scholarly journals Early impact of COVID‐19 on transplant center practices and policies in the United States

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (7) ◽  
pp. 1809-1818 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian J. Boyarsky ◽  
Teresa Po‐Yu Chiang ◽  
William A. Werbel ◽  
Christine M. Durand ◽  
Robin K. Avery ◽  
...  
2010 ◽  
Vol 89 (6) ◽  
pp. 639-643 ◽  
Author(s):  
John E. Scarborough ◽  
Kyla M. Bennett ◽  
Robert D. Davis ◽  
Shu S. Lin ◽  
Elizabeth T. Tracy ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 90 (8) ◽  
pp. 272-274
Author(s):  
Matt Freudmann ◽  
Lucy Wales

As a final-year trainee in vascular surgery, I was working at the West London Renal and Transplant Centre for Professor Nadey Hakim and Vassilios Papalois. I am very grateful to both of them for encouraging me to apply for a visiting fellowship to the United States, enabling me to experience some of the benefits of surgical training abroad and to broaden my perspectives in transplantation. I was awarded a visiting fellowship to the University of Minnesota Transplant Center by Professor David Sutherland, head of the division of transplant surgery.


CHEST Journal ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 156 (4) ◽  
pp. A142-A143
Author(s):  
Kathleen Ramos ◽  
Miranda Bradford ◽  
Eric Morrell ◽  
Ranjani Somayaji ◽  
Siddhartha Kapnadak ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S11-S11
Author(s):  
Matthew Stuckey ◽  
Shannon Novosad ◽  
Nancy Wilde ◽  
Pallavi Annambhotla ◽  
Sridhar Basavaraju ◽  
...  

Abstract Background In December 2016, bacterial contamination of an organ preservation solution (OPS) was reported by Transplant Center A in Iowa. Annually, >20,000 abdominal organs are transplanted in the United States; OPS is used for organ storage. We investigated the scope of OPS contamination and its association with adverse events in patients. Methods We assessed infection control practices related to OPS at Transplant Centers A and B in Iowa and the local organ procurement organization (OPO). We issued national notifications about OPS contamination and requested transplant centers to report product-related concerns or potential patient harm. Among transplant recipients at Center A, we compared adverse events (fever, bacteremia, surgical site infection, peritonitis, or pyelonephritis within 14 days of transplantation) during October–December 2015 with October–December 2016, the presumed window of exposure to contaminated OPS. Isolates from OPS were characterized. Results No infection control deficiencies were identified at Transplant Centers A, B, or the OPO. In January 2017, contaminated OPS from the same manufacturer was reported by Transplant Center C in Texas. Nationally, there were no reports of patient harm definitively linked to OPS. Post-transplant adverse events at Center A did not increase between fourth quarter 2015 (5/12 [42%]) and 2016 (2/15 [13%]). Organisms recovered from OPS included Pantoea agglomerans and Enterococcus gallinarum (Center A) and Pseudomonas koreensis (Center C). Five Pantoea isolates from ≥3 opened OPS bags were indistinguishable by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. The OPS distributor issued recalls and suspended production. The US Food and Drug Administration identified deficiencies in current good manufacturing practices at manufacturing and distribution facilities, including inadequate validation of OPS sterility. Conclusion Bacterial contamination of a nationally distributed product was identified by astute clinicians. The investigation found no illnesses were directly linked to the product. Prompt reporting of concerns about potentially contaminated healthcare products, which might put patients at risk, is critical for swift public health action. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.


JAMA ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 322 (18) ◽  
pp. 1789 ◽  
Author(s):  
William F. Parker ◽  
Allen S. Anderson ◽  
Robert D. Gibbons ◽  
Edward R. Garrity ◽  
Lainie F. Ross ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (11) ◽  
pp. e2134236
Author(s):  
Robert Olmeda Barrientos ◽  
Valeria S. M. Valbuena ◽  
Clare E. Jacobson ◽  
Keli S. Santos-Parker ◽  
Maia S. Anderson ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. ASN.2020081242
Author(s):  
Adrian M. Whelan ◽  
Kirsten L. Johansen ◽  
Sandeep Brar ◽  
Charles E. McCulloch ◽  
Deborah B. Adey ◽  
...  

BackgroundTransplant candidates may gain an advantage by traveling to receive care at a transplant center that may have more favorable characteristics than their local center. Factors associated with longer travel distance for transplant care and whether the excess travel distance (ETD) is associated with access to transplantation or with graft failure are unknown.MethodsThis study of adults in the United States wait-listed for kidney transplantation in 1995–2015 used ETD, defined as distance a patient traveled beyond the nearest transplant center for initial waiting list registration. We used linear regression to examine patient and center characteristics associated with ETD and Fine–Gray models to examine the association between ETD (modeled as a spline) and time to deceased or living donor transplantation or graft failure.ResultsOf 373,365 patients, 11% had an ETD≥50 miles. Traveling excess distance was more likely among patients who were of non-Black race or those whose nearest transplant center had lower annual living donor transplant volume. At an ETD of 50 miles, we observed a lower likelihood of deceased donor transplantation (subhazard ratio [SHR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.84 to 0.87) but higher likelihood of living donor transplantation (SHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.16) compared with those who received care at their nearest center. ETD was weakly associated with higher risk of graft failure.ConclusionsPatients who travel excess distances for transplant care have better access to living donor but not deceased donor transplantation and slightly higher risk of graft failure. Traveling excess distances is not clearly associated with better outcomes, especially if living donors are unavailable.


Author(s):  
Laura J. McPherson ◽  
Elizabeth R. Walker ◽  
Yi-Ting Hana Lee ◽  
Jennifer C. Gander ◽  
Zhensheng Wang ◽  
...  

Background and objectivesDialysis facilities in the United States play a key role in access to kidney transplantation. Previous studies reported that patients treated at for-profit facilities are less likely to be waitlisted and receive a transplant, but their effect on early steps in the transplant process is unknown. The study’s objective was to determine the association between dialysis facility profit status and critical steps in the transplantation process in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsIn this retrospective cohort study, we linked referral and evaluation data from all nine transplant centers in the Southeast with United States Renal Data System surveillance data. The cohort study included 33,651 patients with kidney failure initiating dialysis from January 1, 2012 to August 31, 2016. Patients were censored for event (date of referral, evaluation, or waitlisting), death, or end of study (August 31, 2017 for referral and March 1, 2018 for evaluation and waitlisting). The primary exposure was dialysis facility profit status: for profit versus nonprofit. The primary outcome was referral for evaluation at a transplant center after dialysis initiation. Secondary outcomes were start of evaluation at a transplant center after referral and waitlisting.ResultsOf the 33,651 patients with incident kidney failure, most received dialysis treatment at a for-profit facility (85%). For-profit (versus nonprofit) facilities had a lower cumulative incidence difference for referral within 1 year of dialysis (−4.5%; 95% confidence interval, −6.0% to −3.2%). In adjusted analyses, for-profit versus nonprofit facilities had lower referral (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.80 to 0.88). Start of evaluation within 6 months of referral (−1.0%; 95% confidence interval, −3.1% to 1.3%) and waitlisting within 6 months of evaluation (1.0%; 95% confidence interval, −1.2 to 3.3) did not meaningfully differ between groups.ConclusionsFindings suggest lower access to referral among patients dialyzing in for-profit facilities in the Southeast United States, but no difference in starting the evaluation and waitlisting by facility profit status.


Author(s):  
Laura L. Heinemann

In this article, I explore how medical care responsibilities in the United States are shifting away from formal clinical contexts and into the home. Using organ transplant-related care as an illustrative example of this larger phenomenon, I trace the incorporation of health care into the home using three cases from ethnographic fieldwork near a major transplant center in the midwestern United States. Here, patients and loved ones transform their dwellings, lives, and relationships to attend to the demands of transplant medicine. Bringing together literature on hospitality, caregiving, houses and homes, and place and space in health care, I offer ‘accommodating care’ as a framework for understanding the materializing practices of home-based transplant care. This approach suggests avenues toward studying larger questions about the distinctiveness and overlap of medicine and home life.


2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (12) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian J. Boyarsky ◽  
Jessica M. Ruck ◽  
Teresa Po‐Yu Chiang ◽  
William A. Werbel ◽  
Alexandra T. Strauss ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document