD) represent a significant portion of available organs which are discarded at disproportional rates. METHODS: Pediatric nephrologists were surveyed regarding PHS-IRD kidneys to understand attitudes and perceived barriers to the use of these grafts in children. We sought to elucidate what methods may help increase the likelihood of PHS-IRD acceptance. RESULTS: Twenty-two responses were received from United States pediatric nephrologists representing 11 UNOS regions (response rate 5.9%). Of respondents, 50% had been practicing for 20+ years, 77% in academic hospitals, and 63% in cities with over 1 000 000 people. All respondents worked in an institution with a kidney transplant program. 41% reported that they would not accept PHS-IRD kidneys under any circumstance, 45% would accept depending on the candidate's medical status, and 14% routinely accepted PHS-IRD kidneys. Infectious transmission was the biggest disincentive reported (59%), with only 55% of respondents feeling comfortable counseling families on the associated risks. 82% of respondents did not perceive all PHS-IRD as the same, and 90% supported stratifying PHS-IRD into tiers based on risk, which would increase the likelihood of organ acceptance (82%) and assist in counseling families (91%). CONCLUSIONS: With improved utilization, PHS-IRD kidneys offer a step toward decreasing the organ shortage. These findings suggest hesitance in use of PHS-IRD kidneys for pediatric recipients. Further stratification of risk could aid in provider organ acceptance and counseling patients.

The impact of multi-organ transplant allocation priority on waitlisted kidney transplant candidates.

Kidney-alone transplant (KAT) candidates may be disadvantaged by the allocation priority given to multi-organ transplant (MOT) candidates. This study identified potential KAT candidates not receiving a given kidney offer due to its allocation for MOT. Using the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN) database, we identified deceased donors from 2002 to 2017 who had one kidney allocated for MOT and the other kidney allocated for KAT or simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant (SPK) (n = 7,378). Potential transplant recipient data were used to identify the "next-sequential KAT candidate" who would have received a given kidney offer had it not been allocated to a higher prioritized MOT candidate. In this analysis, next-sequential KAT candidates were younger (p < .001), more likely to be racial/ethnic minorities (p < .001), and more highly sensitized than MOT recipients (p < .001). A total of 2,113 (28.6%) next-sequential KAT candidates subsequently either died or were removed from the waiting list without receiving a transplant. In a multivariable model, despite adjacent position on the kidney match-run, mortality risk was significantly higher for next-sequential KAT candidates compared to KAT/SPK recipients (hazard ratio 1.55, 95% confidence interval 1.44, 1.66). These results highlight implications of MOT allocation prioritization, and potential consequences to KAT candidates prioritized below MOT candidates.

Exploring the gender gap: Letters of recommendation to pediatric surgery fellowship.

BACKGROUND: Letters of recommendation (LoR) are considered one of the most important predictors of matching into a pediatric surgery fellowship. We determined if gendered differences exist in LoR written for resident candidates. METHODS: A retrospective review of blinded LoR to a fellowship program between 2015 and 2017 was performed. RESULTS: Of the 364 LoR reviewed for 49 female and 48 male applicants, male surgeons wrote 82.5% of letters. Male LoR contained more agentic terms (p = 0. 042), first name occurrences (p = 0.0082) and phrase "future success" (p = 0.015). Female letters included more socio-communal phrases (p = 0. 010) and 5% referenced a spouse's accomplishments vs. 0% of male letters. Male LoR contained more active possessive language (p-0. 027); ie: "he published", "he presented". We found no difference in an applicant's research experience (p = 0.06) or leadership qualities (p = 0. 067). CONCLUSION: Gender differences exist in LoR written for fellowship applicants applying to a highly competitive subspecialty.

Gendered Differences in Letters of Recommendation for Transplant Surgery Fellowship Applicants.

BACKGROUND: No published study has explored gender differences in letters of recommendation for applicants entering surgical subspecialty fellowships. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of letters of recommendation to a transplant surgery fellowship written for residents finishing general surgery residency programs. A dictionary of communal and agentic terms was used to explore differences of the letters based on applicant's gender as well as the academic rank and gender of the author. RESULTS: Of the 311 reviewed letters, 228 were letters of recommendation written for male applicants. Male surgeons wrote 92.4% of the letters. Male applicant letters were significantly more likely to contain agentic terms such as superb, intelligent, and exceptional (p = 0.00086). Additionally, male applicant letters were significantly more likely to contain "future leader" (p = 0.047). Letters written by full professors, division chiefs, and program directors were significantly more likely to describe female applicants using communal terms like compassionate, calm, and delightful (p = 0.0301, p = 0.036, p = 0.036, respectively). In letters written by assistant professors, female letters of recommendation had significantly more references to family (p = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: Gendered differences exist in letters of recommendation for surgical fellowship applicants. This research may provide insight into the inherent gender bias that is revealed in letters supporting candidates entering the field.

Fortuitous benefits of living kidney donation: Diagnosis of serious medical conditions during the living donor evaluation.

BACKGROUND: All living kidney donors are counseled about the possible surgical and medical risks associated with donation. Only a minority of transplant centers discuss the potential benefit of discovering undiagnosed medical conditions in the donor during evaluation, as part of their consent process. METHODS: We retrospectively investigated all potential living kidney donors evaluated over a 10-year period at a single center to characterize incidentally diagnosed serious medical conditions. RESULTS: Sixty-five of the 762 potential donors (8.5%) were not approved for donation because of a newly diagnosed serious medical condition discovered during their evaluation. This included six patients diagnosed with malignancies, five of which required operative intervention, six patients diagnosed with transmittable diseases requiring follow-up and treatment, four patients were found to have bilateral renal stones with significant stone burden, and two patients diagnosed with IgA nephropathy. Additionally, four patients were diagnosed with significant heart disease, and one of those patients subsequently required a coronary artery bypass surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation process can diagnose serious medical conditions in a significant minority of donors that would have otherwise been unrecognized. The benefit associated with the donor evaluation should be considered an important part of the consent process.