1
|
Magyar CTJ, Choi WJ, Li Z, Cattral MS, Selzner N, Ghanekar A, Sayed BA, Sapisochin G. The aim of donor safety: surgical approaches and current results. Updates Surg 2024:10.1007/s13304-024-01881-9. [PMID: 38916620 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-024-01881-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/26/2024] [Accepted: 05/13/2024] [Indexed: 06/26/2024]
Abstract
Living liver donation (LLD) has been suggested as a potential solution to reduce the waitlist mortality for liver transplantation (LT) recipients by facilitating living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Ensuring both donor and recipient safety is a critical aspect of LDLT. An accurate understanding of the complexity and extend of safety outcomes of the donor is imperative to maintain the high-quality standard this medical program requires. This review seeks to outline safety outcome parameters of interest for donors. Early postoperative mortality is very low with no significant differences comparing left lobe to right lobe LLD. Complications most commonly are biliary (leakage or strictures), bleeding, respiratory or pulmonary, gastrointestinal or infectious. Return to full-time work and quality of life are essential parameters in the mid and long term. As evidence continues to accumulate, outcomes may evolve with the expansion of minimal invasive surgery practice and currently laparoscopic approach is recommended in large experienced centers. By offering safer operations that require fewer incisions or liver resections, living liver donations can be further encouraged, and the perception of the procedure can be improved. Rational consideration of the safety of the donor and in-depth discussion and evaluation with the patient is of utmost importance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christian Tibor Josef Magyar
- Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- HBP and Multi Organ Transplant Program, Division of General Surgery, University Health Network, HPB Surgical Oncology, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Department of Visceral Surgery and Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Woo Jin Choi
- Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- HBP and Multi Organ Transplant Program, Division of General Surgery, University Health Network, HPB Surgical Oncology, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Zhihao Li
- Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- HBP and Multi Organ Transplant Program, Division of General Surgery, University Health Network, HPB Surgical Oncology, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Mark Steven Cattral
- Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- HBP and Multi Organ Transplant Program, Division of General Surgery, University Health Network, HPB Surgical Oncology, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Nazia Selzner
- Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- HBP and Multi Organ Transplant Program, Division of General Surgery, University Health Network, HPB Surgical Oncology, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Anand Ghanekar
- Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- HBP and Multi Organ Transplant Program, Division of General Surgery, University Health Network, HPB Surgical Oncology, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Blayne Amir Sayed
- Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- HBP and Multi Organ Transplant Program, Division of General Surgery, University Health Network, HPB Surgical Oncology, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Gonzalo Sapisochin
- Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
- HBP and Multi Organ Transplant Program, Division of General Surgery, University Health Network, HPB Surgical Oncology, Toronto, ON, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kwon YK, Valentino PL, Healey PJ, Dick AAS, Hsu EK, Perkins JD, Sturdevant ML. Optimizing pediatric liver transplantation: Evaluating the impact of donor age and graft type on patient survival outcome. Pediatr Transplant 2024; 28:e14771. [PMID: 38702924 DOI: 10.1111/petr.14771] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/06/2023] [Revised: 03/05/2024] [Accepted: 04/15/2024] [Indexed: 05/06/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND We examined the combined effects of donor age and graft type on pediatric liver transplantation outcomes with an aim to offer insights into the strategic utilization of these donor and graft options. METHODS A retrospective analysis was conducted using a national database on 0-2-year-old (N = 2714) and 3-17-year-old (N = 2263) pediatric recipients. These recipients were categorized based on donor age (≥40 vs <40 years) and graft type. Survival outcomes were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models, followed by an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis to examine overall patient survival. RESULTS Living and younger donors generally resulted in better outcomes compared to deceased and older donors, respectively. This difference was more significant among younger recipients (0-2 years compared to 3-17 years). Despite this finding, ITT survival analysis showed that donor age and graft type did not impact survival with the exception of 0-2-year-old recipients who had an improved survival with a younger living donor graft. CONCLUSIONS Timely transplantation has the largest impact on survival in pediatric recipients. Improving waitlist mortality requires uniform surgical expertise at many transplant centers to provide technical variant graft (TVG) options and shed the conservative mindset of seeking only the "best" graft for pediatric recipients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yong K Kwon
- Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
- Division of Transplantation, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington, USA
- Department of Surgery, Clinical and Bio-Analytics Transplant Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Pamela L Valentino
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Pediatrics, Seattle Children's Hospital, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Patrick J Healey
- Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
- Division of Transplantation, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington, USA
- Department of Surgery, Clinical and Bio-Analytics Transplant Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Andre A S Dick
- Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
- Division of Transplantation, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington, USA
- Department of Surgery, Clinical and Bio-Analytics Transplant Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Evelyn K Hsu
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Pediatrics, Seattle Children's Hospital, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - James D Perkins
- Department of Surgery, Clinical and Bio-Analytics Transplant Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Mark L Sturdevant
- Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
- Department of Surgery, Clinical and Bio-Analytics Transplant Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Zimbrean PC, Rubman S, Andacoglu O, Bakhai D, Clifton E, Deng Y, Doshi M, Emamaullee J, Gan G, Holmes R, Jaber L, Jackson WE, Joyce M, Kalil R, Kumar V, Laflen J, Lentine KL, Prashar R, Winder GS, Yadav A, Liapakis A. Psychosocial evaluation of living liver donors-State of current practices in the United States. Liver Transpl 2024; 30:505-518. [PMID: 37861339 DOI: 10.1097/lvt.0000000000000288] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2023] [Accepted: 10/02/2023] [Indexed: 10/21/2023]
Abstract
We surveyed living donor liver transplant programs in the United States to describe practices in the psychosocial evaluation of living donors focused on (1) composition of psychosocial team; (2) domains, workflow, and tools of the psychosocial assessment; (3) absolute and relative mental health-related contraindications to donation; and (4) postdonation psychosocial follow-up. We received 52 unique responses, representing 33 of 50 (66%) of active living donor liver transplant programs. Thirty-one (93.9%) provider teams included social workers, 22 (66.7%) psychiatrists, and 14 (42.4%) psychologists. Validated tools were rarely used, but domains assessed were consistent. Respondents rated active alcohol (93.8%), cocaine (96.8%), and opioid (96.8%) use disorder, as absolute contraindications to donation. Active suicidality (97%), self-injurious behavior (90.9%), eating disorders (87.9%), psychosis (84.8%), nonadherence (71.9%), and inability to cooperate with the evaluation team (78.1%) were absolute contraindications to donation. There were no statistically significant differences in absolute psychosocial contraindications to liver donation between geographical areas or between large and small programs. Programs conduct postdonation psychosocial follow-up (57.6%) or screening (39.4%), but routine follow-up of declined donors is rarely conducted (15.8%). Psychosocial evaluation of donor candidates is a multidisciplinary process. The structure of the psychosocial evaluation of donors is not uniform among programs though the domains assessed are consistent. Psychosocial contraindications to living liver donation vary among the transplant programs. Mental health follow-up of donor candidates is not standardized.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paula C Zimbrean
- Departments of Psychiatry and Surgery (Transplant), Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| | - Susan Rubman
- Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| | - Oya Andacoglu
- Department of Surgery, University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA
| | - Darshit Bakhai
- Department of Social Work, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Erin Clifton
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Yanhong Deng
- Yale Center for Analytical Sciences, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| | - Mona Doshi
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Juliet Emamaullee
- Department of Surgery, Keck Medicine of USC/Children's Hospital-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Geliang Gan
- Yale Center for Analytical Sciences, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| | - Rachel Holmes
- Department of Psychiatry, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
| | - Lana Jaber
- Department of Surgery, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Whitney E Jackson
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, USA
| | - Michael Joyce
- Department of Social Work, Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| | - Roberto Kalil
- Department of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Vineeta Kumar
- Comprehensive Transplant Institute, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
| | - Jennie Laflen
- Department of Surgery, St. Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
| | - Krista L Lentine
- Department of Internal Medicine, SM Health Saint Louis University Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
| | - Rohini Prashar
- Department of Internal Medicine, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan, USA
| | - Gerald S Winder
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Anju Yadav
- Department of Internal Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Goldaracena N, Vargas PA, McCormack L. Pre-operative assessment of living liver donors' liver anatomy and volumes. Updates Surg 2024:10.1007/s13304-024-01806-6. [PMID: 38526699 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-024-01806-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/07/2023] [Accepted: 02/24/2024] [Indexed: 03/27/2024]
Abstract
Decades of experience supports LDLT as a favorable strategy to reduce waitlist mortality. The multiple regenerative pathways of hepatocytes and other hepatic cells justify the rationale behind it. Nonetheless, living liver donation is still underused and its broader implementation is challenging, mostly due to variability in practices leading to concerns related to donor safety. A non-systematic literature search was conducted for peer-reviewed original articles related to pre-operative evaluation of living liver donor candidates. Eligible studies were synthesized upon consensus for discussion in this up-to-date review. Review of the literature demonstrate that the importance of preoperative assessment of vascular, biliary and liver volume to ensure donor safety and adequate surgical planning for graft procurement is widely recognized. Moreover, data indicates that anatomic variants in vascular and biliary systems in healthy donors are common, present in up to 50% of the population. Therefore, comprehensive mapping and visualizations of each component is needed. Different imaging modalities are reported across practices and are discussed in detail. Lastly, assessment of liver volume must take into account several technical and donor factors that increase the chances of errors in volume estimation, which occurs in up to 10% of the cases. Experience suggests that maximizing donor safety and lessening their risks is a result of integrated experience between hepatobiliary and transplant surgery, along with multidisciplinary efforts in performing a comprehensive pre-operative donor assessment. Although technical advances have increased the accuracy of volume estimation, over- or under-estimation remains a challenge that needs further attention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicolas Goldaracena
- Department of Surgery, Division of Transplantation, University of Virginia Health System, 1215 Lee Street, PO Box 800709, Charlottesville, VA, 22908-0709, USA.
| | - Paola A Vargas
- Department of Surgery, Division of Transplantation, University of Virginia Health System, 1215 Lee Street, PO Box 800709, Charlottesville, VA, 22908-0709, USA
| | - Lucas McCormack
- Transplant Unit, Hospital Aleman de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Lentine KL, Amanda M, Xiao H, Wisniewski A, Levan M, Al Ammary F, Sharfuddin A, Axelrod DA, Waterman AD, Kasiske B. Factors enabling transplant program participation in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) Living Donor Collective: A national survey. Clin Transplant 2023; 37:e14908. [PMID: 36622257 PMCID: PMC10423496 DOI: 10.1111/ctr.14908] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/09/2022] [Revised: 12/24/2022] [Accepted: 01/03/2023] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Krista L. Lentine
- Saint Louis University Transplant Center, SSM-Saint Louis Univeristy Hospital, St. Louis, MO
| | | | - Huiling Xiao
- Saint Louis University Transplant Center, SSM-Saint Louis Univeristy Hospital, St. Louis, MO
| | - Addie Wisniewski
- Saint Louis University Transplant Center, SSM-Saint Louis Univeristy Hospital, St. Louis, MO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Jesse MT, Jackson WE, Liapakis A, Ganesh S, Humar A, Goldaracena N, Levitsky J, Mulligan D, Pomfret EA, Ladner DP, Roberts JP, Mavis A, Thiessen C, Trotter J, Winder GS, Griesemer AD, Pillai A, Kumar V, Verna EC, LaPointe Rudow D, Han HH. Living donor liver transplant candidate and donor selection and engagement: Meeting report from the living donor liver transplant consensus conference. Clin Transplant 2023:e14954. [PMID: 36892182 DOI: 10.1111/ctr.14954] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/28/2022] [Revised: 02/14/2023] [Accepted: 02/25/2023] [Indexed: 03/10/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a promising option for mitigating the deceased donor organ shortage and reducing waitlist mortality. Despite excellent outcomes and data supporting expanding candidate indications for LDLT, broader uptake throughout the United States has yet to occur. METHODS In response to this, the American Society of Transplantation hosted a virtual consensus conference (October 18-19, 2021), bringing together relevant experts with the aim of identifying barriers to broader implementation and making recommendations regarding strategies to address these barriers. In this report, we summarize the findings relevant to the selection and engagement of both the LDLT candidate and living donor. Utilizing a modified Delphi approach, barrier and strategy statements were developed, refined, and voted on for overall barrier importance and potential impact and feasibility of the strategy to address said barrier. RESULTS Barriers identified fell into three general categories: 1) awareness, acceptance, and engagement across patients (potential candidates and donors), providers, and institutions, 2) data gaps and lack of standardization in candidate and donor selection, and 3) data gaps regarding post-living liver donation outcomes and resource needs. CONCLUSIONS Strategies to address barriers included efforts toward education and engagement across populations, rigorous and collaborative research, and institutional commitment and resources.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michelle T Jesse
- Transplant Institute, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan, USA
| | - Whitney E Jackson
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, USA
| | - AnnMarie Liapakis
- Yale School of Medicine and Yale New Haven Transplant Center, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| | - Swaytha Ganesh
- Thomas E Starzl Transplant Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Abhinav Humar
- Thomas E Starzl Transplant Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Nicolas Goldaracena
- Division of Transplant Surgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
| | - Josh Levitsky
- Comprehensive Transplant Center, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - David Mulligan
- Division of Transplant Surgery, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| | | | - Daniela P Ladner
- Comprehensive Transplant Center, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - John P Roberts
- UCSF Department of Surgery, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Alisha Mavis
- Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Duke University Health, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Carrie Thiessen
- University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - James Trotter
- Transplant Hepatology, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | | | - Adam D Griesemer
- Department of Surgery, NYU Langone Heath, New York, New York, USA
| | - Anjana Pillai
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Vineeta Kumar
- Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology/Transplant, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
| | - Elizabeth C Verna
- Center for Liver Disease and Transplantation, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA
| | - Dianne LaPointe Rudow
- Recanati/Miller Transplantation Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, New York, USA
| | - Hyosun H Han
- Division of Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Jackson WE, Kaplan A, Saben JL, Kriss MS, Cisek J, Samstein B, Liapakis A, Pillai AA, Brown RS, Pomfret EA. Practice patterns of the medical evaluation of living liver donors in the United States. Liver Transpl 2023; 29:164-171. [PMID: 37160068 DOI: 10.1002/lt.26571] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2022] [Revised: 08/26/2022] [Accepted: 09/02/2022] [Indexed: 01/27/2023]
Abstract
Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) can help address the growing organ shortage in the United States, yet little is known about the current practice patterns in the medical evaluation of living liver donors. We conducted a 131-question survey of all 53 active LDLT transplant programs in the United States to assess current LDLT practices. The response rate was 100%. Donor acceptance rate was 0.33 with an interquartile range of 0.33-0.54 across all centers. Areas of high intercenter agreement included minimum age cutoff of 18 years (73.6%) and the exclusion of those with greater than Class 1 obesity (body mass index, 30.0-34.9 m/kg 2 ) (88.4%). Diabetes mellitus was not an absolute exclusion at most centers (61.5%). Selective liver biopsies were performed for steatosis or iron overload on imaging (67.9% and 62.3%, respectively) or for elevated liver enzymes (60.4%). Steatohepatitis is considered an exclusion at most centers (84.9%). The most common hypercoagulable tests performed were factor V Leiden (FVL) (88.5%), protein C (73.1%), protein S (71.2%), antithrombin III (71.2%) and prothrombin gene mutation (65.4%). At 41.5% of centers, donors were allowed to proceed with donation with FVL heterozygote status. Most programs discontinue oral contraceptive pills at least 28 days prior to surgery. At most centers, the need for cardiovascular ischemic risk testing is based on age (73.6%) and the presence of one or more cardiac risk factors (68.0%). Defining areas of practice consensus and variation underscores the need for data generation to develop evidence-based guidance for the evaluation and risk assessment of living liver donors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Whitney E Jackson
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology , University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus , Aurora , Colorado , USA.,Colorado Center for Transplantation Care , Research and Education , Aurora , Colorado , USA
| | - Alyson Kaplan
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology , Weill Cornell Medicine , New York , New York , USA
| | - Jessica L Saben
- Colorado Center for Transplantation Care , Research and Education , Aurora , Colorado , USA.,Department of Surgery , University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus , Aurora , Colorado , USA
| | - Michael S Kriss
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology , University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus , Aurora , Colorado , USA.,Colorado Center for Transplantation Care , Research and Education , Aurora , Colorado , USA
| | - Jaime Cisek
- Colorado Center for Transplantation Care , Research and Education , Aurora , Colorado , USA.,Department of Surgery , University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus , Aurora , Colorado , USA
| | - Benjamin Samstein
- Department of Surgery , Weill Cornell Medicine , New York , New York , USA
| | - AnnMarie Liapakis
- Yale University Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology , Yale New Haven Transplantation Center , New Haven , Connecticut , USA
| | - Anjana A Pillai
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology , University of Chicago Medicine , Chicago , Illinois , USA
| | - Robert S Brown
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology , Weill Cornell Medicine , New York , New York , USA
| | - Elizabeth A Pomfret
- Colorado Center for Transplantation Care , Research and Education , Aurora , Colorado , USA.,Department of Surgery , University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus , Aurora , Colorado , USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Kasiske BL, Lentine KL, Ahn Y, Skeans MA, Eberhard T, Folken C, Wainright J, Larkin L, Nystedt C. OPTN/SRTR 2020 Annual Data Report: Living Donor Collective. Am J Transplant 2022; 22 Suppl 2:553-586. [PMID: 35266611 DOI: 10.1111/ajt.16983] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B L Kasiske
- Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, Hennepin Health care Research Institute, Minneapolis, MN.,Department of Medicine, Hennepin Healthcare, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
| | - K L Lentine
- Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, Hennepin Health care Research Institute, Minneapolis, MN.,Center for Abdominal Transplantation, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - Y Ahn
- Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, Hennepin Health care Research Institute, Minneapolis, MN
| | - M A Skeans
- Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, Hennepin Health care Research Institute, Minneapolis, MN
| | - T Eberhard
- Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, Hennepin Health care Research Institute, Minneapolis, MN
| | - C Folken
- Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, Hennepin Health care Research Institute, Minneapolis, MN
| | - J Wainright
- Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, United Network for Organ Sharing, Richmond, VA
| | - L Larkin
- Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, United Network for Organ Sharing, Richmond, VA
| | - C Nystedt
- Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, Hennepin Health care Research Institute, Minneapolis, MN
| |
Collapse
|