Living donation: the global perspective

The Spanish Version of the Fear of Kidney Failure Questionnaire: Validity, Reliability, and Characterization of Living Donors With the Highest Fear of Kidney Failure

Background.

Measures of fear of progression or recurrence of illnesses have been criticized for neglecting cross-cultural validity. Therefore, we assessed the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Fear of Kidney Failure Questionnaire (FKFQ), to determine whether postdonation fear of kidney failure (FKF) influenced the donors’ psychosocial status, and define variables that characterized donors with high FKFQ scores.

Methods.

We included 492 participants (211 donors) in a multicenter, 11-year, retrospective, cross-sectional study. Donors were classified with a Latent Class Analysis of the FKFQ-item scores and characterized with a multivariable logistic regression analysis. We calculated the risk ratio based on predicted marginal probabilities.

Results.

The Spanish version of the FKFQ showed acceptable psychometric properties. FKF was uncommon among donors, but we detected a small subgroup (n = 21, 9.9%) with high FKF (mean FKFQ score = 14.5, 3.1 SD). Compared with other donors, these donors reported higher anxiety and depression (38% and 29% of potential anxiety and depressive disorders), worse quality of life, and less satisfaction with the donation. Donors with high FKFQ scores were characterized by higher neuroticism combined with postdonation physical symptoms that interfered with daily activities.

Conclusions.

The FKFQ was cross-culturally valid, and thus, it may be used to assess the FKF in Spanish-speaking donors. New interventions that promote positive affectivity and evidence-based treatments for worry could be adapted for treating FKF.

The experience of donating and receiving a kidney: A systematic review of qualitative studies

BACKGROUND

The experiences described by people who have undergone kidney transplant are complex. Understanding how donors and recipients experience kidney transplantation can help us to design strategies that provide a more person-centred health care.

OBJECTIVES

To review articles that report the experiences of donors and recipients in the living-donor kidney transplantation process.

METHOD

A systematic review of qualitative studies was carried out. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases were used to search for articles published in English, French and Spanish between 2005 and 2018.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine articles were included in this review. For recipients, receiving a kidney is a positive experience (positive feelings and significant experience) that also involves certain difficulties and stressors (making a difficult decision, fears and worries). The experience of the donors is positive as they are motivated to improve the life of the recipient. They are committed to donating and use coping strategies as well as experiencing personal growth. On the contrary, being a donor involves certain difficulties and stressors (personal investment, mental, physical and economic impact and overcoming opposition) and a perception of deficiency in the health system (lack of information and attentiveness).

CONCLUSION

Donating and receiving a kidney is a positive experience that involves certain difficulties and a variety of stressors for both the donors and recipients. Moreover, the donors note deficiencies in the health system.

Impact of Discards for Living Donor Kidney Transplantation in a Transplant Program

OBJECTIVE

Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the best treatment for end-stage renal disease. In this setting, a significant percentage of transplants are not undertaken because of medical and nonmedical reasons of both donors and recipients. However, the impact of these discards in a transplant program has not been identified thoroughly so far. Our objective was to clarify key reasons for exclusion of LDKTs and the consequences for the discarded transplant candidates in the following 5 years.

METHODS

Analysis of donors' and recipients' characteristics of 781 couples evaluated in our hospital from January 2005 to December 2013. The consequences of discards in transplant candidates were analyzed in the cohort 2012 to 2013 (n = 106) and followed up until October 2018.

RESULTS

In our study group, 402 (51.5%) LDKT couples were successfully donated, and 379 (48.5%) were excluded. Donor and transplant recipient candidates discarded were older at the evaluation (55.07 ± 12.14 years vs 51.73 ± 10.93 years, P < .001; 48.81 ± 14.05 years vs 44.62 ± 13.91 years, P < .001, respectively). The most frequent reason for kidney discard was medical contraindication found in the potential donor (47.5%; low eGFR, diabetes mellitus, impaired glucose tolerance, high blood pressure, cardiovascular pathology casually found during evaluation, and proteinuria). Of the discarded candidates from 2012 to 2013, 36.8% received a deceased donor kidney transplant, 17% a LDKT with another donor, 7.5% stayed on the waiting list, 18.9% died, 3.8% were excluded from the waiting list, and 14.2% were lost to follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In most cases, transplantation was not undertaken because of donor pathology. Fifty-three percent of the discarded patients were eventually transplanted, with a 31.4% probability to receive an organ from another living donor.

Utility of inguinal incision in retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND

Retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy has been performed in many countries. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the inguinal incision as a route for hand-assisted manipulation and allograft retrieval.

METHODS

From April 2011 to June 2012, a prospective clinical study of 21 cases of retroperitoneal live donor nephrectomy was performed at our hospital. All donors were grouped in a test group (n = 11, inguinal incision) or a control group (n = 10, lumbar incision). The operative time, warm ischaemia time, blood loss, hospital stay, cosmetic satisfaction, incision complications, and recipient's serum creatinines were compared between groups.

RESULTS

All 21 cases of retroperitoneal live donor nephrectomy were accomplished successfully without serious complications. There was no difference in blood loss and operative time between groups. The mean warm ischaemic time and hospital stay was shorter (P < 0.01), and satisfaction with cosmesis was greater (P < 0.05) in the test group. The abdominal asymmetry (4/10) and wound dehiscence occurred only in the control group. The recipient's serum creatinine was lower in the test group at 1 day (P < 0.01) and 3 days (P < 0.05) after transplantation.

CONCLUSION

The inguinal incision offers an ideal route for hand-assisted manipulation and allograft retrieval during retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy, and has a potential to be generally applied in the future.

Preventive intervention for living donor psychosocial outcomes: feasibility and efficacy in a randomized controlled trial

There are no evidence-based interventions to prevent adverse psychosocial consequences after living donation. We conducted a single-site randomized controlled trial to examine the postdonation impact of a preventive intervention utilizing motivational interviewing (MI) to target a major risk factor for poor psychosocial outcomes, residual ambivalence (i.e. lingering hesitation and uncertainty) about donating. Of 184 prospective kidney or liver donors, 131 screened positive for ambivalence; 113 were randomized to (a) the MI intervention, (b) an active comparison condition (health education) or (c) standard care only before donation. Ambivalence was reassessed postintervention (before donation). Primary trial outcomes-psychosocial variables in somatic, psychological and family interpersonal relationship domains-were assessed at 6 weeks and 3 months postdonation. MI subjects showed the greatest decline in ambivalence (p = 0.050). On somatic outcomes, by 3 months postdonation MI subjects reported fewer physical symptoms (p = 0.038), lower rates of fatigue (p = 0.021) and pain (p = 0.016), shorter recovery times (p = 0.041) and fewer unexpected medical problems (p = 0.023). Among psychological and interpersonal outcomes, they had a lower rate of anxiety symptoms (p = 0.046) and fewer unexpected family-related problems (p = 0.045). They did not differ on depression, feelings about donation or family relationship quality. The findings suggest that the intervention merits testing in a larger, multisite trial.

Prevalence and predictors of abdominal aortic calcification in healthy living kidney donors

BACKGROUND

Vascular calcification (VC) is common and is both a marker and a cause of increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, especially so in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. Renal transplantation is the cornerstone of the successful long-term management of CKD, and in order to satisfy transplantation needs, more use is made now of living kidney donors (LKD). Prior to selection for transplantation, much screening of potential LKD takes place, including for cardiovascular issues. It is not known; however, how much these potentially healthy LKD may be prone to clinically silent VC.

METHODS

We identified 103 living kidney donors from 2011 renal transplant records. Abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) was assessed using existing abdominal CT imaging using multi-channel CT aortograms (used primarily to assess renal vascular anatomy). Using these CT scans, manual calcium scoring was undertaken to calculate total aortic calcium load (AAC severity score). The prevalence, severity and associations of AAC between calcified and non-calcified donors were then compared.

RESULTS

A total of 103 donors were identified from records. Ninety three of these had detailed clinical records to complement their CT scans. Fifty of ninety-three donors were male, and the mean age was 45.9 ± 1.8 years. Mean MDRD eGFR was 88.73 ± 2.97 ml/min/1.73 m(2). 7.14 ± 3.07 % of the aorta in these donors was calcified with a mean AAC severity score of 0.98 ± 0.56. In kidney donors >50 years of age, there was significantly more AAC than in those <50: 2.47 ± 1.56 versus 0.31 ± 0.29, p < 0.001. There was no relationship between the presence or severity of aortic VC and donor GFR, systolic blood pressure, pulse pressure, calcium-phosphate product or smoking.

CONCLUSIONS

AAC prevalence, patterns and severity in this important donor population have not previously been described in the literature. There was relatively little VC in what would be regarded as a "healthy" donor population. VC was more common with age, but the other possible risk factors for the presence or severity of VC did not impact on overall AAC scores. VC did not influence vascular stiffness as represented by pulse pressure. Following the evolution of AAC over time in those who have donated a kidney, and lost some global renal function as a consequence, would be of considerable interest.