Kidney transplantation is a critical treatment option for end-stage kidney disease patients, offering improved quality of life and increased survival rates. However, the complexities of kidney transplant care necessitate continuous advancements in decision making, patient communication, and operational efficiency. This article explores the potential integration of a sophisticated chatbot, an AI-powered conversational agent, to enhance kidney transplant practice and potentially improve patient outcomes. Chatbots and generative AI have shown promising applications in various domains, including healthcare, by simulating human-like interactions and generating contextually appropriate responses. Noteworthy AI models like ChatGPT by OpenAI, BingChat by Microsoft, and Bard AI by Google exhibit significant potential in supporting evidence-based research and healthcare decision making. The integration of chatbots in kidney transplant care may offer transformative possibilities. As a clinical decision support tool, it could provide healthcare professionals with real-time access to medical literature and guidelines, potentially enabling informed decision making and improved knowledge dissemination. Additionally, the chatbot has the potential to facilitate patient education by offering personalized and understandable information, addressing queries, and providing guidance on post-transplant care. Furthermore, under clinician or transplant pharmacist supervision, it has the potential to support post-transplant care and medication management by analyzing patient data, which may lead to tailored recommendations on dosages, monitoring schedules, and potential drug interactions. However, to fully ascertain its effectiveness and safety in these roles, further studies and validation are required. Its integration with existing clinical decision support systems may enhance risk stratification and treatment planning, contributing to more informed and efficient decision making in kidney transplant care. Given the importance of ethical considerations and bias mitigation in AI integration, future studies may evaluate long-term patient outcomes, cost-effectiveness, user experience, and the generalizability of chatbot recommendations. By addressing these factors and potentially leveraging AI capabilities, the integration of chatbots in kidney transplant care holds promise for potentially improving patient outcomes, enhancing decision making, and fostering the equitable and responsible use of AI in healthcare.

Donation after cardiac death (DCD) and acute kidney injury (AKI) donors have historically been considered independent risk factors for delayed graft function (DGF), allograft failure, and inferior outcomes. With growing experience, updated analyses have shown good outcomes. There however continues to be limited data on outcomes specific to DCD donors who have AKI. Primary outcomes for this study were post‐kidney transplant patient and allograft survival comparing two donor groups: DCD AKIN stage 2‐3 and DBD AKIN stage 2‐3. In comparing these groups, there were no short‐ or long‐term differences in patient (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.54‐1.93, p=0.83) or allograft survival (HR 1.47, 95% CI 0.64‐2.97, p=0.32). In multivariate models, the DCD/DBD status had no significant impact on the eGFR at 1‐ (p=0.38), 2‐ (p=0.60), and 3‐years (p=0.52). DGF (57.9% vs. 67.9%, p=0.09), rejection (12.1% vs. 13.9%, p=0.12), and progression of interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy (IFTA) on protocol biopsy (p=0.16) were similar between the two groups. With careful selection, good outcomes can be achieved utilizing severe AKI DCD kidneys. Historic concerns regarding primary non‐function, DGF resulting in interstitial fibrosis and rejection, and inferior outcomes were not observed. Given the ongoing organ shortage, increased effort should be undertaken to further utilize these donors.

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT) outcomes have been attributed to multiple variables, including procurement surgeon recovery techniques. Outcomes of 196 DCD LTs at Mayo Clinic Arizona were analyzed based on graft recovery by a surgeon from our center (transplant procurement team [TPT]) versus a local procurement surgeon (non‐TPT [NTPT]). A standard recovery technique was used for all TPT livers. The recovery technique used by the NTPT was left to the discretion of that surgeon. A total of 129 (65.8%) grafts were recovered by our TPT, 67 (34.2%) by the NTPT. Recipient age (p = 0.43), Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease score (median 17 vs. 18; p = 0.22), and donor warm ischemia time (median 21.0 vs. 21.5; p = 0.86) were similar between the TPT and NTPT groups. NTPT livers had longer cold ischemia times (6.5 vs. 5.0 median hours; p < 0.001). Early allograft dysfunction (80.6% vs. 76.1%; p = 0.42) and primary nonfunction (0.8% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.47) were similar. Ischemic cholangiopathy (IC) treated with endoscopy occurred in 18.6% and 11.9% of TPT and NTPT grafts (p = 0.23). At last follow‐up, approximately half of those requiring endoscopy were undergoing a stent‐free trial (58.3% TPT; 50.0% NTPT; p = 0.68). IC requiring re‐LT in the first year occurred in 0.8% (n = 1) of TPT and 3.0% (n = 2) of NTPT grafts (p = 0.23). There were no differences in patient (hazard ratio [HR], 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76–5.03; p = 0.23) or graft (HR, 1.99; 95% CI, 0.98–4.09; p = 0.10) survival rates. Graft survival at 1 year was 91.5% for TPT grafts and 95.5% for NTPT grafts. Excellent outcomes can be achieved using NTPT for the recovery of DCD livers. There may be an opportunity to expand the use of DCD livers in the United States by increasing the use of NTPT.

Outcomes of both donation after cardiac death (DCD) liver and kidney transplants are improving. Experience in simultaneous liver-kidney transplant (SLK) using DCD donors, however, remains limited. In an updated cohort (2010-2018), outcomes of 30 DCD SLK and 131 donation after brain death (DBD) SLK from Mayo Clinic Arizona and Mayo Clinic Minnesota were reviewed. The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score was lower in the DCD SLK group (23 vs 29, P = .01). Kidney delayed graft function (DGF) rates were similar between the 2 groups (P = .11), although the duration of DGF was longer for DCD SLK recipients (20 vs 4 days, P = .01). Liver allograft (93.3% vs 93.1%, P = .29), kidney allograft (93.3% vs 93.1%, P = .91), and patient (96.7% vs 95.4%, P = .70) 1-year survival rates were similar. At 1 year, there were no differences in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (57.7 ± 18.2 vs 56.3 ± 17.7, P = .75) or progression of fibrosis (ci) on protocol kidney biopsy (P = .67). A higher incidence of biliary complications was observed in the DCD SLK group, with ischemic cholangiopathy being the most common (10.0% vs 0.0%, P = .03). The majority of biliary complications resolved with endoscopic management. With appropriate selection, DCD SLK recipients can have results equivalent to those of DBD SLK recipients.