Motivations, outcomes, and characteristics of unspecified (nondirected altruistic) kidney donors in the United Kingdom. Transplantation. 2014;98:1182-1189. [PMID: 25099701 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000000340]

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.

Assessing Health-Related Quality of Life in Non-Directed Versus Directed Kidney Donors: Implications for the Promotion of Non-Directed Donation

Living kidney donation has increased significantly, but little is known about the post-donation health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of non-directed donors (NDs) vs. directed donors (DDs). We thus examined the outcomes of 112 living kidney donors (82 NDs, 30 DDs). For the primary outcomes-namely, the mean physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores of the 12-item Short Form Survey (SF-12) questionnaire-scores were significantly higher for the NDs vs. the DDs (PCS: +2.69, MCS: +4.43). For secondary outcomes, NDs had shorter hospital stays (3.4 vs. 4.4 days), returned to physical activity earlier (45 vs. 60 days), exercised more before and after donation, and continued physical activity post-donation. Regression analyses revealed that donor type and white blood cell count were predictive of the PCS-12 score, and donor type was predictive of the MCS-12 score. Non-directed donation was predictive of a shorter hospital stay (by 0.78 days, p < 0.001) and the odds of having PCS-12 and MCS-12 scores above 50 were almost 10 and 16 times higher for NDs, respectively (p < 0.05). These findings indicate the safety and potential benefits of promoting non-directed donation. However, careful selection processes must be maintained to prevent harm and exploitation.

Donating a Kidney to a Stranger: Are Healthcare Professionals Facilitating the Journey? Results From the BOUnD Study

Unspecified kidney donors (UKDs) are approached cautiously by some transplant professionals. The aim of this study was to interrogate the views of UK transplant professionals towards UKDs and identify potential barriers. A purposely designed questionnaire was validated, piloted and distributed amongst transplant professionals at each of the 23 UK transplant centres. Data captured included personal experiences, attitudes towards organ donation, and specific concerns about UKD. 153 responses were obtained, with representation from all UK centres and professional groups. The majority reported a positive experience with UKDs (81.7%; p < 0.001) and were comfortable with UKDs undergoing major surgery (85.7%; p < 0.001). 43.8% reported UKDs to be more time consuming and 52% felt that a mental health assessment should take place before any medical tests. 77% indicated the need for a lower age limit. The suggested age range was broad (16-50 years). Adjusted mean acceptance scores did not differ by profession (p = 0.68) but higher volume centres were more accepting (46.2 vs. 52.9; p < 0.001). This is the first quantitative study of acceptance by transplant professionals to a large national UKD programme. Support is broad, however potential barriers to donation have been identified, including lack of training. Unified national guidance is needed to address these.

Anonymity in Kidney Paired Donation: A Systematic Review of Reasons

The objective of this study was to investigate reasons for or against anonymity that are pertinent to kidney paired donations (KPD). We conducted a systematic review of reasons using PubMed and Google Scholar until May 2022 and through snowballing. Inclusion criteria were publications that: 1) discussed organ donation anonymity; 2) was peer-reviewed; 3) presented at least one reason on anonymity. Exclusion criteria: 1) not published in a scientific journal; 2) grey literature and dissertations. Four researchers independently reviewed and selected papers based on the criteria, extracted text passages and coded them into narrow and broad reason types, selected reasons that were valid for kidney paired donations. 50 articles were included, 62 narrow reasons (n = 24 for; n = 38 against) and 13 broad reasons were coded. Broad reasons were: protection against harm, general benefits, gratitude, curiosity, unrealistic to implement, fundamental rights, respect people's wishes, professional neutrality, timing is important, information disclosure, altruism, reciprocity and donation pool. We did not find reasons that justify legal prohibition of donor-recipient interactions for KPD, if they consented to meet. Professional counselling, follow-up and careful evaluations to prevent potential harm.

Living uterus donors' perceptions of decision-making and informed consent: a qualitative study of the Dallas Uterus Transplant Study participants

Uterus transplantation is a growing field, but little is known about living uterus donors' perceptions of informed consent or their decision-making processes. This study used semistructured interviews to collect information regarding uterus donors' experiences with uterus donation, perceptions of the informed consent process, and information on how they decided to pursue uterus donation. Interviews were coded for thematic analysis. Three major themes emerged in this study. First, the decision-making process was based on individuals' motivations, rationale, and considerations of alternative contributions to help other women with infertility. Second, participants described how they felt about the process of informed consent, their decision-making processes, and how their experiences compared with their expectations. Third, participants discussed how uterus donation was a valuable experience. This study found that living uterus donors are motivated to give another woman the opportunity to experience pregnancy and childbirth. They were satisfied with the informed consent process, their experiences were in line with their expectations, and the value of uterus donation was associated with the act of donation itself. Our findings suggest that living donor uterus programs should develop robust informed consent processes that provide detailed information about uterus donation and encourage shared decision-making with potential uterus donors.

Twenty Years of Unspecified Kidney Donation: Unspecified Donors Looking Back on Their Donation Experiences

The Netherlands was the first European country to implement unspecified kidney donation in 2000. This qualitative study aimed to evaluate the experiences of unspecified kidney donors (UKDs) in our transplant institute to improve the care for this valuable group of donors. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 106 UKDs who donated between 2000-2016 (response rate 84%). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and independently coded by 2 researchers in NVivo using thematic analysis. The following 14 themes reflecting donor experiences were found: Satisfaction with donation; Support from social network; Interpersonal stress; Complaints about hospital care; Uncertainty about donor approval; Life on hold between approval and actual donation; Donation requires perseverance and commitment; Recovery took longer than expected; Normalization of the donation; Becoming an advocate for living kidney donation; Satisfaction with anonymity; Ongoing curiosity about outcome or recipient; Importance of anonymous communication; Anonymity is not watertight. The data reinforced that unspecified kidney donation is a positive experience for donors and that they were generally satisfied with the procedures. Most important complaints about the procedure concerned the length of the assessment procedure and the lack of acknowledgment for UKDs from both their recipients and health professionals. Suggestions are made to address the needs of UKDs.

A qualitative systematic review of anonymous/unspecified living kidney and liver donors' perspectives

OBJECTIVES & BACKGROUND

Anonymous live organ donors or unspecified donors are individuals willing to be organ donors for any transplant recipient with whom they have no biological or antecedent emotional relationship. Despite excellent recipient outcomes and the potential to help address organ scarcity, controversy surrounds the unconditional act of gifting one's organs to an unrelated recipient. This qualitative systematic review provides insights into the first-hand experiences, motivations, and challenges that unspecified donors face.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science database for qualitative literature regarding unspecified living donors' motivations and experiences in liver and kidney transplantation. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted to generate themes and supportive subthemes.

RESULTS

12 studies were included. The four major themes were (i) motivations, (ii) perception of risks, (iii) donor support, and (iv) benefits of donation. Unspecified donors demonstrated a deep sense of social responsibility but tended to underestimate health risks in favour of benefits for recipients. Despite the lack of emotional support from family and friends, the decision to donate was a resolute personal decision for donors. Majority benefitted emotionally and did not express regret.

CONCLUSION

This qualitative review bridges the gap in literature on unspecified living donor psychology and provides a comprehensive understanding of the decision-making matrix and experiences of donors.

Recommendations for living donor kidney transplantation

This Guide for Living Donor Kidney Transplantation (LDKT) has been prepared with the sponsorship of the Spanish Society of Nephrology (SEN), the Spanish Transplant Society (SET), and the Spanish National Transplant Organization (ONT). It updates evidence to offer the best chronic renal failure treatment when a potential living donor is available. The core aim of this Guide is to supply clinicians who evaluate living donors and transplant recipients with the best decision-making tools, to optimise their outcomes. Moreover, the role of living donors in the current KT context should recover the level of importance it had until recently. To this end the new forms of incompatible HLA and/or ABO donation, as well as the paired donation which is possible in several hospitals with experience in LDKT, offer additional ways to treat renal patients with an incompatible donor. Good results in terms of patient and graft survival have expanded the range of circumstances under which living renal donors are accepted. Older donors are now accepted, as are others with factors that affect the decision, such as a borderline clinical history or alterations, which when evaluated may lead to an additional number of transplantations. This Guide does not forget that LDKT may lead to risk for the donor. Pre-donation evaluation has to centre on the problems which may arise over the short or long-term, and these have to be described to the potential donor so that they are able take them into account. Experience over recent years has led to progress in risk analysis, to protect donors' health. This aspect always has to be taken into account by LDKT programmes when evaluating potential donors. Finally, this Guide has been designed to aid decision-making, with recommendations and suggestions when uncertainties arise in pre-donation studies. Its overarching aim is to ensure that informed consent is based on high quality studies and information supplied to donors and recipients, offering the strongest possible guarantees.

A Comparison of Recalled Pain Memory Following Living Kidney Donation Between Directed and non-Directed, Altruistic Donors

Introduction: Pain following donor nephrectomy for living kidney donation is common. In Israel, non-directed, altruistic donations account for 45% of all kidney transplants. Design: This cross-sectional, retrospective survey included 2 groups of donors derived from the data of Israel Transplant, namely directed and non-directed, altruistic donors, who donated between 2015 to 2018. The degree of recalled pain memory post-surgery was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale at 5 time points: immediately post-surgery, after 1 week, 1 month and 3 months post-surgery and in the month preceding completion of the questionnaire. In addition, continued requirement for analgesics for more than one-month post-surgery, the degree of interference with daily activities in the month preceding the questionnaire and the recalled time to return to full-time employment were also noted. Results: In total, 246 (131 directed and 115 non-directed, altruistic) donors were included in the study. Non-directed, altruistic donors reported statistically significantly lower degrees of recalled pain memory at all time points, a lower requirement for prolonged analgesic use and less recalled interference with daily activities due to pain. In addition, these donors recalled returning significantly earlier to full-time employment. Finally, no significant differences in the degree of recalled pain memory were noted for directed donors according to their relation to the recipient, apart from donation to a spouse. Conclusion: These unique findings, if validated in a prospective study, could provide important information to potential non-directed, altruistic donors regarding the expected level of post-surgical pain and their return to full-time employment.

Challenges and Opportunities in the Supply of Living Kidney Donation in the UK National Health Service: An Economic Perspective

End-stage kidney disease is a significant burden on the healthcare systems of many countries, and this is likely to continue because of an increasingly aging and comorbid population. Multiple studies have demonstrated a significant clinical benefit in transplantation when compared with dialysis, however, there continues to be a shortage of donor kidneys available. This article provides an economic perspective on issues pertinent to living kidney donation and transplantation. Although ethics, equity, and cultural considerations often seem at odds with economic concepts around resource allocation, this article explains the situation around supply and demand for living kidneys and illustrates how this has been addressed in the economic literature. The article discusses different policy recommendations for resolving the imbalance between supply and demand in kidney donation, through policies under 3 main approaches: increasing supply, decreasing demand, and improving the allocation of kidney supply.

Nondirected Living Kidney Donation and Recipient Outcomes in the United States: A 20-Year Review

Introduction

Nondirected donation (NDD) of the kidneys is a growing practice where donors who do not have any genetic or emotional relationship are selected to donate to a wide variety of recipients with a range of selection criteria and decisions which are left up to individual transplant centers.

Methods

We review all adult living kidney donor-recipient (DR) pairs and outcomes from NDDs who were recorded in United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database as code 10 (anonymous) from October 1997 to September 2017 for demographics and outcomes.

Results

A total of 2174 DR pairs were identified. The number of NDDs increased from 18 in 2000 to 256 in 2016. Survival analysis showed higher death-censored-graft survival (DC-GS) when recipient was 20 years or more older than donor followed by recipient-donor within 20 years of age and lowest when donor was 20 years or more older than recipient (P = 0.0114).

Conclusion

Overall, the number of NDDs has increased significantly in the 20-year review period. Transplants from NDDs have excellent long-term outcomes. Better matching of controllable DR factors, such as age and body mass index (BMI), could further improve GS. Further research is needed to incorporate these DR factors into paired kidney donation programs potentially enhancing the utility and beneficence of this invaluable donation.

Relinquishing Anonymity in Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: Lessons Learned From the UK Policy for Anonymous Donors

Anonymous living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is performed in many countries and policies on anonymity differ. The UK is the only European country with a conditional policy, allowing pairs to break anonymity post-transplant. There is little evidence on how contact after anonymous LDKT is experienced. In this cross-sectional study participants who donated or received a kidney through non-directed altruistic kidney donation or within the UK living kidney sharing scheme completed a questionnaire on their experiences with and attitudes towards anonymity. Non-parametric statistics were used to analyse the data. 207 recipients and 354 donors participated. Anonymity was relinquished among 11% of recipients and 8% of donors. Non-anonymous participants were generally content with non-anonymity. They reported positive experiences with contact/meeting the other party. Participants who remained anonymous were content with anonymity, however, 38% would have liked to meet post-transplant. If the other party would like to meet, this number increased to 64%. Although participants agreed with anonymity before surgery, they believe that, if desired, a meeting should be allowed after surgery. UK donors and recipients were satisfied with conditional anonymity and experiences with breaking anonymity were positive. These results support the expansion of conditional anonymity to other countries that allow anonymous LDKT.

Factors Associated with the Willingness to Become a Living Kidney Donor: A National Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction: Living donor kidney transplantation is the preferred method of treating kidney failure. The donor agrees to undergo an elective procedure for the benefit of the recipient. Aim: To assess the attitude toward living kidney donation and to investigate the factors that contribute to kidney donation willingness. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out between December 2020 and February 2021. The study covered a representative group of 953 Poles aged 18−77, living in all Polish voivodships. The relationship between sociodemographic factors, personal values (Personal Values List), the total score of life satisfaction (Satisfaction with Life Scale) and the willingness to donate a kidney to another human was assessed using a logistic regression model. Results: The most frequently chosen personal values were: good health; physical and mental fitness; love and friendship; knowledge and wisdom. The most frequently chosen symbols of happiness were: good health, successful family life, being needed by others. The median satisfaction with life for the entire group was 20 [16; 24]. Voluntary donation of a kidney to another human being i.e., family, friends, strangers were more often declared by women (OR = 1.21; Cl95%: 1.03−1.42), for whom the most important symbol of happiness was a life full of adventures, travels (OR = 1.39; Cl95%: 1.06−1.82) and the most important personal value was goodness and tenderness (OR = 1.21; Cl95%: 1.05−1.40). Total scores of The Satisfaction with Life Scale correlated positively with the willingness to voluntarily donate a kidney (OR = 1.03; Cl95%: 1.003−1.06), while age correlated negatively (OR = 0.99; Cl95%: 0.98−0.99). Conclusions: Respondents who declare their willingness to be a living kidney donor are mainly female, for which the most important symbol of happiness is a life full of adventures and travel, and the most important values are personal goodness and tenderness. The desire to donate a kidney to another person decreases with age and grows with life satisfaction. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT04789122).

Positive and negative aspects of mental health after unspecified living kidney donation: A cohort study

Objectives

Unspecified donors give a kidney to a stranger with end‐stage kidney failure. There has been little research on the long‐term impact of unspecified donation on mental health outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the positive and negative aspects of mental health among unspecified donors.

Design

We invited all unspecified donors who donated a kidney between 2000 and 2016 at our centre to participate in an interview and to complete validated questionnaires.

Methods

We measured positive mental health using the Dutch Mental Health Continuum‐Short Form (MHC‐SF), psychological complaints using the Symptoms Checklist‐90 (SCL‐90) and psychiatric diagnoses using the Mini‐International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.) Screen for all donors and the M.I.N.I. Plus on indication.

Results

Of the 134 eligible donors, 114 participated (54% female; median age 66 years), a median of 6 years post‐donation. Scores on emotional and social well‐being subscales of the MHC‐SF were significantly higher than in the general population. Psychological symptoms were comparable to the general population. Thirty‐two per cent of donors had a current or lifetime psychiatric diagnosis. Psychological symptoms did not significantly change between the pre‐donation screening and the post‐donation study.

Conclusions

We concluded that, with the appropriate screening, unspecified donation is a safe procedure from a psychological perspective.

Post-operative outcomes in anonymous living liver donors: What motivates individuals to donate to strangers

Anonymous living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a strategy to address the shortage of available transplantable livers; however, few studies have been conducted on this population. The objective of this study was to describe the motivations and medical, psychosocial, and financial outcomes of anonymous living liver donors. Between 2010-2019, 116 anonymous living liver donors were evaluated, 59 (51.7%) of whom proceeded to surgery. A subset of 21 anonymous donors were matched to biologically/emotionally related donors according to age, gender, race, and duration since surgery. A medical chart review and post-surgical interviews were performed to assess medical and financial outcomes. The primary motivation for donors was an unselfish desire to help others (43, 72.9%). A total of 13 (22%) anonymous donors experienced complications. Of these, 7 (11.9%) were grade I Clavien-Dindo classification, 5 (8.5%) grade II, and 1 was grade III (1.7%); and no patients had grade IV-V Clavien-Dindo complications. Increased anxiety was reported by 3 (5.1%) donors, and one donor reported clinical levels of depression (1.7%). Within the matched controls, anonymous donors were not significantly different to biologically/emotionally related donors with regard to surgical complications, psychosocial, or financial outcomes. Allowing a greater number of anonymous donors may facilitate the reduction of the waitlist for liver transplant candidates. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Survey of Patient's Experience of Altruistic Nondirected Kidney Donation

The scarcity of organs for donation is an ongoing issue. Change in legislative framework allows for altruistic donations in the UK, but, whereas the number of donations from deceased donors has increased, there has been a slow decline in altruistic living donors. The aim of this study was to review perspectives of altruistic nondirected kidney donors (ANDKD) at our center and outcome of all enquiries to inform service improvement and increase the numbers of donors. All enquiries by potential ANDKD at our center from September 2005 to September 2017 were analyzed. Donor assessment was performed as per the UK Guidelines, prior to obtaining Human Tissue Authority approval. The outcome of donation and results of questionnaires sent to 50 ANDKD were analyzed. During the period, 51 of the 180 enquiries (28.3%) resulted in kidney donation. Questionnaire responses were: 66% donors were retired; most heard about altruistic donation through media (60%); 72% thought psychological or psychiatric assessment was necessary; 95% found the information provided prior to donation adequate; 82% rated their overall experience as good/excellent; and 90% would recommend kidney donation to others. Thirteen of 50 donated kidneys were fed into the kidney exchange program. The mean ± standard error of the mean of the duration from human tissue authority approval to donation were 60.4 ± 5.4 and 131.2 ± 11.2 days, respectively (P = 0.00001). A significant proportion of enquiries for altruistic donation would result in donation but the assessment process needs to be quicker. ANDKD is useful way of priming the National Living Donor Kidney Sharing Scheme.

The role of motivational and legal contexts in understanding support for tissue donation across 27 European countries

BACKGROUND

There is a mismatch between attitudinal support for tissue donation and its translation into behavioural action (i.e. become registered donor). The legal and motivational context around tissue donation may contribute to better understanding of this mismatch.

METHODS

Data were extracted from the Eurobarometer 82.2 survey (2014). Data included socio-demographic characteristics, motivations underlying attitudes to tissue donation and the legal context within which donation was considered (opt-in and opt-out consent). The sample was partitioned based on contextual information and seemingly unrelated bivariate probit regressions were used to explore the relationship between passive and active support for tissue donation.

RESULTS

Approximately 56% of 25 879 respondents stated a willingness to donate tissue after death (passive support) and 9.1% reported that they were a registered donor (active support). We found evidence of unobserved heterogeneity between active and passive support across contexts. Our findings suggest that contexts in which altruistic motives can be supported by self-interest may increase the probability of converting passive to active support. Factors associated with increased support for tissue donation included: higher levels of education; good knowledge of the healthcare system; confidence in the safety of tissue donation; readiness to be a tissue recipient and knowing a recipient of donated tissue.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate the value of examining active and passive support for tissue donation together within specific contexts. This more nuanced approach affords clearer insights that may help to guide policy makers confronted with apparently conflicting evidence around strategies intended to promote organ and tissue donation.

Have we reached the limits in altruistic kidney donation?

Altruistic donation (unspecified donation) is an important aspect of living donor kidney transplantation. Although donation to a stranger is lawful and supported in many countries, it remains uncommon and not actively promoted. Herein, we ask the question if we have reached the limit in altruistic donation. In doing so, we examine important ethical questions that define the limits of unspecified donation, such as the appropriate balance between autonomous decision-making and paternalistic protection of the donor, the extent of outcome uncertainty and risk-benefit analyses that donors should be allowed to accept. We also consider the scrutiny and acceptance of donor motives, the potential for commercialization, donation to particular categories of recipients (including those encountered through social media) and the ethical boundaries of active promotion of unspecified kidney donation. We conclude that there is scope to increase the number of living donation kidney transplants further by optimizing existing practices to support and promote unspecified donation. A number of strategies including optimization of the assessment process, innovative approaches to reach potential donors together with reimbursement of expenses and a more specific recognition of unspecified donation are likely to lead to a meaningful increase in this type of donation.

Depression, anxiety, and associated psychological outcomes in living organ transplant donors: A systematic review

With increasing demands for living organ donations, understanding the prevalence of depression and anxiety, which are the commonest psychiatric disorders in donors following organ transplantation, will serve to improve psychiatric care to safeguard donors' mental wellbeing. This descriptive systematic review examines all observational studies in English investigating prevalence of depression and anxiety in adult transplant donors using bibliographic databases. Sixty-two papers were included (kidney, n = 25; liver, n = 25; bone marrow, n = 7; uterus, n = 2; lung, n = 1; kidney and lung concurrently, n = 2). Post-transplantation depression and anxiety prevalence rates (Depression: 0-46.9%, Anxiety: 0-66.7%) did not differ significantly from pre-transplantation and were largely comparable to the general population. Other psychiatric disorders observed included bipolar disorder, conversion disorder, adjustment disorder and sleep disorder. Other psychological outcomes observed included lower quality of life, lower satisfaction of life and regret after donation. Pre-donation risk factors such as poor physical/psychological health status, and post-donation risk factors such as complicated post-surgical recovery and poor physical/psychological health in recipients were identified, predisposing donors to poor psychological outcomes. Individuals with risk factors should be monitored and provided with social support, psychoeducation, psychotherapy and long-term follow up. Future studies should adopt consistent methodological approaches to improve comparability between various studies. More research investigating poor psychological outcomes in other organ donors besides kidney and liver donors, donors who have past psychiatric history, unrelated and parent donors is warranted.

Prevalence, Mechanisms, Treatment, and Complications of Hypertension Postliving Kidney Donation

Living kidney donors represent a unique population of patients. Potential donors are selected based on the belief that their preoperative fitness is likely to mitigate the risks of long- and short-term harm following uninephrectomy. Studies performed on postdonation outcomes have largely focused on mortality and the risk of end-stage renal failure, but have also investigated secondary outcomes such as cardiovascular morbidity and hypertension. It has been postulated that hypertension is a possible outcome of living kidney donation. A variety of studies have been conducted to investigate the prevalence, epidemiology, mechanisms, treatment strategies, and long-term ramifications of hypertension postdonation. These studies are heterogeneous in their population, design, methodology, and outcome measures and have presented contradicting outcomes. Additionally, the absence of a well-matched control group has made it challenging to interpret and generalise the reported findings. As such, it is not possible to definitively conclude that hypertension occurs at a higher rate among donors than the general population. This article will review the evidence of postdonation hypertension prevalence, mechanisms, treatment, and complications.

Creating Options for Difficult-to-match Kidney Transplant Candidates

BACKGROUND

Most transplantation centers recognize a small patient population that unsuccessfully participates in all available, both living and deceased donor, transplantation programs for many years: the difficult-to-match patients. This population consists of highly immunized and/or ABO blood group O or B patients.

METHODS

To improve their chances, Computerized Integration of Alternative Transplantation programs (CIAT) were developed to integrate kidney paired donation, altruistic/unspecified donation, and ABO and HLA desensitization. To compare CIAT with reality, a simulation was performed, including all patients, donors, and pairs who participated in our programs in 2015-2016. Criteria for inclusion as difficult-to-match, selected-highly immunized (sHI) patient were as follows: virtual panel reactive antibody >85% and participating for 2 years in Eurotransplant Acceptable Mismatch program. sHI patients were given priority, and ABO blood group incompatible (ABOi) and/or HLA incompatible (HLAi) matching with donor-specific antigen-mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) <8000 were allowed. For long-waiting blood group O or B patients, ABOi matches were allowed.

RESULTS

In reality, 90 alternative program transplantations were carried out: 73 compatible, 16 ABOi, and 1 both ABOi and HLAi combination. Simulation with CIAT resulted in 95 hypothetical transplantations: 83 compatible (including 1 sHI) and 5 ABOi combinations. Eight sHI patients were matched: 1 compatible, 6 HLAi with donor-specific antigen-MFI <8000 (1 also ABOi), and 1 ABOi match. Six/eight combinations for sHI patients were complement-dependent cytotoxicity cross-match negative.

CONCLUSIONS

CIAT led to 8 times more matches for difficult-to-match sHI patients. This offers them better chances because of a more favorable MFI profile against the new donor. Besides, more ABO compatible matches were found for ABOi couples, while total number of transplantations was not hampered. Prioritizing difficult-to-match patients improves their chances without affecting the chances of regular patients.

Exploring the motives of Israeli Jews who were living kidney donors to strangers

Non-directed living donors are individuals who donate a kidney to a recipient with whom they have neither a genetic nor emotional relationship. Israel legalized this type of donation in 2008. After this law was implemented, living donations significantly expanded. The aim of this article was to determine the motivations, characteristics, and perioperative experiences of non-directed living donors in Israel. Three online questionnaires (own questionnaire, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES), Rushton Self-Report Altruism Scale) were distributed to 180 Jewish kidney donors with the help of Matnat Chaim organization. One hundred and fifteen responses were received (69.3% response rate). The motivation for most donors (60%) was a strong willingness to help and a desire to do good. The majority of donors (78.3%) reported their health status as unchanged after donation; however, 16.5% experienced clinical problems (eg, wound infection, more pain than expected), and 5.2% experienced psychological complications. About 18% reported their health to improve after donation. Most (80%) inspired someone else to also become a kidney donor. This study breaks the myth that Jews do not support organ donation. In fact, their high level of altruism and their positive experience with donation has propelled the practice of non-directed donation in Israel.

Donating a Kidney to a Stranger: A Review of the Benefits and Controversies of Unspecified Kidney Donation

OF BACKGROUND DATA

Unspecified kidney donation (UKD) describes living donation of a kidney to a stranger. The practice is playing an increasingly important role within the transplant programme in the United Kingdom, where these donors are commonly used to trigger a chain of transplants; thereby amplifying the benefit derived from their donation. The initial reluctance to accept UKD was in part due to uncertainty about donor motivations and whether the practice was morally and ethically acceptable.

OBJECTIVES

This article provides an overview of UKD and answers common questions regarding the ethical considerations, clinical assessment, and how UKD kidneys are used to maximize utility. Existing literature on outcomes after UKD is also discussed, along with current controversies.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe UKD is an ethically acceptable practice which should continue to grow, despite its controversies. In our experience, these donors are primarily motivated by a desire to help others and utilization of their kidney as part of a sharing scheme means that many more people seek to benefit from their very generous donation.

Raising awareness of unspecified living kidney donation: an ELPAT view

BACKGROUND

Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the preferred treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease and unspecified living kidney donation is morally justified. Despite the excellent outcomes of LDKT, unspecified kidney donation (UKD) is limited to a minority of European countries due to legal constraints and moral objections. Consequently, there are significant variations in practice and approach between countries and the contribution of UKD is undervalued. Where UKD is accepted as routine, an increasing number of patients in the kidney exchange programme are successfully transplanted when a 'chain' of transplants is triggered by a single unspecified donor. By expanding the shared living donor pool, the benefit of LDKT is extended to patients who do not have their own living donor because a recipient on the national transplant list always completes the chain. Is there a moral imperative to increase the scope of UKD and how could this be achieved?

METHODS

An examination of the literature and individual country practices was performed to identify the limitations on UKD in Europe and recommend strategies to increase transplant opportunities.

RESULTS

Primary limitations to UKD, key players and their roles and responsibilities were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Raising awareness to encourage the public to volunteer to donate is appropriate and desirable to increase UKD. Recommendations are made to provide a framework for increasing awareness and engagement in UKD. The public, healthcare professionals, policy makers and society and religious leaders have a role to play in creating an environment for change.

Barriers to live and deceased kidney donation by patients with chronic neurological diseases: Implications for donor selection, donation timing, logistics, and regulatory compliance

Live and deceased kidney donation by the numerous patients with advanced, progressive systemic neurological diseases, and other chronic neurological conditions (eg, high C-spine injury) remains largely unexplored. In a review of our current clinical practice, we identified multiple regulatory and clinical barriers. For live donation, mandatory reporting of postdonation donor deaths within 2 years constitutes a strong programmatic disincentive. We propose that the United Network for Organ Sharing should provide explicit regulatory guidance and reassurance for programs wishing to offer live donation to patients at higher risk of death during the reporting period. Under the proposal, live donor deaths within 30 days would still be regarded as donation-related, but later deaths would be related to the underlying disease. For deceased donation, donation after circulatory death (DCD) immediately following self-directed withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment ("conscious DCD") is not universally covered by existing DCD agreements with donor hospitals. Organ procurement organizations should thus systematically strive to revise these agreements. Obtaining adequate first-person consent from these communicatively severely impaired patients may be challenging. Optimized preservation and allocation protocols may maximize utilization of these DCD kidneys. Robust public debate and action by all stakeholders is necessary to lower existing barriers and maximize donation opportunities for patients with chronic neurological conditions.

Key experiences of primary social groups in Unspecified Kidney Donation

BACKGROUND

The role of family members in directed kidney donation is well documented in the literature from both a physiological and psychosocial perspective. The experiences of families, or primary social groups (PSGs), where one member considers donating a kidney via unspecified altruistic kidney donation route (UKD) is poorly understood. This is pertinent as lack of family support has been identified as a potential contributor to donation withdrawal.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore the relevant psychosocial factors underpinning completed and uncompleted donations.

DESIGN

A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews.

PARTICIPANTS

Qualitative interviews were conducted in the United Kingdom with 35 individuals comprising of: 11 donors who donated their kidney altruistically and 8 of their PSG members, and 11 donors who withdrew and 5 of their PSG members.

APPROACH

Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using Framework Analysis.

RESULTS

Two major themes were identified: (1) Supportability, which contained experiences fundamental to proceeding to donate, underpinned by four subthemes Acceptability, Awareness and Information, Family Risk and Ambivalence;(2) Seeking Resolution, contained discussions of experiences following either withdrawal from or completion of the donation, and comprised two sub-themes, Unfinished Business and Resolve.

CONCLUSIONS

There are key differences in the experiences between those who completed their donation and those who withdrew. It is clear from this study that UKD operates within a PSG's social framework. Clinical implications suggest interventions at the level of addressing ambivalence within the PSG and the need for promotion of better psychosocial outcomes both following completion or withdrawal from donation.

Long-term psychosocial outcomes after nondirected donation: A single-center experience

Short-term studies have demonstrated that nondirected donors (NDDs) have psychosocial outcomes that are similar to donors who donate directly, but long-term studies have not been done. NDDs at our center were surveyed regarding motivation; support during donation; stress related to donation; regret; financial resources used for donation; preferences about communication with the recipient; and cost reimbursement. Of 100 NDDs who donated at our center in the last 20 years, 95 remain in contact with us, and 77 responded to our survey (mean ± standard deviation [SD] 6.7 ± 4 years postdonation). The most common motivation for donation was the desire to help another (99%). Many NDDs received support from family, friends, and employers. NDDs voiced stress about the possibility of recipient kidney rejection, physical consequences to themselves, and financial burden. Only one donor expressed regret. Almost half wanted some recipient information at donation; 61% preferred routine recipient status updates; 56% believed meeting the recipient should occur at any mutually agreeable time; and 55% endorsed reimbursement for expenses. Stressors for NDDs are analogous to those of directed donors; NDDs prefer having some information about the recipient and prefer to be given a choice regarding the timing for communication with the recipient. NDDs supported donation being financially neutral.

Living Anonymous Renal Donors Do Not Regret: Intermediate and Long-Term Follow-Up with a Focus on Motives and Psychosocial Outcomes

BACKGROUND Living anonymous donation (LAD) of kidneys was introduced in Sweden in 2004. This study reports on outcomes of Swedish LAD experiences from 2004 to 2016, focusing on donors' motives, the care they received, psychosocial aspects, and medical status at follow-up. MATERIAL AND METHODS Donor data were collected through a physician interview, medical check-up, review of medical charts, the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS), and a routine national questionnaire. Of the 26 LADs during the study period, 1 donor died and 1 declined to participate, leaving a study population of 24. RESULTS Half of the donors were male, which is a higher proportion than for directed living donors. The major motive detected was altruism. Of the 24 LADs, 96% were very satisfied and would donate again if possible, 46% noted increased self-esteem, and a third were happier after the donation. Sixty-two percent received anonymous information about the recipient and 40% would have liked to meet the recipient. HADS scores were normal. Two donors had antidepressant treatment, 1 of whom had received treatment before donation. Half mentioned that the pre-donation assessment took too long. At follow-up, mean eGFR was 62±12 mL/min/1.73 m², of which 16 were in CKD II and 8 were in CKD III. Four donors had developed hypertension, 1 of whom also developed type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS Swedish LADs are very satisfied and medical outcomes are acceptable. We propose that the transplant community and the National Board of Health and Welfare take a more active approach to informing the general public about LAD.

Death anxiety and psychological distress post-donation in non-directed living kidney donors

The current study sought to assess death anxiety and psychological distress among kidney donors, in comparison to a control population. Seventy-eight non-directed living kidney donors were recruited through the Israeli voluntary kidney donation association. This sample was compared to 396 participants from a control population. The results revealed that non-directed living kidney donors had higher levels of death anxiety in comparison to the control population while their psychological distress was lower in comparison to the control population. The results of this study highlight the importance of relating to non-directed living kidney donors' death anxiety.

The Role of Media in Non-Directed (Altruistic) Living Kidney Donation

This study seeks to characterize how non-directed living kidney donors use media and informational resources over the course of their kidney donation journey. We conducted semi-structured interviews with non-directed donors (NDDs) who initiated kidney transplant chains. Interview transcripts were reviewed and references to media or informational resources were classified by type and pattern of use. More than half (57%) of NDDs reported that an identifiable media or informational resource resulted in their initial interest in donation. Two-thirds (67%) of NDDs cited the influence of stories and personal narratives on their decision to donate. After transplant, media and informational resources were used to promote organ donation, connect with other donors or recipients, and reflect on donation. From the study's findings, we conclude that media and informational resources play an important role in the process of donation for NDDs, including inspiring interest in donation through personal narratives. Media sources provide emotionally and intellectually compelling discussions that motivate potential donors. The results of this study may facilitate the development of more targeted outreach to potential donors through use of personal narratives in articles and television programming about donation.

Recipient Outcomes From Nondirected Live Kidney Donors: A UK-based Cohort Study

Background

Increasing numbers of patients with end-stage renal failure are receiving kidneys from nondirected kidney donors (NKDs), also known as altruistic donors. Transplant outcomes for recipients of such kidneys are largely inferred from studies on specified kidney donors (SKDs), which may be inaccurate due to differences in donor, recipient and transplant specific factors. We report the outcomes for recipients of NKD in the United Kingdom.

Methods

Outcomes for 6861 patients receiving a living donor kidney transplant between January 2007 and December 2014 were analyzed using both the National Health Service Blood and Transplant and the UK Renal Registry datasets. Graft and patient outcomes were compared for patients receiving NKD and SKD organs using univariable and multivariable analyses.

Results

There was significant discordance between the NKD and SKD donors and recipients. These included increased donor age (median, 58 years vs 47 years; P < 0.001) and higher rates of hemodialysis and previous transplants in the NKD group (both P < 0.001). Despite such markers of increased risk among both donors and recipients of NKD kidneys, there was no difference in graft survival on univariable (hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.86; P = 0.419) or multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.95; P = 0.665).

Conclusions

Despite some markers of transplant complexity, nondirected kidney donor organs are an excellent source of organs for transplantation.

Kidney exchange transplantation current status, an update and future perspectives

Kidney exchange transplantation is well established modality to increase living donor kidney transplantation. Reasons for joining kidney exchange programs are ABO blood group incompatibility, immunological incompatibility (positive cross match or donor specific antibody), human leukocyte antigen (HLA) incompatibility (poor HLA matching), chronological incompatibility and financial incompatibility. Kidney exchange transplantation has evolved from the traditional simultaneous anonymous 2-way kidney exchange to more complex ways such as 3-way exchange, 4-way exchange, n-way exchange,compatible pair, non-simultaneous kidney exchange,non-simultaneous extended altruistic donor, never ending altruistic donor, kidney exchange combined with desensitization, kidney exchange combined with ABO incompatible kidney transplantation, acceptable mismatch transplant, use of A2 donor to O patients, living donor-deceased donor list exchange, domino chain, non-anonymous kidney exchange, single center, multicenter, regional, National, International and Global kidney exchange. Here we discuss recent advances in kidney exchanges such as International kidney exchange transplantation in a global environment, three categories of advanced donation program, deceased donors as a source of chain initiating kidneys, donor renege myth or reality, pros and cons of anonymity in developed world and (non-) anonymity in developing world, pros and cons of donor travel vs kidney transport, algorithm for management of incompatible donor-recipient pairs and pros and cons of Global kidney exchange. The participating transplant teams and donor-recipient pairs should make the decision by consensus about kidney donor travel vs kidney transport and anonymity vs non-anonymity in allocation as per local resources and logistics. Future of organ transplantation in resource-limited setting will be liver vs kidney exchange, a legitimate hope or utopia?

Live nondirected uterus donors: Psychological characteristics and motivation for donation

Emerging research suggests that uterus transplantation is a viable option for women without a uterus who want to become pregnant and carry a child to term. Currently, no knowledge exists regarding nondirected uterus donors. This study (NCT 02656550) explored the baseline psychological characteristics of nondirected uterus donors at a single study site. Of the 62 potential donors who underwent initial screening, 6 nondirected donors were chosen and participated in uterus donation. Participants received a comprehensive evaluation, which included clinical history and psychological assessments. The mean age of the donors was 42 years; most (83%) were white/not Hispanic, and all had a college degree. Current depression was reported by 2 participants, past depression was reported in 2 participants, and past anxiety was reported in 3 participants. Based on several different psychological measures, donors had a higher general well-being than the normative sample, and none of the participants' scores indicated psychological distress. All 6 women indicated that giving another woman an opportunity to carry her own child was a motivation for pursuing uterus donation. Further research on potential psychological motives and gains for the donor as well as long-term effects on donors is crucial for ethical practice.

Banking on Living Kidney Donors-A New Way to Facilitate Donation without Compromising on Ethical Values

Public surveys conducted in many countries report widespread willingness of individuals to donate a kidney while alive to a family member or close friend, yet thousands suffer and many die each year while waiting for a kidney transplant. Advocates of financial incentive programs or "regulated markets" in kidneys present the problem of the kidney shortage as one of insufficient public motivation to donate, arguing that incentives will increase the number of donors. Others believe the solutions lie-at least in part-in facilitating so-called "altruistic donation;" harnessing the willingness of relatives and friends to donate by addressing the many barriers which serve as disincentives to living donation. Strategies designed to minimize financial barriers to donation and the use of paired kidney exchange programs are increasingly enabling donation, and now, an innovative program designed to address what has been termed "chronologically incompatible donation" is being piloted at the University of California, Los Angeles, and elsewhere in the United States. In this program, a person whose kidney is not currently required for transplantation in a specific recipient may instead donate to the paired exchange program; in return, a commitment is made to the specified recipient that priority access for a living-donor transplant in a paired exchange program will be offered when or if the need arises in the future. We address here potential ethical concerns related to this form of organ "banking" from living donors, and argue that it offers significant benefits without undermining the well-established ethical principles and values currently underpinning living donation programs.

Altruistic nondirected kidney donation: attitudes, characteristics and ethical implications

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Altruistic nondirected kidney donation involves a person donating one of their kidneys to an unknown recipient. The donor's mental health and motives are frequently questioned. We want to highlight this topic and also encourage discussions about ethical implications.

RECENT FINDINGS

The main topics are the mental health of altruistic nondirected kidney donors and the general attitude towards the practice of this form of donation as well as the willingness of the public to donate this way. Soliciting organ donation via social networks or financial support is debated extensively in the media.

SUMMARY

There is a lack of studies on altruistic nondirected kidney donation. Most studies focus on related donors. Studies with larger samples should be performed on altruistic nondirected kidney donors to learn more about their motives and assess their mental health.

Donor and Recipient Perspectives on Anonymity in Kidney Donation From Live Donors: A Multicenter Survey Study

BACKGROUND

Maintaining anonymity is a requirement in the Netherlands and Sweden for kidney donation from live donors in the context of nondirected (or unspecified) and paired exchange (or specified indirect) donation. Despite this policy, some donors and recipients express the desire to know one another. Little empirical evidence informs the debate on anonymity. This study explored the experiences, preferences, and attitudes of donors and recipients toward anonymity.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective observational multicenter study using both qualitative and quantitative methods.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

414 participants from Dutch and Swedish transplantation centers who received or donated a kidney anonymously (nondirected or paired exchange) completed a questionnaire about anonymity. Participation was a median of 31 months after surgery.

FACTORS

Country of residence, donor/recipient status, transplant type, time since surgery.

OUTCOMES

Experiences, preferences, and attitudes toward anonymity.

RESULTS

Most participants were satisfied with their experience of anonymity before and after surgery. A minority would have liked to have met the other party before (donors, 7%; recipients, 15%) or after (donors, 22%; recipients, 31%) surgery. Significantly more recipients than donors wanted to meet the other party. Most study participants were open to meeting the other party if the desire was mutual (donors, 58%; recipients, 60%). Donors agree significantly more with the principle of anonymity before and after surgery than recipients. Donors and recipients thought that if both parties agreed, it should be permissible to meet before or after surgery. There were few associations between country or time since surgery and experiences or attitudes. The pros and cons of anonymity reported by participants were clustered into relational and emotional, ethical, and practical and logistical domains.

LIMITATIONS

The relatively low response rate of recipients may have reduced generalizability. Recall bias was possible given the time lag between transplantation and data collection.

CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory study illustrated that although donors and recipients were usually satisfied with anonymity, the majority viewed a strict policy on anonymity as unnecessary. These results may inform policy and education on anonymity.

Pre-donation cognitions of potential living organ donors: the development of the Donation Cognition Instrument in potential kidney donors

Background

Cognitions surrounding living organ donation, including the motivation to donate, expectations of donation and worries about donation, are relevant themes during living donor evaluation. However, there is no reliable psychometric instrument assessing all these different cognitions. This study developed and validated a questionnaire to assess pre-donation motivations, expectations and worries regarding donation, entitled the Donation Cognition Instrument (DCI).

Methods

Psychometric properties of the DCI were examined using exploratory factor analysis for scale structure and associations with validated questionnaires for construct validity assessment.

Results

From seven Dutch transplantation centres, 719 potential living kidney donors were included. The DCI distinguishes cognitions about donor benefits, recipient benefits, idealistic incentives, gratitude and worries about donation (Cronbach's alpha 0.76-0.81). Scores on pre-donation cognitions differed with regard to gender, age, marital status, religion and donation type. With regard to construct validity, the DCI was moderately correlated with expectations regarding donor's personal well-being and slightly to moderately to health-related quality of life.

Conclusions

The DCI is found to be a reliable instrument assessing cognitions surrounding living organ donation, which might add to pre-donation quality of life measures in facilitating psychosocial donor evaluation by healthcare professionals.

Understanding barriers and outcomes of unspecified (non-directed altruistic) kidney donation from both professional's and patient's perspectives: research protocol for a national multicentre mixed-methods prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Living donation accounts for over one-third of all kidney transplants taking place in the UK. ¹ The concept of anonymously donating a kidney to a stranger (non-directed altruistic or unspecified kidney donation (UKD)) remains uncomfortable for some clinicians, principally due to concerns about the motivations and long-term physical and psychological outcomes in this donor group.

AIMS

The research programme aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of the unspecified donor programme in the UK. It aims to identify reasons for variations in practice across centres, explore outcomes for donors and ascertain barriers and facilitators to UKD, as well as assess the economic implications of unspecified donation.

METHODS

The research programme will adopt a mixed-methods approach to assessing UKD nationally using focus groups, interviews and questionnaires. Two study populations will be investigated. The first will include transplant professionals involved in unspecified kidney donation. The second will include a 5-year prospective cohort of individuals who present to any of the 23 UK transplant centres as a potential unspecified living kidney donor. Physical and psychological outcomes will be followed up to 1 year following donation or withdrawal from the donation process. A matched sample of specified donors (those donating to someone they know) will be recruited as a control group. Further qualitative work consisting of interviews will be performed on a purposive sample of unspecified donors from both groups (those who do and do not donate).

DISSEMINATION

The findings will be reported to NHS Blood and Transplant and the British Transplant Society with a view to developing national guidelines and a protocol for the management of those presenting for unspecified donation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN23895878, Pre-results.

Toward a conditional approach to anonymity? An explorative multicenter longitudinal study among anonymous living kidney donors and recipients

Anonymity between living donors and recipients is a topic of discussion among transplant professionals. This longitudinal study explored living kidney donors' and patients' perspectives on anonymity. Prior to surgery (T0) and 3 months afterward (T1), participants in unspecified or specified indirect donation programs completed a questionnaire on their experiences with and attitudes toward anonymity as well as demographic and medical characteristics. Nonparametric tests were used to assess group differences and associations. Participants were content with anonymity at T0 and T1. Fourteen and 23% wanted to meet at T0 and T1, respectively. If the other party expressed the wish to meet, 50% (T0) and 55% (T1) would be willing to meet. Most participants agreed that meeting should be allowed if both parties agree. Attitude toward anonymity did not differ between donors/recipients, nor between T0/T1 and unspecified/specified indirect donation programs. This study showed that most donors and recipients who participated in anonymous donation schemes are in favor of a conditional approach to anonymity. Guidelines on how to revoke anonymity if both parties agree are needed and should include education about pros and cons of (non-) anonymity and a logistical plan on how, when, where, and by whom anonymity should be revoked.

Living Kidney Donor Phenotype and Likelihood of Postdonation Follow-up

BACKGROUND

The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network requires that United States transplant centers maintain follow-up with living donors for 2 years postdonation, but lack of donor follow-up is pervasive. Donor characteristics, including younger age, minority race, and lower education, have been associated with incomplete follow-up, but it is unknown whether altruistic donors, having no previous connection to their recipient, differ from traditional donors in their likelihood of follow-up.

METHODS

Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data, we examined all adult living kidney donors from 2005 to 2015 (n = 63 592) classified as altruistic or traditional, and compared likelihood of 6-month medical follow-up using modified Poisson regression.

RESULTS

Altruistic donors did not differ from traditional donors in likelihood of follow-up (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.06). Among previously identified at-risk subgroups, however, altruistic donors were more likely to have follow-up than their traditional counterparts, including those who were younger (aRR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.09), had less than college education (aRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.00-1.11), and were unmarried (aRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.12). Having medical follow-up at 6 months was significantly associated with having follow-up at 1 year (aRR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.75-1.93) and 2 years (aRR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.56-1.70) postdonation.

CONCLUSIONS

These data provide additional granularity on living donor phenotypes associated with short-term (6 month) postdonation follow-up, which is important given its association with future likelihood of follow-up. These findings offer the opportunity to tailor and direct educational efforts to increase living donor follow-up, particularly among groups at higher risk of loss to follow-up.

Patterns of Personality in Living Kidney Donors

BACKGROUND

The decision to undergo living donor transplantation determines a particular condition characterized by strong mental and emotional anguish, both for the patient and his family. Many recent studies showed the concern of living donors who, rather than being driven by altruistic reasons, meet the decision to donate with ambivalence, liabilities, and/or in response to family pressures. The aim of this study was to analyze the more frequently encountered personality variables in a sample of potential kidney living donors, together with any psychological variables that can express possible risks of an impulsive decision and/or poorly processed from a cognitive and emotional point of view.

METHODS

We examined 32 potential kidney donors. The personality study was performed using The Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III. The psychic symptoms were studied through the Symptom Checklist-90-R. The quality of life was studied through the Complete Form Health Survey (SF-36).

RESULTS

The study showed that the ability to express free and therefore invalid consent, in the role of donor, is an expression of specific personality patterns, cognitive, emotional aspects and interpersonal experiences.

CONCLUSIONS

The psychological-psychiatric evaluation of potential donors is fundamental to certify the state of mental health and psychological well-being, an indispensable prerequisite for the donation.