Background. Elevated serum creatinine at the time of heart transplant is an independent predictor of posttransplant end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and mortality. Patients who are at risk of ESRD should be identified before transplantation. We looked at the severity of CKD at the time of waitlisting on posttransplant ESRD and mortality. Methods. We analyzed the United Network of Organ Sharing transplant database from 2000 to 2017. Adults receiving their first heart transplant, and not on dialysis, were included in study. We divided our cohort into 4 groups based on their listing estimated glomerular filtration (eGFR) as well as based on their eGFR at the time of transplant. Primary outcome was all cause mortality and secondary outcome was ESRD. Results. Compared with the patients on waitlist eGFR ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2, the adjusted subdistribution hazard for ESRD was 1.41 (confidence interval [CI], 1.2-1.5), 2.15 (CI, 1.9-2.4), and 2.91 (CI, 2.4-3.5) in the patient groups with eGFR of 45–59, 30–44, and <30 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively. Despite the highest risk of ESRD with the lowest baseline eGFR group, there was a substantial increase in eGFR seen during follow-up with a mean gain of 11 mL/min by year 15 compared with a mean loss of 10 mL/min in the highest eGFR group. Compared with the patients on waitlist eGFR ≥60 mL/min/1.73m2, the adjusted hazard ratio for mortality was 1.04 (0.98–1.11), 1.07 (1.00–1.15), and 1.04 (0.91–1.19) in the patient groups with eGFR of 45–59, 30–44, and <30 mL/min/1.73m2, respectively. Conclusions. Our findings show that risk of ESRD post-heart transplant increases with worsening eGFR at waitlisting even after adjusting for multiple confounders.

Background. Consensus guidelines advise simultaneous heart kidney transplantation (SHK) in heart candidates with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of <30 mL/min/1.73 m2. We hypothesize that a significant fraction of such patients would not need an SHK, even though a graded increase in mortality and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) would be seen with decrements in eGFR. Methods. United Network of Organ Sharing data for isolated heart transplants between 2000 and 2020 were divided into two groups based on eGFR at transplant (≤20 mL/min/1.73 m2 and 21–29 mL/min/1.73 m2 ). The primary outcome was mortality and secondary outcome was ESKD posttransplant. Cox regression and cumulative incidence competing risk methods were used to compare risk of mortality and ESKD. Results. There was no difference in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.82 [95% confidence interval, CI: 0.60-1.11, P = 0.21]) or ESKD (aHR 1.01 [95% CI: 0.49-2.09, P = 0.96]) between the two groups (≤20 versus 21–29). The overall incidence of ESKD for the entire cohort at 1, 5, and 10 y were 1.5%, 9.5%, and 20%. Conclusions. Although risk of ESKD is highest in heart candidates with an eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2, <10% of patients reach ESKD within 5 y‚ and most will recover significant renal function posttransplant. More refined selection criteria are required to identify candidates for SHK.

No abstract

Background Kidney biopsy is the most vital tool guiding a nephrologist in diagnosis and treatment of kidney disease. Over the last few years, we have seen an increasing number of kidney biopsies being performed by interventional radiologists. The goal of our study was to compare the adequacy and complication rates between kidney biopsies performed by interventional radiology versus nephrology.  Methods  We performed a single center retrospective analysis of a total of all kidney biopsies performed at our Institution between 2015 and 2021. All biopsies were performed using real-time ultrasound. Patients were monitored for four hours post biopsy and repeat ultrasound or hemoglobin checks were done if clinically indicated. The entire cohort was divided into two groups (Interventional radiology (IR) vs nephrology) based on who performed the biopsy. Baseline characteristics, comorbidities, blood counts, blood pressure, adequacy of the biopsy specimen and complication rates were recorded. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare complication rates (microscopic hematuria, gross hematuria and need for blood transfusion combined) between these two groups, controlling for covariates of interest. ANCOVA (analysis of variance, controlling for covariates) was used to compare differences in biopsy adequacy (number of glomeruli per biopsy procedure) between the groups. Results 446 kidney biopsies were performed in the study period (229 native and 147 transplant kidney biopsies) of which 324 were performed by IR and 122 by nephrologist. There was a significantly greater number of core samples obtained by IR (mean = 3.59, std.dev. = 1.49) compared to nephrology (mean = 2.47, std.dev = 0.79), p < 0.0001. IR used 18-gauge biopsy needles while nephrologist exclusively used 16-gauge needles. IR used moderate sedation (95.99%) or general anesthesia (1.85%) for the procedures more often than nephrology, which used them only in 0.82% and 0.82% of cases respectively (p < 0.0001). Trainees (residents or fellows) participated in the biopsy procedures more often in nephrology compared to IR (97.4% versus 69.04%, p < 0.0001). The most frequent complication identified was microscopic hematuria which occurred in 6.8% of biopsies. For native biopsies only, there was no significant difference in likelihood of complication between groups, after adjustment for covariates of interest (OR = 1.01, C.I. = (0.42, 2.41), p = 0.99). For native biopsies only, there was no significant difference in mean number of glomeruli obtained per biopsy procedure between groups, after adjustment for covariates of interest (F(1,251) = 0.40, p = 0.53). Conclusion Our results suggest that there is no significant difference in the adequacy or complication rates between kidney biopsies performed by IR or nephrology. This conclusion may indicate that kidney biopsies can be performed safely with adequate results either by IR or nephrologists depending on each institution’s resources and expertise.

The effect of donor‐to‐recipient (D‐R) age mismatch in adult heart transplant population is not clearly described, and we undertook this study to determine the impact of age mismatch on mortality. Heart transplant recipients from 2000 to 2017 were identified using the United Network of Organ Sharing database. The cohort was divided into three groups: donor age within 5 years of recipient age (Group 1), donors >5 years younger than recipient (group 2), and donors >5 years older than recipients (Group 3). We also evaluated if this finding changed by recipient age. Twenty eight thousand, four hundred and eleven patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared to group 1, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for mortality for group 2 was 0.91 (0.83–0.99, p value <.039) and for group 3 was 1.36 (1.21–1.52, p value <.001); however, when looking at recipient age as continuous variable, receiving a younger heart was protective only for recipients younger than 45 years of age, and receiving a heart transplant from an older donor was detrimental only in recipients aged 25–35.