The use of normothermic liver preservation in combined liver and lung transplantation: A single-center experience.

Combined liver and lung transplantation (CLLT) is indicated in patients with both end-stage liver and lung disease. Ex-situ normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) has been previously used for extended normothermic lung preservation in CLLT. We aim to describe our single-center experience using ex-situ NMP for extended normothermic liver preservation in CLLT. Four CLLTs were performed from 2019 to 2020 with the lung transplanted first for all patients. Median ex-situ pump time for the liver was 413 min (IQR 400-424). Over a median follow-up of 15 months (IQR 14-19), all patients were alive and doing well. Normothermic extended liver preservation is a safe method to allow prolonged cold ischemia using normothermic perfusion of the liver during CLLT.

How Should Social Media Be Used in Transplantation? A Survey of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Social media platforms are increasingly used in surgery and have shown promise as effective tools to promote deceased donation and expand living donor transplantation. There is a growing need to understand how social media-driven communication is perceived by providers in the field of transplantation. METHODS: We surveyed 299 members of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons about their use of, attitudes toward, and perceptions of social media and analyzed relationships between responses and participant characteristics. RESULTS: Respondents used social media to communicate with: family and friends (76%), surgeons (59%), transplant professionals (57%), transplant recipients (21%), living donors (16%), and waitlisted candidates (15%). Most respondents (83%) reported using social media for at least 1 purpose. Although most (61%) supported sharing information with transplant recipients via social media, 42% believed it should not be used to facilitate living donor-recipient matching. Younger age (P = 0.02) and fewer years of experience in the field of transplantation (P = 0.03) were associated with stronger belief that social media can be influential in living organ donation. Respondents at transplant centers with higher reported use of social media had more favorable views about sharing information with transplant recipients (P < 0.01), increasing awareness about deceased organ donation (P < 0.01), and advertising for transplant centers (P < 0.01). Individual characteristics influence opinions about the role and clinical usefulness of social media. CONCLUSIONS: Transplant center involvement and support for social media may influence clinician perceptions and practices. Increasing use of social media among transplant professionals may provide an opportunity to deliver high-quality information to patients.

Use of Twitter in communicating living solid organ donation information to the public: An exploratory study of living donors and transplant professionals.

BACKGROUND: As transplant centers start leveraging Twitter for information dissemination and public engagement, it is important to understand current living solid organ donation-related Twitter use. METHODS: We identified public Twitter profiles available in 01/2017 that referenced living organ donation and analyzed the use of donation-related Twitter handles, names, or profile information. Tweets were manually abstracted and qualitatively analyzed for common themes. Social media influence of those tweeting about living donation was evaluated using Klout score. RESULTS: We identified 93 donors, 61 professionals, 12 hospitals, and 19 organizations that met eligibility criteria. Social media influence was similar across these groups (P = 0.4). Donors (16%) and organizations (23%) were more likely than professionals (7%) or hospitals (0%) to include transplant-related educational information in their profiles (P = 0.007). Living donation-related tweets were most commonly donation stories (33%), news reports (20%), reports about new transplant research (15%), and sharing transplant candidates' searches for donors (14%). CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study of living donors and transplant professionals, hospitals, and organizations on Twitter provides insight into how the social media platform may be used to communicate about and disseminate information about living donation.

Depressive symptoms, frailty, and adverse outcomes among kidney transplant recipients.

Depressive symptoms and frailty are each independently associated with morbidity and mortality in kidney transplant (KT) recipients. We hypothesized that having both depressive symptoms and frailty would be synergistic and worse than the independent effect of each. In a multicenter cohort study of 773 KT recipients, we measured the Fried frailty phenotype and the modified 18-question Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D). Using adjusted Poisson regression and survival analysis, we tested whether depressive symptoms (CES-D score > 14) and frailty were associated with KT length of stay (LOS), death-censored graft failure (DCGF), and mortality. At KT admission, 10.0% of patients exhibited depressive symptoms, 16.3% were frail, and 3.6% had both. Recipients with depressive symptoms were more likely to be frail (aOR = 3.97, 95% CI: 2.28-6.91, P < 0.001). Recipients with both depressive symptoms and frailty had a 1.88 times (95% CI: 1.70-2.08, P < 0.001) longer LOS, 6.20-fold (95% CI:1.67-22.95, P < 0.01) increased risk of DCGF, and 2.62-fold (95% CI:1.03-6.70, P = 0.04) increased risk of mortality, compared to those who were nonfrail and without depressive symptoms. There was only evidence of synergistic effect of frailty and depressive symptoms on length of stay (P for interaction < 0.001). Interventions aimed at reducing pre-KT depressive symptoms and frailty should be explored for their impact on post-KT outcomes.

Racial differences in completion of the living kidney donor evaluation process.

Racial disparities in living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) persist but the most effective target to eliminate these disparities remains unknown. One potential target could be delays during completion of the live donor evaluation process. We studied racial differences in progression through the evaluation process for 247 African American (AA) and 664 non-AA living donor candidates at our center between January 2011 and March 2015. AA candidates were more likely to be obese (38% vs 22%: P < .001), biologically related (66% vs 44%: P < .001), and live ≤50 miles from the center (64% vs 37%: P < .001) than non-AAs. Even after adjusting for these differences, AAs were less likely to progress from referral to donation (aHR for AA vs non-AA: 0.26 0.47 0.83; P = .01). We then assessed racial differences in completion of each step of the evaluation process and found disparities in progression from medical screening to in-person evaluation (aHR: 0.41 0.620.94; P = .02) and from clearance to donation (aHR: 0.28 0.510.91; P = .02), compared with from referral to medical screening (aHR: 0.78 1.021.33; P = .95) and from in-person evaluation to clearance (aHR: 0.59 0.931.44; P = .54). Delays may be a manifestation of the transplant candidate's social network, thus, targeted efforts to optimize networks for identification of donor candidates may help address LDKT disparities.