Assessment of Postdonation Outcomes in US Living Kidney Donors Using Publicly Available Data Sets

Importance

There are limited resources providing postdonation conditions that can occur in living donors (LDs) of solid-organ transplant. Consequently, it is difficult to visualize and understand possible postdonation outcomes in LDs.

Objective

To assemble an open access resource that is representative of the demographic characteristics in the US national registry, maintained by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and administered by the United Network for Organ Sharing, but contains more follow-up information to help to examine postdonation outcomes in LDs.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Cohort study in which the data for the resource and analyses stemmed from the transplant data set derived from 27 clinical studies from the ImmPort database, which is an open access repository for clinical studies. The studies included data collected from 1963 to 2016. Data from the United Network for Organ Sharing Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network national registry collected from October 1987 to March 2016 were used to determine representativeness. Data analysis took place from June 2016 to May 2018. Data from 20 ImmPort clinical studies (including clinical trials and observational studies) were curated, and a cohort of 11 263 LDs was studied, excluding deceased donors, LDs with 95% or more missing data, and studies without a complete data dictionary. The harmonization process involved the extraction of common features from each clinical study based on categories that included demographic characteristics as well as predonation and postdonation data.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Thirty-six postdonation events were identified, represented, and analyzed via a trajectory network analysis.

Results

The curated data contained 10 869 living kidney donors (median [interquartile range] age, 39 [31-48] years; 6175 [56.8%] women; and 9133 [86.6%] of European descent). A total of 9558 living kidney donors with postdonation data were analyzed. Overall, 1406 LDs (14.7%) had postdonation events. The 4 most common events were hypertension (806 [8.4%]), diabetes (190 [2.0%]), proteinuria (171 [1.8%]), and postoperative ileus (147 [1.5%]). Relatively few events (n = 269) occurred before the 2-year postdonation mark. Of the 1746 events that took place 2 years or more after donation, 1575 (90.2%) were nonsurgical; nonsurgical conditions tended to occur in the wide range of 2 to 40 years after donation (odds ratio, 38.3; 95% CI, 4.12-1956.9).

Conclusions and Relevance

Most events that occurred more than 2 years after donation were nonsurgical and could occur up to 40 years after donation. Findings support the construction of a national registry for long-term monitoring of LDs and confirm the value of secondary reanalysis of clinical studies.

Risk of subsequent health disorders among living kidney donors

Few studies have investigated the risk of physiological sequelae in living kidney donors (KDs). We conducted a population-based cohort study using the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan, which covers more than 99% of citizens.We comprehensively investigated the risk of medical disorders after kidney donation in living KDs using a maximum follow-up of 13 years. From January 1997 to December 2010, 1081 living KDs and 1082 age- and sex-matched non-KDs were eligible. Primary outcomes comprised end-stage renal disease, chronic kidney disease, stroke, cancer, acute myocardial infarction, acute renal failure (ARF), and diabetes.The adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for developing ARF, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, cancer, end-stage renal disease, acute myocardial infarction, and stroke were similar between the KD and non-KD cohorts (P > .05). Although differences in the adjusted HRs of ARF were nonsignificant, the cumulative incidence rate of ARF 13 years after donation was 7.48 per 1000 person-years in the KD cohort compared with 3.46 in the matched non-KD cohort. The incidence rate ratio for ARF between donors and nondonors significantly increased to 2.16 (95% confidence interval, 1.61-2.71).Living KDs experienced no significant health disorders following kidney donation but should be alert to the higher incidence rate of ARF.

Impact of educational levels on survival rate: A cohort study of 2007 living donor liver transplant recipients at a single large center

Among living donor liver transplantation recipients, the impact of educational levels on survival has rarely explored. Thus, the purpose of study is to analyze the survival rate differences across educational levels among recipients who underwent living donor liver transplantation.We retrospectively analyzed 2007 adult recipients who underwent living donor liver transplantation in a single large center. The educational level was divided into three categories: middle school or lower, high school, and college or higher. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality after living donor liver transplantation. Stratified log-rank test and Cox proportional hazard model were employed for statistical analysis.The incidence rates of all-cause mortality were 23.85, 20.19, and 18.75 per 1000 person-year in recipients with middle school or lower, high school, and college or higher education groups, respectively. However, the gender-stratified log-rank test has not shown a statistically significant difference (P = .3107). In the unadjusted model, hazard ratio (HR) was 1.02 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.79-1.33] in high school and 1.23 (95% CI = 0.93-1.64) and in middle school or lower educational level, respectively; In the full adjusted model, the HR of high school was 0.98 (95% CI = 0.75-1.28) and the HR of middle school or lower was 1.01 (95% CI = 0.74-1.37).Although study population of this study is large, we could not find significant survival rate differences by the levels of education. Social selection and high compliance rate might contribute to this result.

Management of urolithiasis in living kidney donors

BACKGROUND

Kidney donors with asymptomatic stones were  previously excluded from the kidney donation list because of a potential increased morbidity risk for both the recipient and the donor. Currently, recent studies tend to consider these risks as overestimated.

AIM

The aim of this study was to analyze our experience in the management of urolithiasis in potential donors.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis during the period (2008-2015). We included donors with urilithiasis or a family history of urolithiasis whom had urinary biochemical analysis of urolithiasis. We identified the exact location, size, and anatomy of the kidney bearing the stone were identified.

RESULTS

Among 252 potentially proposed living kidney donors (LKD) in two renal transplantation centers, we noted urinary lithiasis in 8 patients (3.17%). The mean age was 40,12±20 years old with a sex-ratio M/F at 0,3. We noted urinary lithiasis on radiographs in one case, on echographs in one case and on computerized tomography kidney angiography in 5 cases. All are not obese and without any medical history. In one case, there was no lithiasis detected but chemical urinary analysis was performed because of family renal stone history. We performed a 24-hours urine test, and examined PH, calcium and oxalate. The urine analysis, showed acidic pH and hypercalciuria in all cases associated to weddelite in 3 cases, hyperoxaluria in all cases. In one case, we noted vitamin D deficiency related hyperparathyroidism. Renal transplantation has been achieved in two cases. After a mean follow up of 11,25 months [range :27-84], no urological complications were noted.

CONCLUSION

Urinary lithiasis may occur in proposed living kidney donors and may not contraindicate this donation.

Management and outcome of latent tuberculosis in living renal transplant donors

In regions where tuberculosis (TB) is endemic, up to 15% of kidney transplant recipients develop Mycobacterium tuberculosis infections (TBI), typically with an increased risk of disseminated disease and allograft loss. To reduce these risks, donors and recipients with latent TB usually receive isoniazid (INH) prophylaxis. However, it is unclear whether latent TB in donors justifies routine prophylaxis of recipients. At our institution, donors and recipients with latent infection receive INH prophylaxis, and those who do not have latent infections are not routinely treated. We retrospectively analyzed the records of 269 living donor kidney transplant recipient and donor pairs in order to determine the risk of posttransplant TB in those whose kidneys were obtained from living donors with latent TB. Three recipients (1.1%) developed active TB, three, 11, and 12 months after transplantation. Neither donors nor recipients in these pairs had evidence of latent TB before transplantation. Of the 224 pairs with complete data, 24 transplant recipients with negative tuberculin skin test received organs from living donors with evidence of latent TB. None developed active TB, and kidney function one and three years later was preserved. Our findings suggest that routine use of prophylaxis in recipients without latent TB who receive organs from positive donors might not add additional benefit.

Rationale and design of TransplantLines: a prospective cohort study and biobank of solid organ transplant recipients

INTRODUCTION

In the past decades, short-term results after solid organ transplantation have markedly improved. Disappointingly, this has not been accompanied by parallel improvements in long-term outcomes after transplantation. To improve graft and recipient outcomes, identification of potentially modifiable risk factors and development of biomarkers are required. We provide the rationale and design of a large prospective cohort study of solid organ transplant recipients (TransplantLines).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

TransplantLines is designed as a single-centre, prospective cohort study and biobank including all different types of solid organ transplant recipients as well as living organ donors. Data will be collected from transplant candidates before transplantation, during transplantation, at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years and 5 years, and subsequently every 5 years after transplantation. Data from living organ donors will be collected before donation, during donation, at 3 months, 1 year and 5 years after donation, and subsequently every 5 years. The primary outcomes are mortality and graft failure. The secondary outcomes will be cause-specific mortality, cause-specific graft failure and rejection. The tertiary outcomes will be other health problems, including diabetes, obesity, hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia and cardiovascular disease, and disturbances that relate to quality of life, that is, physical and psychological functioning, including quality of sleep, and neurological problems such as tremor and polyneuropathy.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been obtained from the relevant local ethics committee. The TransplantLines cohort study is designed to deliver pioneering insights into transplantation and donation outcomes. The study design allows comprehensive data collection on perioperative care, nutrition, social and psychological functioning, and biochemical parameters. This may provide a rationale for future intervention strategies to more individualised, patient-centred transplant care and individualisation of treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03272841.

National Trends in Liver Transplantation in Older Adults

OBJECTIVES

To explore trends in liver transplantation (LT) and outcomes for older recipients for evaluation, counseling, and appropriate referral of this vulnerable group of older adults.

DESIGN

Prospective national cohort study.

SETTING

Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (January 1, 2003-December 31, 2016).

PARTICIPANTS

Older (aged ≥ 65) deceased donor liver-only transplant recipients (n=8,627).

MEASUREMENTS

We evaluated temporal changes in recipient, donor, and transplant characteristics and post-LT length of stay (LOS), acute rejection, graft loss, and mortality using logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards.

RESULTS

LT in older adults almost quadrupled, from 263 in 2003 (9.5% of total LTs that year) to 1,144 in 2016 (20.7% of total LTs). Recent recipients were more likely to be female and African American and have a higher body mass index and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score. Hepatitis C, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, and hepatocellular carcinoma were the most common indications for LT in recent recipients. Odds of LOS longer than 2 weeks decreased 34% from 2003-06 to 2013-16 (adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.57-0.76, P < .001), 1-year acute rejection decreased 30% (aOR=0.70, 95% CI=0.56-0.88, P = .002), all-cause graft loss decreased 54% (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR)=0.46, 95% CI=0.40-0.52, P < .001), and mortality decreased 57% (aHR=0.43, 95% CI=0.38-0.49, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Despite the substantial increase in the number of older adults undergoing LT and the severity of their condition, LOS, rejection, graft loss, and mortality have significantly decreased over time. These trends can help guide appropriate LT referral and counseling in older adults with end-stage liver disease. J Am Geriatr Soc 66:2321-2326, 2018.

Results of 1001 liver transplantations in 23 years: Ege University experience

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Liver transplantation (LT) is now the standard of care for most end-stage liver diseases. Over the next 30 years, advances in medicine and technology will greatly improve the survival rates of patients after this procedure. The aim of the present study was to analyze retrospectively the results of 1001 patients withLT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medical reports of 989 patients were analyzed retrospectively. Data were obtained from the patient's data chart. Descriptive statistics were used to describe continuous variables (mean, median, and standard deviation).

RESULTS

A total of 1001 LTs for 989 recipients were performed at Ege University Organ Transplantation and Research Center between 1994 and 2017. Therewere 639 male and 350 female recipients. Among 1001 LTs, there were 438 deceased donors and 563 living donors. The age interval of the patients was 4 months to 71 years old. The median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score was 20. There were 12 deceased liver donors using the split method. There were 12 cases subject to retransplantation. In living donor LT grafts, 423 right lobes, 46 left lobes, and 94 left lateral sectors were used. In the first monitoring,the total annual mortality rate was 130 cases (13%). The mortality rate in retransplantation was found to be 66%. A 1-year survival rate of 87% was generally stablished.

CONCLUSION

LThas been improving consistently over the last two decades. Ege University is one of the biggest liver transplant centers in Turkey for both technical and educational perspective.

Measured Glomerular Filtration Rate After Kidney Donation: No Evidence of Accelerated Decay

BACKGROUND

The rate of measured glomerular filtration rate (GFR) change in kidney donor years after donation has not been adequately addressed. Whether this change is accelerated in the setting of 1 kidney is also understudied.

METHODS

Two hundred fourteen randomly selected donors underwent serial GFR measurements of nonradioactive iohexol. Estimated GFR at each visit was calculated using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease study equations.

RESULTS

Glomerular filtration rate visits were 4.8 ± 1.3 years apart and the second occurring 16.9 ± 9.1 years after donation. Most (97.7%) were white, 60.8% female, and 78.5% were related to their recipient. Most, 84.6%, had a GFR of 60 mL/min per 1.73 m or higher, 14.0% had a GFR between 45 and 60 mL/min per 1.73 m, and 1.4% had a GFR less than 45 mL/min per 1.73 m. Between visits 1 and 2, 56.5% had a GFR decline, 36.0% increase, and in 7.5%, there was no change. Overall, GFR declined at a rate of -0.42 mL/min per 1.73 m per year. Of GFR estimating models, only Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration-Creatinine equation produced a slope that was steeper than measured GFR.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 2 decades postdonation GFR declined at a rate similar to that seen in the general population, and in one third, GFR continues to increase.

Expanding the donor pool: Donation after circulatory death and living liver donation do not compromise the results of liver transplantation

Because of the shortfall between the number of patients listed for liver transplantation (LT) and the available grafts, strategies to expand the donor pool have been developed. Donation after circulatory death (DCD) and living donor (LD) grafts are not universally used because of the concerns of graft failure, biliary complications, and donor risks. In order to overcome the barriers for the implementation of using all 3 types of grafts, we compared outcomes after LT of DCD, LD, and donation after brain death (DBD) grafts. Patients who received a LD, DCD, or DBD liver graft at the University of Toronto were included. Between January 2009 through April 2017, 1054 patients received a LT at our center. Of these, 77 patients received a DCD graft (DCD group); 271 received a LD graft (LD group); and 706 received a DBD graft (DBD group). Overall biliary complications were higher in the LD group (11.8%) compared with the DCD group (5.2%) and the DBD group (4.8%; P < 0.001). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft survival rates were similar between the groups with 88.3%, 83.2%, and 69.2% in the DCD group versus 92.6%, 85.4%, and 84.7% in the LD group versus 90.2%, 84.2%, and 79.9% in the DBD group (P = 0.24). Furthermore, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year patient survival was comparable, with 92.2%, 85.4%, and 71.6% in the DCD group versus 95.2%, 88.8%, and 88.8% in the LD group versus 93.1%, 87.5%, and 83% in the DBD group (P = 0.14). Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that the type of graft did not impact graft survival. In conclusion, DCD, LD, and DBD grafts have similar longterm graft survival rates. Increasing the use of LD and DCD grafts may improve access to LT without affecting graft survival rates. Liver Transplantation 24 779-789 2018 AASLD.

Status of Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States: Results from the Adult-To-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study

This article reviews the Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplant Cohort Study (A2ALL). The findings show that the number of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplants is consistently increasing. Living donor liver transplantation has an important benefit for patients with acute liver failure, does not compromise donor safety, and has lower rates of acute cellular rejection in biologically related donor and recipient. The conclusions from the A2ALL consortium have been critical in transplant advancement, supporting increased use to help decrease waitlist death and improve long-term survival of transplant recipients.

Life-threatening or nearly life-threatening complications in living liver donors

OBJECTIVE

To determine the relationship between a transplant center's experience and life-threatening or nearly life-threatening complications during living donor hepatectomy (LDH).

METHODS

The medical records of 1140 patients who underwent LDH were analyzed. To determine the relationship between life-threatening complications and a transplant center's experience, the following comparisons between LDH cases were performed: first 100 vs subsequent 100; first 100 vs subsequent 1040; first 200 vs subsequent 940; right hepatectomy vs left hepatectomy; and first 5 years of experience vs subsequent 5 years.

RESULTS

A total of 36 life-threatening or nearly life-threatening complications developed in 34 of 1140 (2.98%) healthy individuals undergoing LDH. Of these, 5 occurred intraoperatively, 26 within 1 month, and 5 beyond 1 month. The most common complications were biliary problems and postoperative bleeding. None of the donors died at follow-up. One donor underwent deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) for severe hepatic failure. Only 2 comparisons were significantly different with regard to life-threatening complications: the first 100 vs the subsequent 1040 (P = .03) and the first 200 vs the subsequent 940 (P = .01).

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that the incidence of life-threatening or nearly life-threatening complications are reduced by increased center experience (>200 LDHs).

7 Years Experience of Living Donor Kidney Transplantation in Indonesia: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

kidney transplantation has been developing rapidly in Indonesia in recent years, yet data on transplants' characteristics and survival is still unavailable. In Indonesia, only living donors are permitted. Living donor are advantageous, but challenging to recruit. This study aimed to establish the graft and patient survival rates and to describe the characteristics of recipient and donor as well as the process of donor recruitment and evaluation of kidney transplantation in Indonesia.

METHODS

the study was a retrospective cohort on all donors and kidney transplant recipients at Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital (CMGH) from January 2011 to May 2017. Only recipients from January 2011 to May 2014 were included to establish the 1-year and 3-year graft and patient survival; which were described using Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

data from 492 kidney transplant procedures were obtained (donor median age, 30 (17 - 66) years; 25.1% were family-related. Recipients mean age, 47 (SD 13.18 years). Data from total of 138 kidney transplant recipients were further analyzed. The 1-year death- censored graft survival, all-cause graft survival and patient survival were 92 %, 82.6 % and 87%. The 3-year death-censored graft survival, all-cause graft survival and patient survival were 90.6%, 76.1% and 79.7%. Kaplan-Meier's curve showed the highest mortality rates occured in the early months.

CONCLUSION

the 1-year graft and patient survival rate were 92% and 87%. The 3-year graft and patient survival rate were 90.6% and 79.7%. Only small percentage of donor were family-related. Living donor recruitment and evaluation are still a big challenge in Indonesia.

Nephrolithiasis in living kidney donor: experience of nephrologists

BACKGROUND

Living kidney donation for transplantation has become common practice. The decisions to accept a donor with nephrolithiasis are becoming frequent.

AIM

The aim of our study was to report our experience in the living donor kidney with asymptomatic lithiasis.

METHODS

Over a period of 4 years from 2009 to 2013 we collected 18 cases. From the clinical, metabolic and radiological data, we have determined the etiology of urolithiasis in our patients and established, after a literature review, a decision tree of kidney donation.

RESULTS

Our study included 10 women and 8 men with a mean age of 43 years. The nephrolithiasis was discovered incidentally during radiological assessment through the urinary tract without preparation in 1 case, the abdominal ultrasound in 6 cases and the abdominal CT scan in 11 cases. The donation of kidney in our study was performed in 1 case and disqualified in the others cases especially for metabolic abnormalities. In the single couple donor-recipient, after a follow up of 5 years; we have not identified adverse side effects either in the donor or in the recipient patient.

CONCLUSION

In living donors with nephrolithiasis the final decision of renal transplantation must be based on the confrontation between the clinical, biological and radiological data. Metabolic disorders constituted the mainly contraindication of kidney donation in our patients.

Selection and Short-Term Outcomes of Living Kidney Donors in Singapore - An Analysis of the Donor Care Registry

INTRODUCTION

Transplant rates in Singapore have been falling and there is limited information on baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of living kidney donors nationally. This study aimed to determine the safety of living kidney donor transplant in Singapore by exploring the proportion of donors that meets international selection guidelines and describing short-term clinical outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analysed 472 donors who underwent nephrectomies from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2014 from the Donor Care Registry. We described donor characteristics against 5 international guidelines and measured post-nephrectomy outcomes in 150 local donors for up to 24 months. A multivariate analysis was performed to determine the baseline variables associated with poorer outcomes.

RESULTS

There were more foreign than local donors, with differences in gender and hospital types. Selection was generally aligned with international recommendations although 3.0% (using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology [CKD-EPI] equation) to 8.5% (using radionuclide and creatinine clearance methods) of donors had inappropriate baseline estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) forage. Post-procedure, many foreign donors were lost to follow-up. Over 24 months, eGFR decreased by 33.8% from baseline before recovering gradually to 29.6%. During this period, only 2 donors were admitted for renal or urological conditions and there were no cases of end-stage renal failure or deaths. A lower baseline eGFR (HR: 1.05; 95% Cl, 1.02 to 1.09) and older age (HR: 1.04; 95% Cl, 1.00 to 1.08) were associated with a post-nephrectomy eGFR of less than 60 mL/kg/1.73 m².

CONCLUSION

Kidney donation is safe in Singapore. Donor selection is in keeping with international guidelines and short-term outcomes are comparable to other cohorts.

Apolipoprotein L1 Gene Effects on Kidney Transplantation

The pathogenesis of many common etiologies of nephropathy has been informed by recent molecular genetic breakthroughs. It now is apparent that the ethnic disparity in the risk for nondiabetic chronic kidney disease between African Americans and European Americans is explained largely by variation in the apolipoprotein L1 gene (APOL1). The presence of two APOL1 renal risk variants markedly increases an individual's risk for kidney disease. In transplantation, kidneys from deceased African Americans with two APOL1 renal risk variants have shorter survival intervals after engraftment, regardless of the ethnicity of the recipient. Precision medicine will transform the clinical practice of nephrology and kidney transplantation, and play an important role in the allocation of kidneys from deceased and living kidney donors with recent African ancestry. This article reviews existing data on APOL1 in deceased-donor and living-donor kidney transplantation. It considers the impact of including APOL1 genotyping in decisions on the allocation and discard of deceased-donor kidneys, as well as the selection of living donors.

[Outcome of living kidney donors for transplantation]

Nowadays, several treatments exist to treat terminal chronic renal failure. Best results for the recipients are obtained with kidney transplantation concerning mortality and quality of life. Transplantation is also the cheaper option for society. Living kidney donation raises the issue of the becoming of the donor, an absolutely healthy subject who gets to a surgical procedure. The becoming of living kidney donors has been compared with the one of controls subjects in several studies. The evaluations focused on the complications of nephrectomy in the short and long-term: kidney failure, hypertension, proteinuria, possibility of pregnancy, quality of life, and mortality. The first results did not show any risk linked to kidney donation, compared to general population. However, since 2013, kidney donors were found at higher risk for kidney failure and even for mortality, compared with controls selected like donor candidates. The risk of kidney donation is nevertheless acceptable and minimal, on the condition of rigorous selection of candidates and regular follow-up.

No significant differences in short-term renal prognosis between living kidney donors with and without diabetes

BACKGROUND

Renal prognosis in living kidney donors with diabetes is currently not known. In this study, we sought to investigate renal prognosis in living kidney donors with diabetes.

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated 241 living kidney donors who underwent nephrectomy at Jichi Medical University Hospital between January 2000 and December 2015. Donors with a follow-up period of less than 1 year were excluded. The remaining donors were divided into a diabetic group and a non-diabetic group. Their clinical parameters before donation and renal prognosis after donation were compared.

RESULTS

Of the 241 donors, 16 were excluded due to their follow-up period being less than 1 year. Of the remaining 225 donors, 14 were diabetic and 211 were non-diabetic. There were no significant differences in variables at pre-donation. The median follow-up period was 4.3 (1.5-10.7) and 4.6 (1.0-13.0) years in kidney donors with and without diabetes, respectively. At the end of follow-up, the estimated glomerular filtration rate was 51.7 ± 7.1 ml/min/1.73 m² in the diabetic group and 52.1 ± 12.2 ml/min/1.73 m² (p = 0.906) in the non-diabetic group; urine albumin excretion was 9.5 (2-251) mg/day (or mg/g creatinine) in the diabetic group and 6 (0-626) mg/day (or mg/g creatinine) in the non-diabetic group (p = 0.130); and urine protein excretion was 0.079 (0-0.41) g/day in the diabetic group and 0.051 (0-3.7) g/day in the non-diabetic group (p = 0.455).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences in short-term renal prognosis between kidney donors with and without diabetes.

Impact of screening for metabolic syndrome on the evaluation of obese living kidney donors

BACKGROUND

We report our experience with metabolic syndrome screening for obese living kidney donor candidates to mitigate the long-term risk of CKD.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 814 obese (BMI≥30) and 993 nonobese living kidney donor evaluations over 12 years. Using logistic regression, we explored interactions between social/clinical variables and candidate acceptance before and after policy implementation.

RESULTS

Obese donor candidate acceptance decreased after metabolic syndrome screening began (56.3%, 46.3%, p < 0.01), while nonobese candidate acceptance remained similar (59.6%, 59.2%, p = 0.59). Adjusting for age, gender, race, BMI, and number of prior evaluations, acceptance of obese candidates decreased significantly more than nonobese (p = 0.025). In candidates without metabolic syndrome, there was no significant change in how age, sex, race, or BMI affected a donor candidate's probability of acceptance.

CONCLUSION

Metabolic syndrome screening is a simple stratification tool for centers with liberal absolute BMI cut-offs to exclude potentially higher-risk obese candidates.

Quantifying Postdonation Risk of ESRD in Living Kidney Donors

Studies have estimated the average risk of postdonation ESRD for living kidney donors in the United States, but personalized estimation on the basis of donor characteristics remains unavailable. We studied 133,824 living kidney donors from 1987 to 2015, as reported to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, with ESRD ascertainment via Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services linkage, using Cox regression with late entries. Black race (hazard ratio [HR], 2.96; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.25 to 3.89; P<0.001) and male sex (HR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.50 to 2.35; P<0.001) was associated with higher risk of ESRD in donors. Among nonblack donors, older age was associated with greater risk (HR per 10 years, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.59; P<0.001). Among black donors, older age was not significantly associated with risk (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.09; P=0.3). Greater body mass index was associated with higher risk (HR per 5 kg/m2, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.29 to 2.00; P<0.001). Donors who had a first-degree biological relationship to the recipient had increased risk (HR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.24 to 2.34; P<0.01). C-statistic of the model was 0.71. Predicted 20-year risk of ESRD for the median donor was only 34 cases per 10,000 donors, but 1% of donors had predicted risk exceeding 256 cases per 10,000 donors. Risk estimation is critical for appropriate informed consent and varies substantially across living kidney donors. Greater permissiveness may be warranted in older black candidate donors; young black candidates should be evaluated carefully.

Donor safety in living donor liver transplantation: The Korean organ transplantation registry study

Major concerns about donor safety cause controversy and limit the use of living donor liver transplantation to overcome organ shortages. The Korean Organ Transplantation Registry established a nationwide organ transplantation registration system in 2014. We reviewed the prospectively collected data of all 832 living liver donors who underwent procedures between April 2014 and December 2015. We allocated the donors to a left lobe group (n = 59) and a right lobe group (n = 773) and analyzed the relations between graft types and remaining liver volumes and complications (graded using the Clavien 5-tier grading system). The median follow-up was 19 months (range, 10-31 months). During the study period, 553 men and 279 women donated livers, and there were no deaths after living liver donation. The overall, biliary, and major complication (grade ≥ III) rates were 9.3%, 1.7%, and 1.9%, respectively. The graft types and remaining liver volume were associated with significantly different overall, biliary, and major complication rates. Of the 16 patients with major complications, 9 (56.3%) involved biliary complications (2 biliary strictures [12.5%] and 7 bile leakages [43.8%]). Among the 832 donors, the mean aspartate transaminase, alanine aminotransferase, and total bilirubin levels were 23.9 ± 8.1 IU/L, 20.9 ± 11.3 IU/L, and 0.8 ± 0.4 mg/dL, respectively, 6 months after liver donation. In conclusion, biliary complications were the most common types of major morbidity in living liver donors. Donor hepatectomy can be performed successfully with minimal and easily controlled complications. Our study shows that prospective, nationwide cohort data provide an important means of investigating the safety in living liver donation. Liver Transplantation 23 999-1006 2017 AASLD.

A Case-Based Analysis of Whether Living Related Donors Listed for Transplant Share ESRD Causes with Their Recipients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Two recent studies reported increased risk of ESRD after kidney donation. In both, the majority of ESRD was seen in those donating to a relative. Confounding this observation is that, in the absence of donation, relatives of those with ESRD are at increased risk for ESRD. Understanding the pathogenesis and risk factors for postdonation ESRD is critical for both donor selection and counseling.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We hypothesized that if familial relationship was an important consideration in pathogenesis, the donor and linked recipient would share ESRD etiology. We obtained information from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) on all living kidney donors subsequently waitlisted for a kidney transplant in the United States between January 1, 1996 and November 30, 2015, to determine (1) the donor-recipient relationship and (2) whether related donor-recipient pairs had similar causes of ESRD.

RESULTS

We found that a significant amount of information, potentially available at the time of listing, was not reported to the OPTN. Of 441 kidney donors listed for transplant, only 169 had information allowing determination of interval from donation to listing, and only 99 (22% of the total) had information on the donor-recipient relationship and ESRD etiology. Of the 99 donors, 87 were related to their recipient. Strikingly, of the 87, only a minority (23%) of donor-recipient pairs shared ESRD etiology. Excluding hypertension, only 8% shared etiology.

CONCLUSIONS

A better understanding of ESRD in donors requires complete and detailed data collection, as well as a method to capture all ESRD end points. This study highlights the absence of critical information that is urgently needed to provide a meaningful understanding of ESRD after kidney donation. We found that of living related donors listed for transplant, where both donor and recipient cause of ESRD is recorded, only a minority share ESRD etiology with their recipient.

Characteristics and Evaluation of Geographically Distant vs Geographically Nearby Living Kidney Donors

BACKGROUND

Living donor kidney transplant (LDKT) can be impeded by multiple barriers. One possible barrier to LDKT is a large physical distance between the living donor's home residence and the procuring transplant center.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective, single-center study of living kidney donors in the United States who were geographically distant (residing ≥150 miles) from our transplant center. Each distant donor was matched to 4 geographically nearby donors (<150 miles from our center) as controls.

RESULTS

From 2007 to 2010, of 429 live kidney donors, 55 (12.8%) were geographically distant. Black donors composed a higher proportion of geographically distant vs nearby donors (34.6% vs 15.5%), whereas Hispanic and Asian donors composed a lower proportion (P = .001). Distant vs nearby donors had similar median times from donor referral to actual donation (165 vs 161 days, P = .81). The geographically distant donors lived a median of 703 miles (25% to 75% range, 244 to 1072) from our center and 21.2 miles (25% to 75% range, 9.8 to 49.7) from the nearest kidney transplant center. The proportion of geographically distant donors who had their physician evaluation (21.6%), psychosocial evaluation (21.6%), or computed tomography angiogram (29.4%) performed close to home, rather than at our center, was low.

CONCLUSIONS

Many geographically distant donors live close to transplant centers other than the procuring transplant center, but few of these donors perform parts of their donor evaluation at these closer centers. Black donors comprise a large proportion of geographically distant donors. The evaluation of geographically distant donors, especially among minorities, warrants further study.

Access to Kidney Transplantation among HIV-Infected Waitlist Candidates

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Kidney transplantation among HIV-infected patients with ESRD confers a significant survival benefit over remaining on dialysis. Given the high mortality burden associated with dialysis, understanding access to kidney transplantation after waitlisting among HIV+ candidates is warranted.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients were linked to Intercontinental Marketing Statistics pharmacy fills (January 1, 2001 to October 1, 2012) so that we could identify and study 1636 HIV+ (defined as having filled one or more antiretroviral medications unique to HIV treatment) and 72,297 HIV- kidney transplantation candidates.

RESULTS

HIV+ waiting list candidates were more often young (<50 years old: 62.7% versus 37.6%; P<0.001), were more often men (75.2% versus 59.3%; P<0.001), were more often black (73.6% versus 27.9%; P<0.001), had longer time on dialysis (years: 2.5 versus 0.8; P<0.001), were more often coinfected with hepatitis C virus (9.0% versus 3.9%; P<0.001), and were less likely to remain active on the waiting list (37.7% versus 49.4%; P<0.001). Waitlist mortality among HIV+ candidates was similar compared with HIV- candidates (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.89 to 1.20; P=0.67). In contrast, likelihood of living donor kidney transplantation was 47% lower (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.44 to 0.64; P<0.001), and there was a trend toward lower likelihood of deceased donor kidney transplantation (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.74 to 1.01; P=0.07) compared with in HIV- candidates.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight the need for additional study to better understand disparities in access to kidney transplantation, particularly living donor kidney transplantation, among HIV+ kidney waitlist candidates.