Incompatible kidney donor candidates' willingness to participate in donor-exchange and non-directed donation

Characteristics of Potential and Actual Living Kidney Donors: A Single-center Experience

BACKGROUND

There are limited data and no national capture of barriers associated with initiating and completing the donation process for potential living kidney donors (LKDs).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 3001 intake forms completed by prospective LKDs from 2016 to 2019 at a single transplant center. We analyzed data from all potential donors who completed the intake until they became ineligible or withdrew or donation was complete. We used univariate and multivariate models to evaluate independent factors associated with donation at various stages in the donation process.

RESULTS

The donation process was deconstructed into 5 steps: intake form, immunologic compatibility testing, clinic evaluation, selection committee review, and donation. The highest percentage of potential donors dropped out after completing the intake form, primarily because of not responding to the follow-up phone call (22.6%). Of 455 potential LKDs that completed immunologic compatibility testing, 36% were ABO or crossmatch incompatible. One-hundred eighty-eight (7.5%) of all LKD applicants reached donation, the majority of whom were White (91.0%) and female (63.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

A minority of LKD applicants make it to donation. Our ability to track all potential LKDs from the initial touch point to the transplant center will help us develop interventions to address barriers to a successful donation.

Willingness for Solid-Organ Donation in Saudi Arabia: A Skyscape View

OBJECTIVES

The number of patients with organ failure in Saudi Arabia is increasing annually, and transplantation offers the best outcome for these patients. However, the number of donors does not meet these needs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A questionnaire was distributed to assess the behavior of participants in Saudi Arabia toward different types of organ donation. The questionnaire examined general willingness to donate, deceased donation, living donation, and refusal to donate, as well as paired-exchange donation and next-of-kin consenting.

RESULTS

Of the 1099 participants, most were men (64%) and middle-aged (46%, 31-45 years old), with 36% of participants currently willing to donate or already registered as donors. Although 592 participants (54%) were not yet willing to donate, they believed they could consider making donations in specific circumstances (eg, when a relative is in need). In all circumstances, 10% (n = 108) of the participants refused to donate. With regard to deceased donation, 74% of participants accepted this, but only 29% (n = 322) agreed to consent for donation as next of kin. Of 1099 participants, 143 (13%) were willing to accept altruistic donation. Paired-exchange donation was widely accepted in a cohort study (n = 725, 65%), as opposed to list exchange (n = 540, 49%). Religious beliefs were the main reason behind the refusal of donation in the study cohort (n = 37, 37%). Female participants were less likely to refuse organ donation (odds ratio: 0.562; 95% CI, 0.407-0.775; P < .001), whereas older participants (> 60 years) were more likely to refuse organ donation (odds ratio: 5.457; 95% CI, 1.894-15.722; P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

This study described the willingness of the Saudi population to donate organs in general and under special conditions, such as deceased donation, living-unrelated donation, altruistic donation, paired-exchange donation, list exchange donation, and next-of-kin consent.

Psychological characteristics and associations between living kidney transplantation recipients and biologically related or unrelated donors

BACKGROUND

Although recipients and donors in living kidney transplantation experience psychological distress-including depression and anxiety-during the pre-operative period, very few studies have evaluated the related psychological reactions. This study aimed to determine the characteristics and correlations of the mood states and personality of recipients and donors (genetically related and unrelated) of living kidney transplantations.

METHODS

A total of 66 pairs of living donors and recipients were enrolled from April 2008 to June 2019 in this study, of whom 53 eligible pairs of living donors and recipients were included in the retrospective analysis of their psychological assessments in the pre-transplantation states. While participants' personality patterns were assessed using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2), mood states were evaluated via both the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). Statistical analysis was performed using paired t-tests and Spearman's correlation analyses.

RESULTS

The recipient group showed significantly higher scores for Hypochondriasis (t = - 4.49, p = .0001), Depression (t = - 3.36, p = .0015), and Hysteria (t = - 3.30, p = .0018) of MMPI-2 and CES-D (t = - 3.93, p = .0003) than the donor group. The biologically unrelated recipient group reported higher scores of Hypochondriasis (t = - 3.37, p = .003) and Depression (t = - 2.86, p = 0.0098) than the unrelated donor group. Higher scores for Hypochondriasis (t = - 3.00, p = 0.0054) and CES-D (t = - 3.53, p = .0014) were found in the related recipient group. A positive association was found for Hypomania (r = .40, p = .003) of MMPI-2, STAI-S (r = .36, p = .009), and CES-D (r = .36, p = .008) between the recipient and donor groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Recipients suffered from a higher level of depression and somatic concerns than donors before living kidney transplantation. Psychological problems like depression and anxiety can occur in both living kidney transplantation donors and recipients. This study suggests that clinicians must pay attention to mood states not only in recipients but also in donors because of emotional contagion.

The experiences of parents and caregiver(s) whose child received an organ from a living anonymous liver donor

BACKGROUND

Anonymous living donor transplantation is a potential strategy to address the shortage of available organs for transplant. A living anonymous donor (LAD) is a donor with no biological connection and whose identity is unknown to the recipient. This study captured the lived experiences of pediatric liver transplant recipient families whose child received an organ from a LAD.

METHODS

Qualitative data collection and analysis were guided by a theoretical framework of phenomenology. Data analysis highlighted themes through an inductive process of reviewing transcript paragraphs to code for significant statements that represented key concepts and captured depth of experience.

RESULTS

A total of nine interviews were conducted with 10 participants. Data analysis yielded themes of emotional turbulence through their transplant journey. Pre-transplant experiences were characterized by feelings of helplessness and desperation. Receiving a LAD transplant prompted shock, relief, and acceptance of the donation. Post-transplant experiences were characterized by altered life-perspectives and varied levels of connectedness to the donor, marked by gratitude and concern for donor well-being.

CONCLUSION

Anonymous donation in liver transplantation is perceived by recipient families as a remarkable gift and a viable donor option. Our preliminary findings can be used to inform strategy development regarding future delivery of care.

Kidney Paired Donation and the "Valuable Consideration" Problem: The Experiences of Australia, Canada, and the United States

As organ donation rates remain unable to meet the needs of individuals waiting for transplants, it is necessary to identify reasons for this shortage and develop solutions to address it. The introduction of kidney paired donation (KPD) programs represents one such innovation that has become a valuable tool in donation systems around the world. Although KPD has been successful in increasing kidney donation and transplantation, there are lingering questions about its legality. Donation through KPD is done in exchange for-and with the expectation of-a reciprocal kidney donation and transplantation. It is this reciprocity that has caused concern about whether KPD complies with existing law. Organ donation systems around the world are almost universally structured to legally prohibit the commercial exchange of organs. Australia, Canada, and the United States have accomplished this goal by prohibiting the exchange of an organ for "valuable consideration," which is a legal term that has not historically been limited to monetary exchange. Whether or not KPD programs violate this legislative prohibition will depend on the specific legislative provision being considered, and the legal system and case law of the particular jurisdiction in question. This article compares the experiences of Australia, Canada, and the United States in determining the legality of KPD and highlights the need for legal clarity and flexibility as donation and transplantation systems continue to evolve.

A liver for a kidney: Ethics of trans-organ paired exchange

Living donation provides important access to organ transplantation, which is the optimal therapy for patients with end-stage liver or kidney failure. Paired exchanges have facilitated thousands of kidney transplants and enable transplantation when the donor and recipient are incompatible. However, frequently willing and otherwise healthy donors have contraindications to the donation of the organ that their recipient needs. Trans-organ paired exchanges would enable a donor associated with a kidney recipient to donate a lobe of liver and a donor associated with a liver recipient to donate a kidney. This article explores some of the ethical concerns that trans-organ exchange might encounter including unbalanced donor risks, the validity of informed consent, and effects on deceased organ donation.

Past, present and future of kidney paired donation transplantation in India

One third of healthy willing living kidney donors are rejected due to ABO blood group incompatibility and donor specific antibody. This increases pre-transplant dialysis duration leading to increased morbidity and mortality on the kidney transplantation waiting list. Over the last decade kidney paired donation is most rapidly increased source of living kidney donors. In a kidney transplantation program dominated by living donor kidney transplantation, kidney paired donation is a legal and valid alternative strategy to increase living donor kidney transplantation. This is more useful in countries with limited resources where ABO incompatible kidney transplantation or desensitization protocol is not feasible because of costs/infectious complications and deceased donor kidney transplantation is in initial stages. The matching allocation, ABO blood type imbalance, reciprocity, simultaneity, geography were the limitation for the expansion of kidney paired donation. Here we describe different successful ways to increase living donor kidney transplantation through kidney paired donation. Compatible pairs, domino chain, combination of kidney paired donation with desensitization or ABO incompatible transplantation, international kidney paired donation, non-simultaneous, extended, altruistic donor chain and list exchange are different ways to expand the donor pool. In absence of national kidney paired donation program, a dedicated kidney paired donation team will increase access to living donor kidney transplantation in individual centres with team work. Use of social networking sites to expand donor pool, HLA based national kidney paired donation program will increase quality and quantity of kidney paired donation transplantation. Transplant centres should remove the barriers to a broader implementation of multicentre, national kidney paired donation program to further optimize potential of kidney paired donation to increase transplantation of O group and sensitized patients. This review assists in the development of similar programs in other developing countries.

Concerns of ABO incompatible and crossmatch-positive potential donors and recipients about participating in kidney exchanges

Kidney paired exchanges (KPEs) have increased, yet are still underutilized. This study aimed to develop tools for assessing KPE concerns, identify predictors of KPE concerns, and describe common KPE concerns among potential living donors (LDs) and intended recipients. Incompatible former potential LDs (n = 135) and intended recipients (n = 83) retrospectively completed questionnaires to assess KPE concerns. Healthcare system distrust also was assessed. A minority (n = 48 or 36.5% of potential LDs; n = 25 or 30.1% of intended recipients) had pursued KPE participation. Of those who pursued KPE participation, 11 (22.9%) and 6 (24.0%) completed KPE donation or transplantation, respectively. The questionnaires for potential LDs and recipients showed good internal consistency and preliminary convergent validity. LDs and patients less willing to pursue KPE reported more KPE concerns. Common KPE concerns for both potential LDs and recipients were related to perceived Distrust/Inequity and Inconvenience/Cost. Multivariate predictors of more KPE concerns were as follows: male gender (t = 4.5, p < 0.001) and more healthcare system distrust (t = 2.5, p = 0.01) for potential LDs; black race (t = 2.1, p = 0.04) and more healthcare system distrust (t = 2.3, p = 0.03) for intended recipients. These findings underscore the importance of addressing concerns potential LDs and patients have about KPE if the true potential of KPE is to be realized.

Is it ethical to invite compatible pairs to participate in exchange programmes?

Living kidney transplantation offers the best results for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). This form of transplantation is no longer restricted to genetically or emotionally related donors, as shown by the acceptance of non-directed living anonymous donors, and the development of exchange programmes (EPs). EPs make it possible to perform living kidney transplantation among incompatible pairs, but while such programmes can help increase living organ donation, they can also create a degree of unfairness. Kidney transplant recipients in the O blood group are at a disadvantage when it comes to EPs because they can only receive organs from O donors, whereas O donors are universal donors. This poses a major challenge in terms of distributive justice and equity. A way to remedy this situation is through altruistic unbalanced paired kidney exchange (AUPKE), in which a compatible pair consisting of an O blood group donor and a non-O recipient is invited to participate in an EP. Although the AUPKE approach appears fairer for O recipients, it still raises ethical questions. How does this type of exchange affect the donor/recipient gift relationship? Should recipients in compatible pairs receive a 'better organ' than the one they would otherwise have received from their intended donor? Finally, what is the role of transplant teams in AUPKE? This article will examine the organisational and ethical challenges associated with EPs and AUPKE, and compare different EP policies in countries where such programmes exist.

Ten kidney paired donation transplantation on World Kidney Day 2013: raising awareness and time to take action to increase donor pool

BACKGROUND

Kidney paired donation (KPD) is feasible for any center that performs living related donor renal transplantation (LRDRTx). Lack of awareness, counseling and participation are important hurdles in KPD patients with incompatible donors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is an institutional review board approved study of 10 ESRD patients who consented to participate in the KPD transplantation at our center. All the surgeries were carried out on the same day at the same center on the occasion of World Kidney Day (WKD) (14 March 2013). All recipients had anatomic, functional and immunological similar donors.

RESULTS

KPD were performed to avoid blood group incompatibility (n = 8) or to avoid a positive crossmatch (n = 2). None of the patients experienced delayed graft function and surgical complications. At 3 month follow-up, median serum creatinine was 1 (range 0.6 to 1.25) mg/dL and two patients developed allograft biopsy-proven acute rejection and responded to antirejection therapy. Due to impact of our awareness activity, 20 more KPD patients are medically fit for transplantation and waiting for permission from the authorization committee before transplantation.

CONCLUSION

This is a report of 10 simultaneous KPD transplantations in a single day in a single centre on WKD raising awareness of KPD. KPD is viable, legal and rapidly growing modality for facilitating LRDRTx for patients who are incompatible with their healthy, willing LRD.

Comparison of kidney paired donation transplantations with living related donor kidney transplantation: implications for national kidney paired donation program

BACKGROUND

Kidney Paired Donation (KPD) is a rapidly growing modality for facilitating living related donor kidney transplantation (LRDKTx) for patients who are incompatible with their healthy, willing, and living donors. Data scarcity on the outcome of KPD versus LRDKTx prompted us to review our experience.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a single-center study of 224 patients on regular follow-up, who underwent LRDRTx from January 2010 to June 2012 at our institute. The aim of this study was to compare short-term graft survival, patient survival and rejection rates of KPD (group 1, n = 34) with those of LRDKTx (group 2, n = 190). All the recipients received triple immunosuppression and thymoglobulin induction in KPD group. Kaplan-Meier curves were used for survival analysis. In group 1, mean recipient age was 35.5 ± 13.2 years, 29 were men and mean donor age was 44.4 ± 8.17 years, 10 were men. In group 2, mean recipient age was 29.1 ± 10 years, 155 were men and mean donor age was 47.5 ± 9.69 years, 74 were men. Mean human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching in group 1 and 2 was 1 versus 3.2 (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

One- and two-year patient survival showed no significant difference between the two groups (97.1%, 97.1% vs. 96.2%, 94.8%, respectively, p = 0.81). Death-censored graft survival also showed no significant difference between the two groups (97.1%, 97.1%, vs. 97.6%, 97.6%, p = 0.73). Acute rejection incidence was also similar (8.7% vs. 9.9%, p > 0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed similar graft survival, patient survival and rejection rates of KPD versus LRDKTx over 2 years post-transplantation, encouraging the use of this approach for national KPD program.

Controversies in kidney paired donation

Kidney paired donation represented 10% of living kidney donation in the United States in 2011. National registries around the world and several separate registries in the United States arrange paired donations, although with significant variations in their practices. Concerns about ethical considerations, clinical advisability, and the quantitative effectiveness of these approaches in paired donation result in these variations. For instance, although donor travel can be burdensome and might discourage paired donation, it was nearly universal until convincing analysis showed that living donor kidneys can sustain many hours of cold ischemia time without adverse consequences. Opinions also differ about whether the last donor in a chain of paired donation transplants initiated by a nondirected donor should donate immediately to someone on the deceased donor wait-list (a domino or closed chain) or should be asked to wait some length of time and donate to start another sequence of paired donations later (an open chain); some argue that asking the donor to donate later may be coercive, and others focus on balancing the probability that the waiting donor withdraws versus the number of additional transplants if the chain can be continued. Other controversies in paired donation include simultaneous versus nonsimultaneous donor operations, whether to enroll compatible pairs, and interactions with desensitization protocols. Efforts to expand public awareness of and participation in paired donation are needed to generate more transplant opportunities.

Willingness of the United States general public to participate in kidney paired donation

BACKGROUND

Availability of kidney paired donation (KPD) is increasing in the United States, and a national system through UNOS is forthcoming. However, little is known about attitudes toward KPD among the general public, from which donors (particularly non-directed) are drawn.

METHODS

In a national study, we assessed the public's attitudes regarding participation in KPD.

RESULTS

Among 845 randomly selected participants, 85.2% of respondents were either "extremely willing" or "very willing" to participate in KPD. Experiences with the medical or organ transplant systems, such as undergoing surgery, having a primary medical provider, a living will, a friend who donated or received an organ, and considering donation after death, were associated with increased willingness. However, increased age, male sex, African American race, Hispanic ethnicity, distrust of the medical system, and not understanding organ allocation were associated with less willingness.

CONCLUSIONS

We identify strong support for KPD but some important potential barriers to participation which should be considered as KPD programs are implemented.

Consideration of donor age and human leukocyte antigen matching in the setting of multiple potential living kidney donors

BACKGROUND

Defining living donor (LD)-related risk factors affecting kidney transplant outcome will allow better donor selection and more educated informed consent when there is more than one potential donor. We studied risk factors in a large cohort at a single institution.

METHODS

We reviewed 1632 recipients who underwent LD kidney transplantation at the University of Minnesota between January 1, 1990, and October 1, 2009. Using Cox regression, we studied the effect of donor and recipient risk factors on patient and graft survival. We specifically examined the effect of donor age and human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching because these are variables that may help clinical decision making when multiple potential donors exist.

RESULTS

Mean donor age was 40.6 years for all transplants; 180 (11%) donors were 55 years or older, and 24 (1.5%) donors were older than 65 years. Mean number of HLA mismatches (per transplant) was 2.9 (29.2% of recipients had one to two HLA mismatches, 39.8% had three to four HLA mismatches, and 25% had five to six HLA mismatches). Donor age more than 65 years, five to six HLA mismatches, delayed graft function, and acute rejection were independent predictors of decreased patient and graft survival. When controlling for recipient age, donor age more than 65 years remained a risk factor for worse outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that advanced donor age (>65 years) and degree of HLA mismatch (≥5) are independent donor-related risk factors associated with worse outcome. When multiple potential LDs exist, it may be ideal to attempt to use a donor younger than 65 years and with less than five HLA mismatches.

Barriers to implementing protocols for kidney paired donation and desensitization: survey of U.S. transplant programs

CONTEXT

Special types of kidney transplant exist for patients who have willing but incompatible donors. Two types of transplants that circumvent donor-recipient incompatibility are "kidney paired donation" and "desensitization." Lack of access to these protocols limits living donations and shortens the life span of patients with willing but incompatible donors.

OBJECTIVE

To understand potential barriers to implementing kidney paired donation and desensitization, as well as attitudes toward nondirected donation and compatible type O donation, which would maximize the number of kidney paired donation transplants performed via chains.

DESIGN

We created a 56-question Web-based survey to elicit information from US transplant program directors about 24 potential barriers to implementing these protocols.

PARTICIPANTS

Of 166 programs contacted, 96 responded, including 88 complete and 8 partial responses. After pediatric-only programs and multiple responses from the same program were removed, 84 total (78 complete) remained.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Respondents were asked to designate each barrier as "major," "minor," or "not a barrier".

RESULTS

Availability of dedicated nurse coordinators and the United Network for Organ Sharing's variance request process (although kidney paired donation does not actually require a variance) were significant barriers to kidney paired donation. Most respondents (54%, 42/78) would prefer to participate in a regional rather than a national protocol for kidney paired donation. Risk of complications was the most significant barrier to desensitization. University affiliation, region, and training (nephrologist vs surgeon) had little effect on perception of barriers. Most (92%, 71/78) would evaluate nondirected donations; 53% (41/78) would encourage compatible type O donors to enter kidney paired donation.

Barriers to Implementing Protocols for Kidney Paired Donation and Desensitization: Survey of US Transplant Programs

Context

Special types of kidney transplant exist for patients who have willing but incompatible donors. Two types of transplants that circumvent donor-recipient incompatibility are “kidney paired donation” and “desensitization.” Lack of access to these protocols limits living donations and shortens the life span of patients with willing but incompatible donors.

Objective

To understand potential barriers to implementing kidney paired donation and desensitization, as well as attitudes toward nondirected donation and compatible type O donation, which would maximize the number of kidney paired donation transplants performed via chains.

Design

We created a 56-question Web-based survey to elicit information from US transplant program directors about 24 potential barriers to implementing these protocols.

Participants

Of 166 programs contacted, 96 responded, including 88 complete and 8 partial responses. After pediatric-only programs and multiple responses from the same program were removed, 84 total (78 complete) remained.

Main Outcome Measures

Respondents were asked to designate each barrier as “major,” “minor,” or “not a barrier.”

Results

Availability of dedicated nurse coordinators and the United Network for Organ Sharing's variance request process (although kidney paired donation does not actually require a variance) were significant barriers to kidney paired donation. Most respondents (54%, 42/78) would prefer to participate in a regional rather than a national protocol for kidney paired donation. Risk of complications was the most significant barrier to desensitization. University affiliation, region, and training (nephrologist vs surgeon) had little effect on perception of barriers. Most (92%, 71/78) would evaluate nondirected donations; 53% (41/78) would encourage compatible type O donors to enter kidney paired donation.

Ethical considerations for participation of nondirected living donors in kidney exchange programs

Kidneys from nondirected donors (NDDs) have historically been allocated directly to the deceased donor wait list (DDWL). Recently, however, NDDs have participated in kidney exchange (KE) procedures, including KE 'chains', which have received considerable media attention. This increasing application of KE chains with NDD participation has occurred with limited ethical analysis and without ethical guidelines. This article aims to provide a rigorous ethical evaluation of NDDs and chain KEs. NDDs and bridge donors (BDs) (i.e. living donors who link KE procedures within KE chains) raise several ethical concerns including coercion, privacy, confidentiality, exploitation and commercialization. In addition, although NDD participation in KE procedures may increase transplant numbers, it may also reduce NDD kidney allocation to the DDWL, and disadvantage vulnerable populations, particularly O blood group candidates. Open KE chains (also termed 'never-ending' chains) result in a permanent diversion of NDD kidneys from the DDWL. The concept of limited KE chains is discussed as an ethically preferable means for protecting NDDs and BDs from coercion and minimizing 'backing out', whereas 'honor systems' are rejected because they are coercive and override autonomy. Recent occurrences of BDs backing out argue for adoption of ethically based protective measures for NDD participation in KE.

Is living kidney donation the answer to the economic problem of end-stage renal disease?

The escalating number and cost of treating patients with end-stage renal disease is a considerable economic concern for health care systems and societies globally. Compared with dialysis, kidney transplantation leads to improved patient survival and quality of life, as well as cost savings to the health payer. Despite efforts to increase kidney transplantation, the gap between supply and demand continues to grow. In this article we explore the economic consideration of both living and deceased transplantation. Although living kidney donation has several advantages from an economic perspective, efforts to increase both deceased and living donation are required. Strategies to increase kidney donation are underfunded, and even costly strategies are likely to lead to net health care savings. However, demonstration of efficacy of these strategies is required to ensure efficient use of resources.

Organ donation and utilization in the United States, 1997-2006

Deceased organ donation has increased rapidly since 2002, coinciding with implementation of the Organ Donation Breakthrough Collaborative. The increase in donors has resulted in a corresponding increase in the numbers of kidney, liver, lung and intestinal transplants. While transplants for most organs have increased, discard and nonrecovery rates have not improved or have increased, resulting in a decrease in organs recovered per donor (ORPD) and organs transplanted per donor (OTPD). Thus, the expansion of the consent and recovery of incremental donors has frequently outpaced utilization. Meaningful increases in multicultural donation have been achieved, but donations continue to be lower than actual rates of transplantation and waiting list registrations for these groups. To counteract the decline in living donation, mechanisms such as paired donation and enhanced incentives to organ donation are being developed. Current efforts of the collaborative have focused on differentiating ORPD and OTPD targets by donor type (standard and expanded criteria donors and donors after cardiac death), utilization of the OPTN regional structure and enlisting centers to increase transplants to match increasing organ availability.

Patients' Willingness to Talk to others about Living Kidney Donation

Background

Living donor kidney transplantation has several advantages for patients with end-stage renal disease. However, many patients are reluctant to pursue this treatment option, preferring instead to wait for a deceased donor organ.

Objective

To examine predictors of patients' willingness to talk to others about living kidney donation.

Methods

One hundred thirty-two adult patients awaiting kidney transplantation who were enrolled in a randomized trial examining the effectiveness of education on rates of live donor kidney transplantation completed a baseline rating of their willingness to talk to others about living kidney donation. Also, patients completed measures of knowledge and concerns about living donation and a rating of perceived health.

Results

Slightly more than half the patients (56.1%) had low willingness to talk to others about living donation. The following variables were associated with higher willingness to talk to others: white race (odds ratio, 3.31; confidence interval, 1.7–7.4), college education (odds ratio, 3.43, confidence interval, 2.0–5.6), fewer concerns about living donor kidney transplantation (odds ratio, 0.31; confidence interval, 0.2–0.6), and less favorable perceptions of their current health status (odds ratio, 4.31; confidence interval, 2.6–7.6).

Conclusion

White race, more education, less concern about living donor kidney transplantation, and poorer perceived health are associated with greater willingness to talk to others about living kidney donation. These findings have important implications for educating patients about living donor kidney transplantation.

Live donor nephrectomy for kidney transplantation

The number of patients with end-stage renal disease is increasing substantially every year around the world. Renal transplantation is the best treatment option to improve survival and quality of life. Although the numbers of living, related and deceased transplant donors has also increased, this growth is insufficient to keep up with the expansion rate of the renal failure population. The introduction of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has gained widespread acceptance by physicians and patients, and seems to be better than open donor nephrectomy in terms of reduced postoperative pain, quick recovery and improved cosmetic outcomes. Evidence strongly suggests that graft survival is similar in recipients of kidneys from living related and unrelated donors. Fortunately, this information has raised awareness of the suitability of potential live, unrelated donors, including spouses, friends, or even anonymous donors. In this Review we touch on sociological aspects of living related kidney transplantation and review the available and proposed methods of increasing the live donor pool, including organ exchange and desensitization protocols for ABO-incompatible and cross-match-positive donor pairs.

Evaluating living kidney donors: relationship types, psychosocial criteria, and consent processes at US transplant programs

We conducted a survey of 132 US kidney transplant programs to examine how they evaluate and select potential living kidney donors, focusing on donor-recipient relationships, psychosocial criteria, and consent processes. There is heterogeneity in donor-recipient relationships that are considered acceptable, although most programs (70%) will not consider publicly solicited donors. Most programs (75%) require a psychosocial evaluation for all potential living donors. Most programs agree that knowledge of financial reward (90%), active substance abuse (86%), and active mental health problems (76%) are absolute contraindications to donation. However, there is greater variability in how other psychosocial issues are considered in the selection process. Consent processes are highly variable across programs: donor and recipient consent for the donor evaluation is presumed in 57% and 76% of programs, respectively. The use of 13 different informed consent elements varied from 65% (alternative donation procedures) to 86% (description of evaluation, surgery and recuperative period) of programs. Forty-three percent use a 'cooling off' period. Findings demonstrate high variability in current practice regarding acceptable donor-recipient relationships, psychosocial criteria, and consent processes. Whether greater consensus should be reached on these donor evaluation practices, especially in the context of more expansive use of living donor kidney transplantation, is discussed.