The Irish living kidney donor program - why potential donors do not proceed to live kidney donation?

Improving value delivery in living donor kidney transplant through process improvement

INTRODUCTION

Living donor kidney evaluation has substantial time variations with significant intercenter variation. One-day donor evaluation has shown to be clinically efficient and improve transplant rates. However, patients' perception of 1-day evaluation is unknown. We hypothesized that 1 day LKD evaluation will improve patient satisfaction and improve living donation rates.

METHODS

All interested LD candidates from April 2018 to May 2020 were enrolled in the study. Non-directed donors, donors greater than 60 years old, and recipients with more than three donors underwent multi-day evaluation (control group) while the rest underwent 1-day evaluation (intervention group). An anonymous survey was filled by both groups to assess their perceptions on different areas including time, communication, experience, information provided, and their preferences on living donor evaluation.

RESULTS

Donor candidates in the 1-day evaluation group selected that the time from the questionnaire to clinic evaluation took "under 1 month" or "less than 3 months" (62.5% vs. 15.8%, p = .002), with "excellent" for both scheduling process (65% vs. 31.6%, p = .03) and communication (82.5% vs. 57.9%, p = .09) when compared to candidates in the multiple-days evaluation group. One-day candidates felt "very satisfied" with the overall experience (95% vs. 68.4%, p = .02) and felt "extremely well" with the information provided regarding the living donor process (87.5% vs. 47.4%, p = .003) when compared to multiple-day evaluation group. Regardless of the group, 53 (89.8%) patients preferred 1-day evaluation.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrate 1-day living donor evaluation is efficient, patient preferred, and adds value through improved communication, and better overall patient satisfaction.

Detailed Cause of Donor Ineligibility in Living Donor Kidney Transplants: A Retrospective, Single-Center Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Living kidney donors are evaluated to determine their physical and psychological suitability for transplantation and ensure their safety. During this process, we frequently encounter cases where a donor is found to be ineligible. In this study, we surveyed donors who are ineligible for transplantation at our hospital to educate patients, their families, and medical staff regarding transplantation in the future.

METHODS

We examined the proportion of ineligible donors among 237 potential donors who visited our hospital between January 2002 and March 2022. Data were collected retrospectively from electronic medical records and evaluated from various aspects such as age, body mass index, medical history, medications, and renal function.

RESULTS

The mean age at presentation was 55.5 years, the male-to-female ratio was 1:1.6, and no significant difference was found between the ineligible and eligible donor groups. The transplant ineligibility rate was 23.6%, and the categories were for medical, backout, immunologic, and recipient-related reasons, in descending order. Furthermore, a low glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was the most common cause of medical cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients were judged ineligible because of lifestyle-related diseases such as low GFR, diabetes mellitus, and obesity. Therefore, thorough patient education should be conducted using these data as a reference to reduce the number of donors ineligible because of lifestyle-related diseases.

Reasons and effects of the decline of willing related potential living kidney donors

BACKGROUND

Although the availability of related living donors (LDs) provides a better chance for receiving kidney transplantation (KT), the evaluation protocols for LD selection remain a safeguard for the LD's safety. These protocols are variable from one center to another, resulting in variable rates of decline of the potential LDs (PLDs). The decline of willing PLDs may occur at any stage of evaluation, starting from the initial contact and counseling to the day of operation.

AIM

To identify the causes of the decline of PLDs, the predictors of PLD candidacy, and the effect on achieving LDKT.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed on the willing PLDs who attended our outpatient clinic for kidney donation to their related potential recipients between October 2015 and December 2022. The variables influencing their candidacy rate and the fate of their potential recipients were studied. Two groups of PLDs were compared: Candidate PLDs after a completed evaluation vs non-candidate PLDs with a complete or incomplete evaluation. A multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess the factors contributing to the achievement of PLD candidacy.

RESULTS

Of 321 willing PLDs, 257 PLDs (80.1%) accessed the evaluation to variable extents for 212 potential recipients, with a mean age (range) of 40.5 ± 10.4 (18-65) years, including 169 females (65.8%). The remaining 64 PLDs (19.9%) did not access the evaluation. Only 58 PLDs (18.1%) succeeded in donating, but 199 PDLs (62.0%) were declined; exclusion occurred in 144 PLDs (56.0%) for immunological causes (37.5%), medical causes (54.9%), combined causes (9.7%), and financial causes (2.1%). Regression and release occurred in 55 PLDs (17.1%). The potential recipients with candidate PLDs were not significantly different from those with non-candidate PLDs, except in age (P = 0.041), rates of completed evaluation, and exclusion of PLDs (P < 0.001). There were no factors that independently influenced the rate of PLD candidacy. Most patients who failed to have KT after the decline of their PLDs remained on hemodialysis for 6 mo to 6 years.

CONCLUSION

The rate of decline of willing related PLDs was high due to medical or immunological contraindications, release, or regression of PLDs. It reduced the chances of high percentages of potential recipients in LDKT.

Why Do Not All Living Kidney Donor Candidates Are Accepted for Donation? A Pediatric Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Living donor kidney transplantation is the best type of renal replacement therapy for patients with end-stage renal disease. Living kidney donors (LKDs) undergo an extensive evaluation before donating, and many potential LKDs are declined. This study aimed to define the reasons for the decline in LKD candidates referred to our center.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed clinical data of all potential LKDs evaluated between January 2001 and December 2021 at our institution,Western National Medical Center, Pediatric Hospital. Data were obtained by review of an electronic database.

RESULTS

A total of 1332 potential LKDs were evaluated, 796 (59.7%) successfully donated; 20 (1.5%) had a complete evaluation, were accepted for donation, and were on the waiting list for intervention; 56 (4.2%) continued in the evaluation process; 200 (15%) were discharged from the program due to administrative aspects, death (donor or receptor), or cadaveric renal transplantation in order of frequency; 56 (4.2%) withdraw by personal choice; and 204 (15.3%) were rejected for donation. Donor-related reasons included medical contraindications (n = 134, 65.7%), anatomic contraindications (n = 38, 18.6%), immunologic barriers (n = 18, 8.8%), and psychological reasons (n = 11, 5.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the large number of potential LKDs, a significant proportion did not proceed for donation for different reasons; in our description, it represents 40.3%. The largest proportion is because of donor-related causes, and most of the reasons result from the candidate's unnoticed chronic diseases.

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.

Necesidades asistenciales en el estudio de personas candidatas a donantes de riñón

Objetivos: Describir las necesidades asistenciales del candidato a donante de riñón; sus características sociodemográficas y clínicas; y analizar los resultados desde una perspectiva de género.Material y Método: Estudio observacional descriptivo transversal. Se recogieron datos clínicos; sociodemográficos; y el número y tipo de visitas y pruebas realizadas durante el año 2020.Resultados: Se incluyeron 60 candidatos a donantes de riñón (n=37 mujeres; 61,67%) con una media de 51,98±14,50 años y una mediana de 2,5 [RIQ (0,69-5,29)] meses de estudio. 16 (26,67%) fueron aptos para la donación, correspondiendo al 14,16% de la actividad en Trasplante Renal (TR) del centro de referencia. Se requirieron 757 visitas (20,60% de la actividad) de las que 341 (45,05%) fueron visitas con la enfermera. Se requirieron 423 pruebas (19,60% de la actividad) durante el estudio. Se identificó una media de 1,87±1,35 factores de riesgo cardiovascular en la muestra analizada, siendo de 1,56±0,81 en los que finalmente fueron donantes. Más mujeres (n=12; 75%) que hombres (n=4; 25%) fueron finalmente donantes renales.Conclusiones: El estudio del candidato a donante de riñón es complejo e implica el doble de actividad que en el de los candidatos a receptores de trasplante renal. El proceso finaliza en donación en el 27% de los candidatos estudiados. La enfermera concentra el 45% de las visitas que se requieren. Es necesario explorar estrategias para optimizar el proceso de estudio. Hay diferencias de género en cuanto a la predisposición para estudiarse voluntariamente como candidata a donante renal.

Disqualification of Donor and Recipient Candidates From the Living Kidney Donation Program: Experience of a Single-Center in Germany

Background

Kidney transplantation is the best treatment option for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) with a superiority of graft survival after living kidney donation (LKD) compared to deceased donation. However, a large part of potential donors and recipients are ineligible for LKD. Here, we analyze the leading causes for disqualification of potential living donor-recipient pairs from the LKD program and the health-related consequences for ESKD patients excluded from the LKD program in a German transplant center.

Methods

In this single-center retrospective cohort study we evaluated all candidates (potential donors and recipients) presenting for assessment of LKD from 2012 to 2020 at our transplant center. Thereby we focused on candidates excluded from the LKD program. Main reasons for disqualification were categorized as medical (donor-related), psychosocial, immunological, recipient-related, and unknown.

Results

Overall, 601 donor-recipient pairs were referred to our transplant center for LKD assessment during the observation time. Out of those, 326 (54.2%) discontinued the program with 52 (8.7%) dropouts and 274 (45.6%) donor-recipient pairs being ineligible for LKD. Donor-related medical contraindications were the main reason for disqualification [139 out of 274 (50.7%) potential donors] followed by recipient-related contraindications [60 out of 274 (21.9%) of potential donor-recipient pairs]. Only 77 out of 257 (29.9%) potential recipients excluded from the LKD program received a kidney transplant afterward with a median waiting time of 2 (IQR: 1.0–4.0) years. Overall, 18 (7.0%) ESKD patients initially declined for LKD died in this period.

Conclusion

A large percentage of donor-recipient pairs are disqualified from the German LKD program, mostly due to medical reasons related to the donor and with partly severe consequences for the potential recipients. For these, alternative solutions that promptly enable kidney transplantation are essential for improving patient quality of life and survival.

Is Bigger Better? Living Donor Kidney Volume as Measured by the Donor CT Angiogram in Predicting Donor and Recipient eGFR after Living Donor Kidney Transplantation

BACKGROUND

The role of kidney volume measurement in predicting the donor and recipient kidney function is not clear.

METHODS

We measured kidney volume bilaterally in living kidney donors using CT angiography and assessed the association with the donor remaining kidney and recipient kidney (donated kidney) function at 1 year after kidney transplantation. Donor volume was categorized into tertiles based on lowest, middle, and highest volume.

RESULTS

There were 166 living donor and recipient pairs. The mean donor age was 44.8 years (SD ± 10.8), and donor mean BMI was 25.5 (SD ± 2.9). The recipients of living donor kidneys were 64% male and had a mean age of 43.5 years (SD ± 13.3). Six percent of patients experienced an episode of cellular rejection and were maintained on dialysis for a mean of 18 months (13-32) prior to transplant. Kidney volume was divided into tertiles based on lowest, middle, and highest volume. Kidney volume median (range) in tertiles 1, 2, and 3 was 124 (89-135 ml), 155 (136-164 ml), and 184 (165-240 ml) with donor eGFR ml/min (adjusted for body surface area expressed as ml/min/1.73 m2) at the time of donation in each tertile, 109 (93-129), 110 (92-132), and 101 ml/min (84-117). The median (IQR) eGFR in tertiles 1 to 3 in kidney recipients at 1 year after donation was 54 (44-67), 62 (50-75), and 63 ml/min (58-79), respectively. The median (IQR) eGFR in tertiles 1 to 3 in the remaining kidney of donors at 1 year after donation was 59 (53-66), 65 (57-72), and 65 ml/min (56-73), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Bigger kidney volume was associated with better eGFR at 1 year after transplant in the recipient and marginally in the donor remaining kidney.

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

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background.

Gaps in our knowledge of long-term outcomes affect decision making for potential living kidney donors.

Methods.

The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was asked to determine the feasibility of a candidate registry.

Results.

Ten living kidney donor programs evaluated 2107 consecutive kidney donor candidates; 2099 of 2107 (99.6%) completed evaluations, 1578 of 2099 (75.2%) had a decision, and 790 of 1578 (50.1%) were approved to donate as of March 12, 2020. By logistic regression, candidates most likely to be approved were married or had attended college or technical school; those least likely to be approved had ≥1 of the following characteristics: Black race, history of cigarette smoking, and higher blood pressure, higher triglycerides, or higher urine albumin-to-creatinine ratios. Reasons for 617 candidates not being approved included medical issues other than chronic kidney disease risk (25.3%), chronic kidney disease risk (18.5%), candidate withdrawal (15.2%), recipient reason (13.6%), anatomical risk to the recipient (10.3%), noneconomic psychosocial (10.3%), economic (0.5%), and other reasons (6.4%).

Conclusions.

These results suggest that a comprehensive living donor registry is both feasible and necessary to assess long-term outcomes that may inform decision making for future living donor candidates. There may be socioeconomic barriers to donation that require more granular identification so that active measures can address inequities. Some candidates who did not donate may be suitable controls for discerning the appropriateness of acceptance decisions and the long-term outcomes attributable to donation. We anticipate that these issues will be better identified with modifications to the data collection and expansion of the registry to all centers over the next several years.

Why Living Kidney Donor Candidates Are Turned Down? A Single-Center Cohort Study

Introduction Living donor kidney transplantation is the best replacement therapy for patients with end-stage renal disease. It offers more benefits than deceased donor transplantation. However, living kidney donors (LKDs) undergo an extensive evaluation to ensure their suitability for donation, and this can result in rejection of many potential donors. Aim The aim of this study was to recognize the reasons for declining LKDs in our Organ Transplant Center at King Abdulaziz Medical City. Settings and Design This was a retrospective study to determine the various reasons to reject an LKD at the Organ Transplant Center. Methods and Material All the LKDs from January 2016 to December 2019 were included. Declined donors were reviewed and data were obtained from the electronic database and transplant nephrology shared files. Statistical analysis We performed data analysis using SPSS version 24.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Data for continuous variables were presented as mean ± standard deviation and were compared using t-test. Categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages; chi-square test was used to test for main association and then Bonferroni adjustment was used for post-hoc testing. Statistical significance was considered if a two-tailed p-value of <0.05 was achieved. Results A total of 410 potential LKDs were evaluated, of whom 241 (58.8%) successfully underwent donor nephrectomy and 169 (41.2%) were unable to proceed for kidney donation. The most common reasons for rejection of LKDs were medical (47.9%) followed by immunological reasons mainly blood group incompatibility (19.5%). Other reasons were donor withdrawal (15.4%), recipient-related reasons (7.1%), surgically unfit to proceed for nephrectomy (4.7%), or psychological reasons (2.3%). Conclusions A significant proportion of potential LKDs did not complete the kidney donation process due to medical, immunological, and surgical reasons. In addition, a proportion of LKDs decided to withdraw at some point during the evaluation process. Investing in donors' educational programs and implementing a standardized evaluation process are essential to increase LKDs pool.

Initiating Maintenance Dialysis Before Living Kidney Donor Transplantation When a Donor Candidate Evaluation Is Well Underway

BACKGROUND

Preemptive kidney transplants result in better outcomes and patient experiences than transplantation after dialysis onset. It is unknown how often a person initiates maintenance dialysis before living kidney donor transplantation when their donor candidate evaluation is well underway.

METHODS

Using healthcare databases, we retrospectively studied 478 living donor kidney transplants from 2004 to 2014 across 5 transplant centers in Ontario, Canada, where the recipients were not receiving dialysis when their donor's evaluation was well underway. We also explored some factors associated with a higher likelihood of dialysis initiation before transplant.

RESULTS

A total of 167 (35%) of 478 persons with kidney failure initiated dialysis in a median of 9.7 months (25th-75th percentile, 5.4-18.7 months) after their donor candidate began their evaluation and received dialysis for a median of 8.8 months (3.6-16.9 months) before kidney transplantation. The total cohort's dialysis cost was CAD $8.1 million, and 44 (26%) of 167 recipients initiated their dialysis urgently in hospital. The median total donor evaluation time (time from evaluation start to donation) was 10.6 months (6.4-21.6 months) for preemptive transplants and 22.4 months (13.1-38.7 months) for donors whose recipients started dialysis before transplant. Recipients were more likely to start dialysis if their donor was female, nonwhite, lived in a lower-income neighborhood, and if the transplant center received the recipient referral later.

CONCLUSION

One third of persons initiated dialysis before receiving their living kidney donor transplant, despite their donor's evaluation being well underway. Future studies should consider whether some of these events can be prevented by addressing inappropriate delays to improve patient outcomes and reduce healthcare costs.

Why Potential Living Kidney Donors Do Not Proceed for Donation: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Living donor kidney transplantation is the best type of renal replacement therapy. However, large numbers of potential living kidney donors (LKDs) are declined because of various reasons. The aim of this study is to define and quantify the reasons for declining potential LKDs.

METHODS

All potential LKDs evaluated at our center between September 2008 and December 2016 were reviewed. Data were collected from the electronic database.

RESULTS

A total of 2090 potential LKDs were evaluated, with an average age of 32 years (range, 18-67 years) and men constituting 72.6%. A total of 675 (32.3%) were accepted for donor nephrectomy. Living kidney donation did not proceed in 830 (39.7%): 661 (79.6%) because of donor-related reasons and 169 (20.4%) because of recipient-related reasons. Donor-related reasons included medical contraindications (61.7%), immunological barriers (23.1%), surgical contraindications (7.9%), and psychosocial reasons (7.3%). A total of 585 (28.0%) potential LKDs voluntarily withdrew themselves at variable time points during the evaluation process, even after being accepted for donation. Male and young (18-35 years) potential LKDs were more likely to withdraw compared with female and older (>35 years) potential LKDs (34.3% vs 11.4%, P < .005 and 29.6% vs 24.5%, P = .02, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the large number of potential LKDs, medically complex donors are increasing, and a significant proportion decided to withdraw at some point during the evaluation process. The latter highlights the need to increase public awareness about living donation, to perform more careful initial screening and targeted educational programs, and to provide continuous support for potential LKDs.

Living Kidney Donation Is Recipient Age Sensitive and Has a High Rate of Donor Organ Disqualifications

BACKGROUND

Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the best therapy for patients with chronic renal failure. Its advantages, compared with cadaveric transplantation, include the possibility of avoiding dialysis, the likelihood of best outcome, and donor pool expansion. Careful assessment of potential donors is important to minimize the risks and ensure success. However, the proportion of donors disqualified has been poorly investigated. The aim of this work is to describe our experience and present the main reasons for missed donation.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective study of all potential donors and recipients evaluated for LDKT between January 2008 and December 2017.

RESULTS

During the period of study, 81 donor-recipient pairs were evaluated. Of these, 45.7% were disqualified and 37 LDKTs were carried out. LDKT was the first choice in 68% of cases and preemptive in 20%; 60% of transplants were among family members. Sex distribution revealed a prevalence of females in the donor group (69%) and males in the recipient group (70%). The mean living donor age was 53 ± 9.5 years; the mean recipient age was lower in recipients listed in the living transplant program than those listed for cadaver transplantation (45.8 ± 13.4 vs 54.2 ± 11.08; P < .0001). Reasons for denial included hypertension (18.9%), deceased donor transplant performed during the study period (16.2%), urologic pathology (13.5%), incompatibility (13.5%), withdrawal of consent by donor or recipient (13.5%), psychological unsuitability (8.1%), donor cancer (5.4%), and reduced renal clearance (2.7%).

CONCLUSION

LDKT is considered an option especially for younger recipients. Of the potential kidney living donors, 45.7% were disqualified during the evaluation, with medical reasons being the primary cause.

The Efficiency of Evaluating Candidates for Living Kidney Donation: A Scoping Review

Supplemental digital content is available in the text.

Introduction

The process of evaluating candidates for living kidney donation can be inefficient. A structured review of existing information on this topic can provide a necessary foundation for quality improvement.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review to map the published literature to different themes related to an efficient donor candidate evaluation. We reviewed the websites of living donor programs to describe information provided to candidates about the nature and length of the evaluation process.

Results

We reviewed of 273 published articles and 296 websites. Surveys of living donor programs show variability in donor evaluation protocols. Computed tomography (a routinely done test for all successful candidates) may be used to assess split renal volume instead of nuclear renography when the 2 kidneys differ in size. Depending on the candidate’s estimated glomerular filtration rate, a nuclear medicine scan for measured glomerular filtration rate may not be needed. When reported, the time to complete the evaluation varied from 3 months to over a year. The potential for undesirable outcomes was reported in 23 studies, including missed opportunities for living donation and/or preemptive transplants. According to living donor websites, programs generally evaluate 1 candidate at a time when multiple come forward for assessment, and few programs describe completing most of the evaluation in a single in-person visit.

Conclusions

Data on the efficiency of the living donor evaluation are limited. Future efforts can better define, collect, and report indicators of an efficient living donor evaluation to promote quality improvement and better patient outcomes.

Prevalence of Incidental Findings on Multidetector Computed Tomography in Potential Nephrectomy Donors: A Prospective Observational Study

OBJECTIVES

Prospective renal donors are a select population of healthy individuals who have been thoroughly screened for significant comorbidities before they undergo multidetector computed tomography. Our aim was to determine the prevalence of incidental findings on preoperative multidetector computed tomography in a healthy cohort of potential living donors for kidney transplant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective study was performed of prospective living kidney transplant donors at a national kidney transplant center. Study inclusion criteria were all potential kidney donors who underwent multidetector computed tomography during the living-donor assessment process over a 5-year period (January 2012 to 2017).

RESULTS

Our cohort included 375 potential living donors who had multidetector computed tomography; mean age was 44.33 years (range, 21-71.5 y). In total, there were 228 incidental findings identified in 158 individuals. Of the 375 potential donors, 193 (51%) proceeded to living donor nephrectomy. On multidetector computed tomography, 97 incidental findings were identified in the donor cohort versus 131 in the cohort that did not proceed to donation. Bosniak 1 renal cysts were the most common incidental finding (n = 46) followed by liver cysts < 1.5 cm (n = 42) and urinary tract calculi (n = 21). There was 1 incidentally detected pathologically proven malignancy.

CONCLUSIONS

A variety of incidentally detected lesions of moderate to high importance were detected in this healthy donor cohort. Individuals undergoing assessment with multidetector computed tomography for living donor nephrectomy should be counseled on medical, financial, and psychological implications of incidentally detected lesions during the kidney transplant evaluation process.

Duration of Living Kidney Transplant Donor Evaluations: Findings From 2 Multicenter Cohort Studies

BACKGROUND

A prolonged living kidney donor evaluation may result in worse outcomes for transplant recipients. Better knowledge of the duration of this process may help inform future donors and identify opportunities for improvement.

STUDY DESIGN

1 prospective and 1 retrospective cohort study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

At 16 Canadian and Australian transplantation centers (prospective cohort) and 5 Ontario transplantation centers (retrospective cohort), we assessed the duration of living kidney donor evaluation and explored donor, recipient, and transplantation factors associated with longer evaluation times. Data were obtained from 2 sources: donor medical records using chart abstraction and health care administrative databases.

PREDICTORS

Donor and recipient demographics, direct versus paired donation, center-level variables.

OUTCOMES

Duration of living donor evaluation.

RESULTS

The median total duration of transplantation evaluation (time from when the candidate started the evaluation until donation) was 10.3 (IQR, 6.5-16.7) months. The median duration from evaluation start until approval to donate was 7.9 (IQR, 4.6-14.1) months, and from approval until donation was 0.7 (IQR, 0.3-2.4) months, respectively. The median time between the first and last consultation among donors who completed a nephrology, surgery, and psychosocial assessment in the prospective cohort was 3.0 (IQR, 1.0-6.3) months, and between computed tomography angiography and donation was 4.8 (IQR, 2.6-9.2) months. After adjustment, the total duration of transplantation evaluation was longer if the donor participated in paired donation (6.6 [95% CI, 1.6-9.7] months) and if the recipient was referred later relative to the donor's evaluation start date (0.9 [95% CI, 0.8-1.0] months [per month of delayed referral]). Results depended on whether the recipient was receiving dialysis.

LIMITATIONS

Living donor candidates who did not donate were not included and proxy measures were used for some dates in the donor evaluation process.

CONCLUSIONS

The duration of kidney transplant donor evaluation is variable and can be lengthy. Better understanding of the reasons for a prolonged evaluation may inform quality improvement initiatives to reduce unnecessary delays.

A multicenter cohort study of potential living kidney donors provides predictors of living kidney donation and non-donation

This multicenter prospective potential living kidney donor cohort study investigated which sociodemographic and other factors predict progression to living kidney donation or donor withdrawal as little is known on this topic. Therefore, we examined data on individuals undergoing living donor assessment at seven hospitals in the United Kingdom. Multivariable logistic regression was used to explore the relationships between donor and recipient characteristics and likelihood of kidney donation. A total of 805 individuals presented for directed donation to 498 intended recipients, of which 112 received a transplant from a living donor. Potential donors were less likely to donate if their intended recipient was female rather than male with an odds ratio of 0.60, a friend rather than relative 0.18, or had renal failure due to a systemic disease rather than another cause 0.41. The most socioeconomically deprived quintile was less likely to donate than the least 0.49, but the trend with deprivation was consistent with chance. Higher body mass index was associated with a lower likelihood of donation (odds ratio per each kg/m² increase, 0.92). Younger potential donors (odds ratio per each year increase 0.97), those of nonwhite ethnicity 2.98, and friend donors 2.43 were more likely to withdraw from work-up. This is the first study in the United Kingdom of potential living kidney donors to describe predictors of non-donation. Qualitative work with individuals who withdraw might identify possible ways of supporting those who wish to donate but experience difficulties doing so.