Background and objectives Barriers exist in access to kidney transplantation, where minority and patients with low socioeconomic status are less likely to complete transplant evaluation. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a transplant center-based patient navigator in helping patients at high risk of dropping out of the transplant evaluation process access the kidney transplant waiting list.Design, setting, participants & measurements We conducted a randomized, controlled trial of 401 patients (n=196 intervention and n=205 control) referred for kidney transplant evaluation (January 2013 to August 2014; followed through May 2016) at a single center. A trained navigator assisted intervention participants from referral to waitlisting decision to increase waitlisting (primary outcome) and decrease time from referral to waitlisting (secondary outcome). Time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine differences in waitlisting between intervention and control patients.Results At study end, waitlisting was not significantly different among intervention (32%) versus control (26%) patients overall (P=0.17), and time from referral to waitlisting was 126 days longer for intervention patients. However, the effectiveness of the navigator varied from early (,500 days from referral) to late ($500 days) followup. Although no difference in waitlisting was observed among intervention (50%) versus control (50%) patients in the early period (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 1.53), intervention patients were 3.3 times more likely to be waitlisted after 500 days (75% versus 25%; hazard ratio, 3.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.20 to 9.12). There were no significant differences in intervention versus control patients who started evaluation (85% versus 79%; P=0.11) or completed evaluation (58% versus 51%; P=0.14); however, intervention patients had more living donor inquiries (18% versus 10%; P=0.03).Conclusions A transplant center-based navigator targeting disadvantaged patients improved waitlisting but not until after 500 days of follow-up. However, the absolute effect was relatively small.

Among a limited sample of dialysis facilities with low waitlisting, provider awareness of racial disparities in kidney transplant waitlisting was low, particularly among staff who may have more routine contact with patients.

IntroductionThe United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) implemented a new Kidney Allocation System (KAS) in December 2014 that is expected to substantially reduce racial disparities in kidney transplantation among waitlisted patients. However, not all dialysis facility clinical providers and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients are aware of how the policy change could improve access to transplantation.MethodsWe describe the ASCENT (Allocation System Changes for Equity in Kidney Transplantation) study, a randomized, controlled effectiveness-implementation study designed to test the effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention to improve access to the early steps of kidney transplantation among dialysis facilities across the United States. The multicomponent intervention consists of an educational webinar for dialysis medical directors, an educational video for patients and an educational video for dialysis staff, and a dialysis facility−specific transplantation performance feedback report. Materials will be developed by a multidisciplinary dissemination advisory board and will undergo formative testing in dialysis facilities across the United States.ResultsThis study is estimated to enroll ∼600 US dialysis facilities with low waitlisting in all 18 ESRD networks. The co-primary outcomes include change in waitlisting and waitlist disparity at 1 year; secondary outcomes include changes in facility medical director knowledge about KAS, staff training regarding KAS, patient education regarding transplantation, and the intent of the medical director to refer patients for transplantation evaluation.DiscussionThe results from the ASCENT study will demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention designed to increase access to the deceased donor kidney waitlist and to reduce racial disparities in waitlisting.

Background Kidney and liver transplant recipients must manage a complex care regimen after kidney transplant. Although the use of Web-based patient portals is known to improve patient-provider communication and health outcomes in chronic disease populations by helping patients manage posttransplant care, disparities in access to and use of portals have been reported. Little is known about portal usage and disparities among kidney and liver transplant recipients. Objective The aim of this study was to examine patient racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, and clinical characteristics associated with portal usage among kidney and liver transplant recipients. Methods The study included all adult kidney and liver transplant recipients (n=710) at a large academic transplant center in the Southeastern United States between March 2014 and November 2016. Electronic medical record data were linked with Cerner portal usage data. Patient portal use was defined as any portal activity (vs no activity) recorded in the Cerner Web-based portal, including viewing of health records, lab results, medication lists, and the use of secure messaging. Multivariable log-binomial regression was used to determine the patient demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic characteristics associated with portal usage, stratified by organ. Results Among 710 transplant recipients (n=455 kidney, n=255 liver), 55.4% (252/455) of kidney recipients and 48.2% (123/255) of liver recipients used the patient portal. Black patients were less likely to use the portal versus white patients among both kidney (57% black vs 74% white) and liver (28% black vs 55% white) transplant recipients. In adjusted multivariable analyses, kidney transplant recipients were more likely to use the portal if they had higher education; among liver recipients, patients who were white versus black and had higher education were more likely to use the portal. Conclusions Despite studies showing that patient portals have the potential to benefit transplant recipients as a tool for health management, racial and socioeconomic disparities should be considered before widespread implementation. Transplant centers should include portal training and support to all patients to encourage use, given its potential to improve outcomes.

Kidney transplantation is the preferred treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease, as it substantially increases a patient's survival and is cost saving compared to a lifetime of dialysis. However, transplantation is not universally chosen by patients with renal failure, and limited knowledge about the survival benefit of transplantation vs. dialysis may play a role. We created a mobile application clinical decision aid called iChoose Kidney to improve access to individualized prognosis information comparing dialysis and transplantation outcomes. We describe the iChoose Kidney study, a randomized controlled trial designed to test the clinical efficacy of a mobile health decision aid among end-stage renal disease patients referred for kidney transplantation at three large, diverse transplant centers across the U.S. Approximately 450 patients will be randomized to receive either: (1) standard of care or “usual” transplantation education, or (2) standard of care plus iChoose Kidney. The primary outcome is change in knowledge about the survival benefit of kidney transplantation vs. dialysis from baseline to immediate follow-up; secondary outcomes include change in treatment preferences, improved decisional conflict, and increased access to kidney transplantation. Analyses are also planned to examine effectiveness across subgroups of race, socioeconomic status, health literacy and health numeracy. Engaging patients in health care choices can increase patient empowerment and improve knowledge and understanding of treatment choices. If the effectiveness of iChoose Kidney has a greater impact on patients with low health literacy, lower socioeconomic status, and minority race, this decision aid could help reduce disparities in access to kidney transplantation.

Introduction: The Allocation System Changes for Equity in Kidney Transplantation (ASCENT) trial was a cluster-randomized pragmatic, effectiveness-implementation study designed to test whether a multicomponent educational intervention targeting leadership, clinic staff, and patients in dialysis facilities improved knowledge and awareness of the 2014 Kidney Allocation System (KAS) change. Methods: Participants included 690 dialysis facility medical directors, nephrologists, social workers, and other staff within 655 US dialysis facilities, with 51% (n ¼ 334) in the intervention group and 49% (n ¼ 321) in the control group. Intervention activities included a webinar targeting medical directors and facility staff, an approximately 10-minute educational video targeting dialysis staff, an approximately 10-minute educational video targeting patients, and a facility-specific audit and feedback report of transplant performance. The control group received a standard United Network for Organ Sharing brochure. Provider knowledge was a secondary outcome of the ASCENT trial and the primary outcome of this study; knowledge was assessed as a cumulative score on a 5-point Likert scale (higher score ¼ greater knowledge). Intention-to-treat analysis was used. Results: At baseline, nonintervention providers had a higher mean knowledge score (mean AE SD, 2.45 AE 1.43) than intervention providers (mean AE SD, 2.31 AE 1.46). After 3 months, the average knowledge score was slightly higher in the intervention (mean AE SD, 3.14 AE 1.28) versus nonintervention providers (mean AE SD, 3.07 AE 1.24), and the estimated mean difference in knowledge scores between the groups at follow-up minus the mean difference at baseline was 0.25 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-0.48; P ¼ 0.039). The effect size (0.41) was low to moderate. Conclusion: Dialysis facility provider education could help extend the impact of a national policy change in organ allocation.

Background: The impact of comorbidity on the risk of revision in patients undergoing Total Knee arthroplasty (TKA) and Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) is not currently well known. The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of comorbidity on the risk of revision in TKA and THA. Methods: Patients recorded in the Catalan Arthroplasty Register (RACat) between 01/01/2005 and 31/12/2016 undergoing TKA (n = 49,701) and THA (n = 17,923) caused by osteoarthritis were included. As main explanatory factors, comorbidity burden was assessed by the Elixhauser index, categorized, and specific comorbidities from the index were taken into account. Descriptive analyses for comorbidity burden and specific conditions were done. Additionally, incidence at 1 and 5 years' follow-up was calculated, and adjusted Competing Risks models were fitted. Results: A higher incidence of revision was observed when the number of comorbidities was high, both at 1 and 5 years for THA, but only at 1 year for TKA. Of the specific conditions, only obesity was related to the incidence of revision at 1 year in both joints, and at 5 years in TKA. The risk of revision was related to deficiency anemia and liver diseases in TKA, while in THA, it was related to peripheral vascular disorders, metastatic cancer and psychoses. Conclusions: Different conditions, depending on the joint, might be related to higher revision rates. This information could be relevant for clinical decision-making, patient-specific information and improving the results of both TKA and THA.

The volume of total hip (THA) and knee arthroplasties (TKA) performed in a hospital per year could be an influential factor on the revision of these procedures. The aims of this study were: To obtain comparable cohorts in higher- and lower-volume hospitals; and to assess the association between the hospital volume and the incidence of revision. Data from patients undergoing THA and TKA caused by osteoarthritis and recorded in the Catalan Arthroplasty Register (RACat) between January 2005 and December 2016 were used. The main explanatory variable was hospital volume by year (higher/lower). The cut-off point was fixed, based on previous research, at 50 THA and 125 TKA procedures/year. To obtain comparable populations, a propensity-score matching method (1:1) was used. Patient characteristics prior to and after matching were compared. To assess differences by volume, subhazard ratios (SHRs) from competing risks models were obtained. After matching, 13,772 THA and 36,316 TKA patients remained in the study. Prior to matching, in both joints, significant differences in all confounders were observed between volume groups. After matching, none of them remained significant. Both in THA and TKA, a higher risk of revision in higher-volume hospitals was observed (THA SHR: 1.25, 95%CI: 1.02–1.53; and TKA SHR: 1.29, 95%CI: 1.16–1.44). Unlike other contexts, currently in Catalonia, higher-volume hospitals have a greater risk of revision than lower-volume hospitals. Further research could be valuable to define context-dependent measures to reduce the incidence of revision.