Outcomes of Living Kidney Donor Candidate Evaluations in the Living Donor Collective Pilot Registry

Determining Predictors of Actual Living Kidney Donation Based on Potential Donor Characteristics

BACKGROUND

Living donor kidney transplantation is the optimal treatment for end-stage kidney disease; however, few living donor candidates (LDCs) who begin evaluation actually donate. While some LDCs are deemed medically ineligible, others discontinue for potentially modifiable reasons.

METHODS

At five transplant centers, we conducted a prospective cohort study measuring LDCs' clinical and psychosocial characteristics, educational preparation, readiness to donate, and social determinants of health. We followed LDCs for 12 months after evaluation to determine whether they donated a kidney, opted to discontinue, had modifiable reasons for discontinuing, were medically ineligible, or had other recipient-related reasons for discontinuing.

RESULTS

Among 2184 LDCs, 18.6% donated, 38.2% opted to or had modifiable reasons for discontinuing, and 43.2% were deemed ineligible due to medical or recipient-related reasons. Multivariable analyses comparing successful LDCs with those who did not complete donation for modifiable reasons (N = 1241) found that LDCs who discussed donation with the recipient before evaluation (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.54-3.46), had completed high school (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.21-3.35), or were a "close relation" to their recipient (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.33-2.69) were more likely to donate. Conversely, LDCs who reported religion as important (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.38-0.80), were Non-White (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49-1.00), or had overall higher anxiety scores (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.99) were less likely to donate.

CONCLUSION

With fewer than a fifth of LDCs donating, developing programs to provide greater emotional support and facilitate open discussions between LDCs and recipients earlier may increase living donation rates.

Experiences of living kidney donors: A synthesis of unsolicited patient narratives

INTRODUCTION

Despite the lauded benefits of living kidney donation, there is growing evidence of the challenges that living kidney donors (LKD) encounter in their donation trajectory and gaps in healthcare service provision. However, most of the evidence is derived from research conducted by clinicians or academic investigators. Significantly less attention has been devoted to analyzing unsolicited accounts of LKDs' experiences.

METHODS

We conducted a review and synthesis of published unsolicited first-person narratives of LKDs and aimed to synthesize their experiences and identify care needs. Four electronic databases were searched and 27 LKD narratives were included in our final analysis. Thematic synthesis was used to generate themes inductively.

RESULTS

Although the majority of LKDs reported the act of donation to be a fulfilling experience, almost 48% reported encountering challenges in the care that they received. Also, 29% of LKDs reported experiencing an adverse clinical event. Five distinct themes emerged surrounding the donation experience and healthcare needs: 1) Educational needs due to perceived lack of transparency and compensating for knowledge gaps; 2) Respect for donor autonomy due to coercive influences from family or healthcare providers, lack of respect for donor preferences and loopholes in the consent process; 3) Unmet care needs related to poor communication with healthcare providers, coordination issues and inconsistent and inadequate long-term care; 4) Unanticipated outcomes due to economic costs and the emotional burden of donation; and 5) Contributing beyond the donation event by advocating for a balanced view of donation and generating support mechanisms.

CONCLUSION

In this synthesis of LKDs narratives, important care gaps and the need to advocate for a balanced perspective on living kidney donation were highlighted. Our review underscores the value of patients' own stories as critical evidence that can inform improvement in healthcare service delivery.

Performance of estimated glomerular filtration rate equations in Black living kidney donor candidates

INTRODUCTION

New estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) equations using serum creatinine and/or cystatin C have been derived to eliminate adjustment by perceived Black ancestry. We sought to analyze the performance of newer eGFR equations among Black living kidney donor candidates.

METHODS

Black candidates (n = 64) who had measured iothalamate GFR between January 2015 and October 2021 were included, and eGFR was calculated using race adjusted (eGFRcr2009 and eGFRcr-cys2012) and race unadjusted (eGFRcys2012, eGFRcr2021, and eGFRcr-cys2021) CKD-EPI equations. Bias and accuracy were calculated.

RESULTS

The eGFRcr2021 equation had a negative bias of 9 mL/min/1.73 m2 , while other equations showed a modest positive bias. Accuracy within 10% and 30% was greatest using the eGFRcr-cys2021 equation. With the eGFRcr2021 equation, 9.4% of donors with an mGFR > 80 mL/min/1.73 m2 were misclassified as having an eGFR < 80 mL/min/1.73 m2 . eGFR was also compared among 18 kidney donors at 6-24 months post-donation. Post-donation, the percentage of donors with an eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 was 44% using the eGFRcr2021 equation compared to 11% using the eGFRcr-cys2021 equation.

CONCLUSION

The CKD-EPICr2021 equation appears to underestimate true GFR in Black living donor candidates. Alternatively, compared to CKD-EPICr2021, the CKD-EPICr-CysC2021 equation appears to perform with less bias and improved accuracy.

African American/Black race, apolipoprotein L1 , and serum creatinine among persons with HIV

OBJECTIVE

Accurate estimation of kidney function is critical among persons with HIV (PWH) to avoid under-dosing of antiretroviral therapies and ensure timely referral for kidney transplantation. Existing estimation equations for kidney function include race, the appropriateness of which has been debated. Given advancements in understanding of race and the necessity of accuracy in kidney function estimation, this study aimed to examine whether race, or genetic factors, improved prediction of serum creatinine among PWH.

DESIGN

This cross-sectional study utilized data from the Center for AIDS Research Network of Integrated Clinical Systems cohort (2008-2018). The outcome was baseline serum creatinine.

METHODS

Ordinary least squares regression was used to examine whether inclusion of race or genetic factors [ apolipoprotein-L1 ( APOL1 ) variants and genetic African ancestry] improved serum creatinine prediction. A reduction in root mean squared error (RMSE) greater than 2% was a clinically relevant improvement in predictive ability.

RESULTS

There were 4183 PWH included. Among PWH whose serum creatinine was less than 1.7 mg/dl, race was significantly associated with serum creatinine ( β  = 0.06, SE = 0.01, P  < 0.001) but did not improve predictive ability. African ancestry and APOL1 variants similarly failed to improve predictive ability. Whereas, when serum creatinine was at least 1.7 mg/dl, inclusion of race reduced the RMSE by 2.1%, indicating improvement in predictive ability. APOL1 variants further improved predictive ability by reducing the RMSE by 2.9%.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that, among PWH, inclusion of race or genetic factors may only be warranted at higher serum creatinine levels. Work eliminating existing healthcare disparities while preserving the utility of estimating equations is needed.

Collaborative leadership in transplantation: Blending clinical, business, and regulatory roles

Transplantation is a high-risk, high-cost treatment for end-stage diseases and is the most strictly regulated area of healthcare in the United States. Thus, achieving success for patients and the program requires skillful and collaborative leadership. Various factors, such as outcomes, volume, and financial health, may measure the success of a transplant program. Strong collaboration between clinical and administrative leaders is key to achieving and maintaining success in those three categories. Clinical leaders of adult programs, such as medical and surgical directors, bear the primary responsibility for a program's volume, outcomes, and patient safety, while administrative directors are focused on business intelligence and regulatory compliance. This paper aims to provide readers with insights into the critical role of collaborative leadership in running a successful program, with a focus on clinical, business, and regulatory perspectives.

Factors enabling transplant program participation in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) Living Donor Collective: A national survey

BACKGROUND

The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) Living Donor Collective (LDC), the first effort to create a lifetime registry for living donor candidates in the United States, requires transplant programs to register donor candidates while the SRTR conducts follow-up.

METHODS

To better understand facilitators and barriers to program participation, we conducted a brief electronic survey of U.S. transplant program staff from October 26, 2021 to December 17, 2021.

RESULTS

We received 132 responses, with at least one response from 87 living donor programs (46 kidney programs, 33 kidney and liver programs, and eight liver programs alone). We found 86% of program representatives strongly agreed or agreed that funding adequate to cover the cost of data collection would facilitate LDC participation, 92% agreed or strongly agreed with importance of electronic data submission options, and 74% reported that elimination of requirements to submit duplicative pre-operative information to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) would be helpful. Other potentially enabling factors include reduction in duration of OPTN postdonation follow-up requirements, ease-of-use, protection from data use for regulation, adequate data security, and equity in data access.

CONCLUSION

This survey identifies potential targets to strengthen participation in the effort to create a national living donor registry in the United States. Collaboration and investment to overcome barriers to LDC participation among transplant programs are vital to generate long-term data on living donation for donor candidates, donors, and patients in need of transplant.

Living kidney donor evaluation is associated with early identification of life-changing diagnoses in potentially healthy donor candidates

BACKGROUND

In order to ensure eligibility for living kidney donation, donor candidates undergo a thorough medical evaluation. This process might reveal hitherto undetected medical conditions, leading to refusal of the kidney donor candidate. Detection of such conditions may, however, also have a lifesaving effect. We report on 13 years of data from our living donor transplantation program on kidney donor candidates who were diagnosed with major medical conditions during evaluation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of living kidney donor candidates who attended our transplant center between January, 2007 and December, 2019. The main focus was on newly diagnosed medical conditions that required immediate medical attention and their prognostic significance.

RESULTS

Of the 436 donor candidates who were evaluated for living kidney donation at our transplant center, 192 (44%) were accepted, while 244 (56%) were excluded from donation. Interestingly, 81 (33.1%) of the ineligible donor candidates were newly diagnosed as having a medical condition that required immediate attention. While 45 (18.5%) candidates were newly diagnosed with diabetes or prediabetes, 12 (4.9%) candidates had hitherto undetected malignancies, 10 candidates (4.1%) cardiac disease, five (2.0%) hypertension with end-organ damage, and four (1.6%) suffered from kidney disease. The remaining four candidates (1.6%) were diagnosed with gastrointestinal diseases, and one candidate (.4%) had an endocrine disorder.

CONCLUSION

A comprehensive evaluation process for living kidney donation facilitates the identification of life-changing diagnoses in a significant proportion of candidates and secures immediate medical attention.

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.

Managing the Costs of Routine Follow-up Care After Living Kidney Donation: a Review and Survey of Contemporary Experience, Practices, and Challenges

Purpose of Review

While living organ donor follow-up is mandated for 2 years in the USA, formal guidance on recovering associated costs of follow-up care is lacking. In this review, we discuss current billing practices of transplant programs for living kidney donor follow-up, and propose future directions for managing follow-up costs and supporting cost neutrality in donor care.

Recent Findings

Living donors may incur costs and financial risks in the donation process, including travel, lost time from work, and dependent care. In addition, adherence to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) mandate for US transplant programs to submit 6-, 12-, and 24-month postdonation follow-up data to the national registry may incur out-of-pocket medical costs for donors. Notably, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has explicitly disallowed transplant programs to bill routine, mandated follow-up costs to the organ acquisition cost center or to the recipient’s Medicare insurance. We conducted a survey of transplant staff in the USA (distributed October 22, 2020–March 15, 2021), which identified that the mechanisms for recovering or covering the costs of mandated routine postdonation follow-up at responding programs commonly include billing recipients’ private insurance (40%), while 41% bill recipients’ Medicare insurance. Many programs reported utilizing institutional allowancing (up to 50%), and some programs billed the organ acquisition cost center (25%). A small percentage (11%) reported billing donors or donors’ insurance.

Summary

To maintain a high level of adherence to living donor follow-up without financially burdening donors, up-to-date resources are needed on handling routine donor follow-up costs in ways that are policy-compliant and effective for donors and programs. Development of a government-supported national living donor follow-up registry like the Living Donor Collective may provide solutions for aspects of postdonation follow-up, but requires transplant program commitment to register donors and donor candidates as well as donor engagement with follow-up outreach contacts after donation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40472-022-00379-w.

Why Donors Do Not Donate: A Living Donation Program Experience

BACKGROUND

A living donor (LD) kidney transplant is the best therapeutic option for end-stage kidney disease. Potential donors must undergo multiple analyses and the rates of live donation can be as low as 8% to 18%. Here, we report on the live kidney donor program in our unit with emphasis on the reasons why potential donors do not proceed to donation.

METHODS

We performed a single-center retrospective study of all potential kidney donors with a first LD appointment at Centro Hospitalar Universitário do Porto between January 2016 and December 2020.

RESULTS

In our cohort there were 395 potential donors. From the potential donors who finished assessment, 131 were approved for donation and 239 dropped out. After assessment, 104 (28.1%) recipients received a living kidney transplant, 24 of which received a living kidney transplant through the kidney paired exchange program. The individuals who did not proceed to the surgery (n = 239) had a median age of 46.5 years, 64.4% were female, and 34 pairs were ABO-incompatible. The most frequent donor-recipient relationships were spouses, siblings and parents. The 2 most important causes of dropout were due to medical, surgical or psychological contraindications and the donor's voluntary withdrawal. When we evaluated the variables most related to dropout, they were not because of being a spouse and ABO incompatibility.

CONCLUSIONS

When compared to other studies, we showed a relatively higher rate of successful live donations, possibly aided by the presence of cross-over transplantation. Targeted education and support at an earlier stage of the donor assessment process may lead to a better engagement and lower probability of early dropout.

The Role of Registries in Kidney Transplantation Across International Boundaries

Transplant professionals strive to improve domestic kidney transplantation rates safely, cost efficiently, and ethically, but to increase rates further may wish to allow their recipients and donors to traverse international boundaries. Travel for transplantation presents significant challenges to the practice of transplantation medicine and donor medicine, but can be enhanced if sustainable international registries develop to include low- and low-middle income countries. Robust data collection and sharing across registries, linking pretransplant information to post-transplant information, linking donor to recipient information, increasing living donor transplant activity through paired exchange, and ongoing reporting of results to permit flexibility and adaptability to changing clinical environments, will all serve to enhance kidney transplantation across international boundaries.

The use of nondirected donor organs in living donor liver transplantation: Perspectives and guidance

Interest in anonymous nondirected living organ donation is increasing in the United States and a small number of transplantation centers are accumulating an experience regarding nondirected donation in living donor liver transplantation. Herein, we review current transplant policy, discuss emerging data, draw parallels from nondirected kidney donation, and examine relevant considerations in nondirected living liver donation. We aim to provide a consensus guidance to ensure safe evaluation and selection of nondirected living liver donors and a schema for just allocation of nondirected grafts.

Toward continuous improvement of Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients performance reporting: Advances following 2012 consensus conference and future consensus building for 2022 consensus conference

The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) held a consensus conference in 2012 that examined methods used by SRTR for constructing performance metrics and made recommendations on how to improve program-specific reports. That consensus conference provided 25 recommendations categorized as follows: statistical methods, risk adjustment, and outcomes and data. During the subsequent decade, SRTR has implemented most of these recommendations; these are described in this article along with plans for another consensus conference in 2022. With the present article, SRTR aims to create transparency in the field of transplant metrics and guide discussion in the planning of the next consensus conference in 2022. The new conference will revisit the previous topics and have a broader focus to improve the metrics and information that SRTR provides. Readers can provide feedback on topics to be discussed at the next consensus conference as early as possible, by emailing srtr@srtr.org with the subject line "Task 5 Public Comment." This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

OPTN/SRTR 2020 Annual Data Report: Living Donor Collective

The first successful solid organ transplant was a living donor kidney transplant in 1954. Since then, living donation has been an important source of organs for kidney and liver transplants in the United States. Unfortunately, the demand for organs has not kept pace with the supply, and unlike deceased donor transplant, there has been little growth in the number of living donor transplants over the past decade. To better understand possible barriers to living donation and long-term risks attributable to donation, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) directed the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) to establish a national registry of all living donor candidates and donors evaluated at US transplant programs to acquire lifetime follow-up information. Other goals include understanding the factors associated with candidate approval and variation in approval practices across centers. A pilot program was conducted from June 2018 through September 2020 to inform baseline data collection and registration processes. In September 2020, the registry began recruiting additional sites evaluating candidates for living donation. Here, we describe candidates registered at participating living donor kidney and liver programs, from June 2018 through the end of 2020. Not all programs submitted data throughout the whole period. Data for kidney and liver living donor candidates are presented separately.

A Roadmap for Innovation to Advance Transplant Access and Outcomes: A Position Statement From the National Kidney Foundation

Over the past 65 years, kidney transplantation has evolved into the optimal treatment for patients with kidney failure, dramatically reducing suffering through improved survival and quality of life. However, access to transplant is still limited by organ supply, opportunities for transplant are inequitably distributed, and lifelong transplant survival remains elusive. To address these persistent needs, the National Kidney Foundation convened an expert panel to define an agenda for future research. The key priorities identified by the panel center on the needs to develop and evaluate strategies to expand living donation, improve waitlist management and transplant readiness, maximize use of available deceased donor organs, and extend allograft longevity. Strategies targeting the critical goal of decreasing organ discard that warrant research investment include educating patients and clinicians about potential benefits of accepting nonstandard organs, use of novel organ assessment technologies and real-time decision support, and approaches to preserve and resuscitate allografts before implantation. The development of personalized strategies to reduce the burden of lifelong immunosuppression and support "one transplant for life" was also identified as a vital priority. The panel noted the specific goal of improving transplant access and graft survival for children with kidney failure. This ambitious agenda will focus research investment to promote greater equity and efficiency in access to transplantation, and help sustain long-term benefits of the gift of life for more patients in need.