Quality of life of living kidney donors: a single-center experience

Living Kidney Donation: A Narrative Review of Mid- and Long-term Psychosocial Outcomes

Living kidney donors make a significant contribution to alleviating the organ shortage. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of mid- and long-term (≥12 mo) living donor psychosocial outcomes and highlight areas that have been understudied and should be immediately addressed in both research and clinical practice. We conducted a narrative review by searching 3 databases. A total of 206 articles were included. Living donors can be divided into those who donate to an emotionally or genetically related person, the so-called directed donors, or to an emotionally or genetically unrelated recipient, the so-called nondirected donors. The most commonly investigated (bio)psychosocial outcome after living donation was health-related quality of life. Other generic (bio)psychological outcomes include specific aspects of mental health such as depression, and fatigue and pain. Social outcomes include financial and employment burdens and problems with insurance. Donation-specific psychosocial outcomes include regret, satisfaction, feelings of abandonment and unmet needs, and benefits of living kidney donation. The experience of living donation is complex and multifaceted, reflected in the co-occurrence of both benefits and burden after donation. Noticeably, no interventions have been developed to improve mid- or long-term psychosocial outcomes among living donors. We highlight areas for methodological improvement and identified 3 areas requiring immediate attention from the transplant community in both research and clinical care: (1) recognizing and providing care for the minority of donors who have poorer long-term psychosocial outcomes after donation, (2) minimizing donation-related financial burden, and (3) studying interventions to minimize long-term psychosocial problems.

A Prospective Study Comparing Quality of Life after Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy versus Open Donor Nephrectomy

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has advantages over open donor nephrectomy (ODN), with less bleeding and pain, and earlier discharge. However, the quality of life (QOL) has not been compared between these techniques. All consecutive donors undergoing left LDN or ODN from 2013 to 2015 at our center were included. The donors' QOL was measured with the brief World Health Organization QOL (WHOQOL-BREF) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) questionnaires preoperatively and at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. Cosmesis was measured by the body image questionnaire, and patient satisfaction was scored on a verbal rating scale at 3 and 6 months. Of the 264 donors, 228 met the inclusion criteria (100 - LDN and 128 - ODN). The LDN group showed no difference in WHOQOL-BREF scores at 3 months, and significant improvements in the psychological and social domains at 6 months versus the baseline. The ODN group showed a significant decrease in the physical, psychological, and environmental domains at 3 and 6 months versus the baseline. Compared with the ODN group, the LDN group had better QOL scores at 3 and 6 months in all domains. The responses to the HADS questionnaire were similar between the groups at all time points. The mean body image, cosmesis, and satisfaction scores were significantly better in the LDN group. LDN minimized the negative effects of surgery on the donors' QOL, with improvements in the long-term psychological and social aspects versus the baseline. LDN was more cosmetic and was associated with higher satisfaction than ODN.

Psychosocial risk factors for impaired health-related quality of life in living kidney donors: results from the ELIPSY prospective study

Living kidney donors' follow-up is usually focused on the assessment of the surgical and medical outcomes. Whilst the psychosocial follow-up is advocated in literature. It is still not entirely clear which exact psychosocial factors are related to a poor psychosocial outcome of donors. The aim of our study is to prospectively assess the donors' psychosocial risks factors to impaired health-related quality of life at 1-year post-donation and link their psychosocial profile before donation with their respective outcomes. The influence of the recipient's medical outcomes on their donor's psychosocial outcome was also examined. Sixty donors completed a battery of standardized psychometric instruments (quality of life, mental health, coping strategies, personality, socio-economic status), and ad hoc items regarding the donation process (e.g., motivations for donation, decision-making, risk assessment, and donor-recipient relationship). Donors' 1-year psychosocial follow-up was favorable and comparable with the general population. So far, cluster-analysis identified a subgroup of donors (28%) with a post-donation reduction of their health-related quality of life. This subgroup expressed comparatively to the rest, the need for more pre-donation information regarding surgery risks, and elevated fear of losing the recipient and commitment to stop their suffering.

Estimating the Net Utility Gains Among Donors and Recipients of Adult Living Donor Kidney Transplant

OBJECTIVES

Living donor kidney transplant relieves the disease burden of patients with end-stage renal disease but may shorten donor life expectancy; however, their quality of life (QOL) is preserved. Nevertheless, the magnitude of the net gain of this procedure is unknown. We evaluated the QOL of both donors and recipients concurrently and calculated the net utility gain.

METHODS

We recruited 210 subjects who visited the kidney transplantation clinic of a university hospital. Subjects were asked to complete the 5-level EQ-5D-based questionnaire, and patient characteristics were extracted from their medical records. We performed multivariate tobit models analysis to evaluate the QOL change caused by transplant surgery and subsequently ran computational simulations to determine the net utility gains of donors and recipients. We also performed sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

After excluding 16 answers with missing data, we analyzed 203 answers in total. After the transplant surgery, recipients gained 0.07 in utility value while donors lost 0.04. In the net utility analysis, we found that the quality-adjusted life years gained ranged from 7.2 to 7.8 in the most favorable case observed in the combination of middle-aged recipients and elderly donors. Assuming no utility discount, the most favorable combination was that with older donors and younger recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicated that the QOL improvement in recipients was larger than the loss among donors. When calculating the net utilities, a combination of middle-aged recipients and elderly donors yielded the largest net utility, but this was likely derived from assumption in the discount of QOL.

Psychosocial wellbeing after living kidney donation - a longitudinal, prospective study

Living kidney donation (LKD) has become routine practice across the world as the gold standard treatment of end-stage renal failure. Whilst the physical risks and harms of LKD surgery are well documented, relatively little is known about psychosocial outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine whether it was possible to quantify the psychosocial impact of LKD. A prospective longitudinal study of 93 living kidney donors was performed. Data were collected preoperatively, and 3 and 12 months after donation. Questionnaires included 11 validated psychosocial outcome measures and questions specific to LKD. Over time, there was no significant change in wellbeing, life satisfaction, self-esteem, social comparison, distress, depression, stress, anxiety or social support at 3 or 12 months. Despite this, questions specific to LKD indicated that donors felt positively about donation, with low levels of regret. This study provides a thorough assessment of psychosocial outcomes after LKD over the first year. Donors felt positive about LKD although there was no evidence of any significant change in psychosocial outcomes. Despite no measurable psychosocial benefit after living kidney donation, there was also no evidence of harm.

QUALITY OF LIFE OF KIDNEY DONORS RESIDING IN KATHMANDU VALLEY

BACKGROUND

Transplantation is evolving as an efficient treatment modality in Nepal for the rising cases of kidney failure. As living donors are healthy people donating their organ for the benefit of the recipient, it is imperative to ensure their safety.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the quality of life (QOL) of kidney donors and to compare it with healthy references.

METHODOLOGY

Cross-sectional, comparative design was used to find out the QOL of 59 donors and 59 healthy references. Convenience sampling was used to approach donors and eligible donors were interviewed at their residences. These were compared with age- and sex-matched references. QOL was assessed using SF36v2.

RESULT

Male, educated and employed donors were found to have better QOL than their counterparts. The comparison of donors and references showed better scores in the donors' QOL with significant differences in general health, mental health and mental component score.

CONCLUSION

This study concludes that living kidney donation does not impair the QOL of the donors but in turn may improve their mental health. Hence, this study supports the practice of living-related kidney transplantation.

IMPLICATIONS

Besides providing baseline data about donors in Nepal, this study may guide health professionals in counselling potential donors and assisting patients and their families to make informed decisions regarding transplant. It can assist health care planners in making policies concerning transplant.

Quality of life in renal transplant recipient and donor

OBJECTIVES

Quality of life (QoL) assessment in renal transplant patients has become an important tool in evaluating outcomes. In this work the QoL of the renal transplant donor and recipient are compared to healthy, age- and BMI-matched individuals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The donors were all living related. The immunosuppression protocol was prednisolone, cyclosporine/tacrolimus, and mycophenolate mofetil/azathioprine. Renal function was stable. Quality of life was assessed by KDQOL-SF-36. It includes 36 items divided into 8 scales.

RESULTS

Comparison among healthy subjects (n = 20), kidney donor (n = 20), vs recipients (n = 40) for age was 35 ± 8, 40 ± 11, vs 37 ± 10 years (P = NS), and BMI was 23 ± 5, 21 ± 4, vs 21 ± 4 kg/m(2) (P = NS). The mean duration of transplantation of donor and recipients was 22 ± 11 vs 28 ± 25 months (P = NS). Items in SF-36 among 3 groups, respectively, showed general health scores of 48 ± 23, 60 ± 20, vs 59 ± 20; physical functioning 61 ± 28, 84 ± 23, vs 76 ± 265; role physical 31 ± 38, 70 ± 44, vs 636 ± 53; pain 79 ± 36, 73 ± 23, vs 69 ± 25; emotional well-being 63 ± 17, 74 ± 14, vs 73 ± 34; social function 83 ± 20, 95 ± 8, vs 91 ± 15, and energy/fatigue 57 ± 17, 62 ± 16, vs 58 ± 15; (P = NS) was similar in all groups. Correlation studies showed strong positive association of all the items with each other.

CONCLUSIONS

This study finding is in accordance with the expected outcome that QoL improves significantly to near normal in renal transplant recipients. At the same time donors' QoL also is not compromised. Both donor and recipient have similar high quality scores to those of a healthy person.

Long-term health-related quality of life of living kidney donors: a single-center experience

PURPOSE

Over the last few years, the evaluation of the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of living kidney donors (LKD) has become of particular interest. The present study sought to evaluate the physical and mental HRQoL after kidney removal. The clinical and paraclinical course of these patients was examined, and the impact of preoperative donor evaluation, donor nephrectomy, and surgical recovery was evaluated. These data were compared with reference data of the general population.

METHODS

Between 1998 and 2010, 72 living kidney donations were performed at our institution. To assess the HRQoL, two questionnaires-the Short Form 36 (SF-36) and a special LKD questionnaire-were sent to all 72 living donors. The records of the follow-up examinations of all 72 donors were retrospectively analyzed in order to assess the clinical and paraclinical data after kidney donation.

RESULTS

Out of 72 donors, 55 (76.4 %) responded to the questionnaires. There was no change in systolic and diastolic blood pressure during the 7-year follow-up (p > 0.05). Mild proteinuria (>150 mg/l) was observed in six cases. Kidney donors had a higher HRQoL compared to the general population with mean values of the physical and mental summation scale (PCS and MCS, respectively) being 51.3 (SD = 7.6) and 50.6 (SD = 8.1). Peri- or postoperative complications were associated with lower values for physical function and physical component summary (PCS) (p < 0.05).

DISCUSSION

Living donor kidney transplantation appears to be safe for donors. The HRQoL is excellent. To ensure a positive outcome for donors, a good clinical evaluation of potential donors is essential.

Determining the factors contributing to quality of life of patients at the last stage of life: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Quality- of- life of patients at their last stage of their life are different from that of other people.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine the factors contributing to the quality- of- life of patients at their last stage of their life and provide good cares for these patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This qualitative study was performed by the thematic- framework method of analysis. Twenty three participants including patients, their families, nurses, physicians, psychologists and clergymen were selected sampling. Data were collected by semi - structured interview. We used the thematic framework method to analyze qualitative data.

RESULTS

Seven factors which needed to be considered in the patients' at last stage quality of life included stress reduction, participation, homecare, education, independency, support, recourses and facilities. According to the findings, the number of these factors may be more than what was mentioned above.

CONCLUSIONS

Paying attention to the quality of life at the last stage can be helpful for patients and their families and the special care can be taken for them.

Renal transplantation from elderly living donors

Acceptance of elderly living kidney donors remains controversial due to the higher incidence of comorbidity and greater risk of postoperative complications. This is a review of publications in the English language between 2000 and 2013 about renal transplantation from elderly living donors to determine trends and effects of donation, and the outcomes of such transplantation. The last decade witnessed a 50% increase in living kidney donor transplants, with a disproportionate increase in donors >60 years. There is no accelerated loss of kidney function following donation, and the incidence of established renal failure (ERF) and hypertension among donors is similar to that of the general population. The overall incidence of ERF in living donors is about 0.134 per 1000 years. Elderly donors require rigorous assessment and should have a predicted glomerular filtration rate of at least 37.5 mL/min/1.73 m(2) at the age of 80. Though elderly donors had lower glomerular filtration rate before donation, proportionate decline after donation was similar in both young and elderly groups. The risks of delayed graft function, acute rejection, and graft failure in transplants from living donors >65 years are significantly higher than transplants from younger donors. A multicentred, long-term, and prospective database addressing the outcomes of kidneys from elderly living donors is recommended.

Prevention of poor psychosocial outcomes in living organ donors: from description to theory-driven intervention development and initial feasibility testing

CONTEXT

Although some living donors experience psychological, somatic, and interpersonal difficulties after donation, interventions to prevent such outcomes have not been developed or evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To (1) summarize empirical evidence on psychosocial outcomes after donation, (2) describe a theoretical framework to guide development of an intervention to prevent poor outcomes, and (3) describe development and initial evaluation of feasibility and acceptability of the intervention.

METHODS

Based on a narrative literature review suggesting that individuals ambivalent about donation are at risk for poor psychosocial outcomes after donation, the intervention targeted this risk factor. Intervention structure and content drew on motivational interviewing principles in order to assist prospective donors to resolve ambivalence. Data were collected on donors' characteristics at our institution to determine whether they constituted a representative population in which to evaluate the intervention. Study participants were then recruited to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. They were required to have scores greater than 0 on the Simmons Ambivalence Scale (indicating at least some ambivalence about donation).

RESULTS

Our population was similar to the national living donor population on most demographic and donation-related characteristics. Eight individuals who had been approved to donate either a kidney or liver segment were enrolled for pilot testing of the intervention. All successfully completed the 2-session telephone-based intervention before scheduled donation surgery. Participants' ratings of acceptability and satisfaction were high. Open-ended comments indicated that the intervention addressed participants' thoughts and concerns about the decision to donate.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention is feasible, acceptable, and appears relevant to donor concerns. A clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of the intervention is warranted.

Understanding and assessing the impact of end-stage renal disease on quality of life: a systematic review of the content validity of self-administered instruments used to assess health-related quality of life in end-stage renal disease

Advances in healthcare, combined with an increasing number of adults with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), mean that there is a growing number of people now surviving on renal replacement therapy. The issue of health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) is becoming increasingly important in this area. For this reason, the content validity of various instruments used to measure HR-QOL in an ESRD population were explored. Systematic searches of MEDLINE (1950-2009) were conducted using terms related to ESRD combined with terms associated with measuring HR-QOL. A total of 378 abstracts were identified, detailing the repeated use of six generic measures and four disease-specific measures. The generic HR-QOL measures discussed include the Medical Outcomes 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36), the EuroQOL 5 Dimension (EQ-5D), and the WHO QOL assessment (WHOQOL-BREF). The most frequently used disease-specific measure discussed is the Kidney Disease QOL instrument (KDQOL) and its derivative versions (KDQOL-SF, KDQOL-36). The appropriateness of using the SF-36 in this population is challenged and recommendations include using the WHOQOL-BREF in cases when a generic instrument is required and the KDQOL-SF when a more disease-specific measurement is called for.

Long-term outcomes of kidney donors

As the demand for kidney transplantation, particularly from living donors, continues to rise, there is increasing and much needed interest in accurately quantifying the long-term risks of kidney donation. We review the outcomes of kidney donors in the domains of survival, perioperative mortality, risk of end-stage renal disease, quality of life, course of diabetes mellitus in donors, pregnancy after donation, obesity, and prevalence of other health conditions.

The long-term quality of life of living kidney donors: a multicenter cohort study

Previous studies that described the long-term quality of life of living kidney donors were conducted in single centers, and lacked data on a healthy nondonor comparison group. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare the quality of life of 203 kidney donors with 104 healthy nondonor controls using validated scales (including the SF36, 15D and feeling thermometer) and author-developed questions. Participants were recruited from nine transplant centers in Canada, Scotland and Australia. Outcomes were assessed a median of 5.5 years after the time of transplantation (lower and upper quartiles of 3.8 and 8.4 years, respectively). 15D scores (scale of 0 to 1) were high and similar between donors and nondonors (mean 0.93 (standard deviation (SD) 0.09) and 0.94 (SD 0.06), p = 0.55), and were not different when results were adjusted for several prognostic characteristics (p = 0.55). On other scales and author-developed questions, groups performed similarly. Donors to recipients who had an adverse outcome (death, graft failure) had similar quality of life scores as those donors where the recipient did well. Our findings are reassuring for the practice of living transplantation. Those who donate a kidney in centers that use routine pretransplant donor evaluation have good long-term quality of life.

Quality of life, coping, and mental health status after living kidney donation

The main aim of the study was to explore well-being after donation. This retrospective, cross-sectional study of 161 living kidney donors (104 women; response rate 81.4%) who were aged between 32 and 80 years (x = 56.3; standard deviation = 10.9) included responses to standardized questionnaires concerning quality of life (QOL), coping, and mental health status. Most donors recovered fully from donation within 6 months (90.8%). Donor willingness to donate again (96.1%) was high. Their relationship to the recipient did not change (67.9%) or even improved (27.5%) in most cases. Donor QOL (as assessed by the Short-Form [SF]-36) did not differ from healthy norms. In 25% of donors, screening with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale revealed anxious and/or depressive symptoms above the clinical cutoff score. Donor predominant coping style with their recipient's renal disease was "active problem-focused coping." The component scores of the SF-36 correlated positively with sociodemographic and self-reported medical parameters, coping, and mental health status. Although living kidney donation again proved to be a treatment without negative impact on donor QOL, the results underlined the importance of screening for donor mental health status and coping both in the evaluation process and after the procedure.

Assessing the impact of ischaemia time during partial nephrectomy

CONTEXT

The impact of applying renal ischaemia during nephron-sparing surgery to avoid renal damage in the treated kidney has gained importance in different surgical techniques.

OBJECTIVE

The main objective of the present study is to point out the limit of renal ischaemia times for warm and cold ischaemia approaches. Important results of research on renal ischaemia and different surgical techniques as well as results of clinical studies concerning renal function after renal ischaemia in partial nephrectomy are highlighted.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A Medline literature research was performed, combining queries on the keywords nephron-sparing surgery, partial nephrectomy, and ischemia. Links to related articles and cross-reading of citations in related articles were surveyed, as were reviews, letters to editors, and information collected from urologic textbooks. The references formed the basis of this review article, with selection and deletion based on the relevance and importance of the content. In a final step, interactive peer review by the expert panel of coauthors completed the review.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Renal ischaemia research showed an increasing renal damage proportional to ischemic time. Current clinical data support safe ischaemia times, within 20 min of warm ischaemia and up to 2 h of cold ischaemia, to minimise renal ischemic damage. To date, no ischaemia dose-response curve or algorithm is available to predict the risk of acute kidney injury and chronic kidney disease in patients undergoing intraoperative ischaemia. In general, there seems to be a higher risk for comorbidity caused by renal damage in patients suffering from kidney tumour.

CONCLUSIONS

If ischaemia is required, the tumour should be removed within 20 min of warm ischaemia, regardless of surgical approach. Efforts should be made to start immediately with cold ischaemia, if the feasibility within this span of time seems to be jeopardised. Thus, cold ischaemia times up to 2 h can be tolerated by the kidney, depending on the individual method. Nevertheless, cold ischaemia with ice slush should be kept as short as possible--at best within 35 min. In ischemic nephron-sparing surgery, one of the surgeon's main aims should be to avoid loss of renal function. Only after optimal preoperative appraisal and planning can the best postoperative outcomes for renal function be achieved.