Identifying Outcomes that Are Important to Living Kidney Donors: A Nominal Group Technique Study

Changes in Decisional Conflict and Decisional Regret Among Living Kidney Donors From Pre-Donation to 1-Year Post-Donation

Previous research indicates that most living kidney donors (LKDs) are content with their decision to donate and seldom experience regret. Nevertheless, a small percentage of donors report adverse experiences, such as psychological distress and reduced vitality. Therefore, it is essential to explore the experiences of LKDs, particularly within the context of their decision-making process both before and following kidney donation. This study aimed to examine the decisional conflict and decisional regret experienced by LKDs from the evaluation stage to 12 months post-donation and to identify the associated factors. A longitudinal study design was implemented, and the initial data collection took place when potential LKDs visited the hospital for evaluation (n = 50). Subsequent data collection was conducted at 3 (n = 49), 6, and 12 (n = 46) months post-donation. Variables, including basic demographics, decisional conflict, decisional regret, perceived control, psychological distress, and healthcare orientation, were collected. Generalized estimating equations were used to obtain inferential statistics. Results showed that perceived control characterized by personal control orientation, lower psychological distress, and better healthcare orientation were associated with reduced decisional conflict among LKDs. Meanwhile, lower decisional regret was associated with better self-perceived health status, perceived control inclined toward interpersonal control, and less psychological distress among LKDs. Nurses should assess the decisional conflict and mental health of potential LKDs, and provide clear information to support their decision regarding kidney donation. They should also offer self-care information and stress-coping strategies related to living donor nephrectomy to aid in reducing decisional conflict and regret.

Comparison of Effect Sevoflurane-Based Anesthesia and Propofol-Based Anesthesia on the Early Postoperative Renal Function of Living Kidney Transplant Donors: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose

Living kidney transplantation is a common treatment for end-stage renal disease. The impact of anaesthetics on postoperative biomarkers of renal injury in living kidney transplant donors is not well understood.

Patients and Methods

70 transplant donors who underwent kidney extraction were randomly assigned to following two groups: sevoflurane (S group) and propofol (P group). Urine and blood were collected before induction and 1, 2, 6 days after operation. Kidney injury marker-1 (KIM-1), interleukin-18 (IL-18) and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-2 (TIMP-2) were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Record the cystatin C, glomerular filtration rate, urine output during perioperative period.

Results

There were both increases in biomarkers of kidney injury before and 1, 2 and 6 days after the anaesthetic surgery in donors, However, no statistical differences in KIM-1 (P (0.42 pg/mL (95% CI 0.21 to 0.63 pg/mL)) vs S (0.26 pg/mL (95% CI 0.02 to 0.49 pg/mL)), -0.16 pg/mL (95% CI -0.48 to 0.16 pg/mL)), IL-18 (P (178.54 pg/mL (95% CI 110.15 to 24693 pg/mL)) vs S (175.86 pg/mL (95% CI 100.35 to 251.38 pg/mL)), -2.68 pg/mL (95% CI -105.61 to 100.25 pg/mL)), and TIMP-2 (P (12.88 ng/mL (95% CI 8.69 to 17.07 ng/mL)) vs S (14.85 ng/mL (95% CI 10.23 to 19.46 ng/mL)), 1.97 ng/mL (95% CI -4.30 to 8.23 ng/mL)) concentration changes between the two types of anaesthesia.

Conclusion

There was no difference between sevoflurane and propofol anaesthesia on postoperative changes in biomarkers of renal injury in living kidney transplant donors.

Expanding Opportunities for Living Donation: Recommendations From the 2023 Santander Summit to Ensure Donor Protections, Informed Decision Making, and Equitable Access

A strategic vision toward global convergence in transplantation must encourage and remove barriers to living organ donation and transplantation. Here, we discuss deliberations of a working group of the 2023 Santander Summit charged with formulating recommendations for the safe expansion of living donor kidney transplantation and living donor liver transplantation worldwide. Living donor kidney transplantation has grown to be the preferred treatment for advanced kidney failure. Living donor liver transplantation emerged more recently as a strategy to reduce waitlist mortality, with adoption influenced by cultural factors, regional policies, clinical team experience, and the maturity of regional deceased donor transplant systems. Barriers to living donor transplantation span domains of education, infrastructure, risk assessment/risk communication, and financial burden to donors. Paired donor exchange is a growing option for overcoming incompatibilities to transplantation but is variably used across and within countries. Effectively expanding access to living donor transplantation requires multifaceted strategies, including improved education and outreach, and measures to enhance efficiency, transparency, and shared decision making in donor candidate evaluation. Efforts toward global dissemination and vigilant oversight of best practices and international standards for the assessment, informed consent, approval, and monitoring of living donors are needed. Fostering greater participation in paired exchange requires eliminating disincentives and logistical obstacles for transplant programs and patients, and establishing an ethical and legal framework grounded in World Health Organization Guiding Principles. Sharing of best practices from successful countries and programs to jurisdictions with emerging practices is vital to safely expand the practice of living donation worldwide and bring the field together globally.

Understanding the Healthcare Needs of Living Kidney Donors Using the Picker Principles of Patient-centered Care: A Scoping Review

Living kidney donors (LKDs) undertake a complex and multifaceted journey when pursuing donation and have several unmet healthcare needs. A comprehensive understanding of these needs across their entire donation trajectory can help develop a patient-centered care model. We conducted a scoping review to synthesize empirical evidence, published since 2000, on LKDs' experiences with healthcare from when they decided to pursue donation to postdonation care, and what they reported as their care needs. We categorized them according to the 8 Picker principles of patient-centered care. Of the 4514 articles screened, 47 were included. Ample literature highlighted the need for (1) holistic, adaptable, and linguistically appropriate approaches to education and information; (2) systematic, consistent, and proactive coordination and integration of care; and (3) self-management and preparation to optimize perioperative physical comfort. Some literature highlighted the need for (4) better continuity and transition of care postdonation. Two key unmet needs were the lack of (5) a holistic psychosocial evaluation predonation and predischarge to provide emotional support and alleviation of fear and anxiety; and (6) access to specialty and psychosocial services postdonation especially when adverse events occurred. Limited literature explored the principles of (7) respect for patients' values, preferences, and expressed needs; and (8) involvement of family and friends as caregivers. We summarize several unmet healthcare needs of LKDs throughout their donation journey and highlight knowledge gaps. Addressing them can improve their well-being and experiences, and potentially address inequities in living kidney donation and increase living donor kidney transplantation.

A qualitative study exploring barriers and facilitators in deceased organ donation process among transplant coordinators in India

Although India's organ donation rate is less than 1 per million population, significant disparities exist between the regions and centres within the country, leading to varying consent rates among different organ donation centres. Therefore, this study aimed to understand the experience of transplant coordinators and their barriers and facilitators in the deceased organ donation process across various organ donation centres in India. A phenomenological study using interviews was conducted among fourteen transplant coordinators purposefully recruited from public and private organ donation centres in India, with experience between six years and more than a decade. Audio recordings were transcribed and analysed using framework analysis. Five themes were identified namely: (1) supportive management policies, (2) infrastructure for the deceased organ donation process, (3) delays in the processing time, (4) active involvement in the identification process, and (5) explaining the concept of brain death. The study identifies that implementation priorities include strengthening teamwork, streamlining processes, optimising infrastructure for sensitive discussions, efficient donor identification, and empathetic handling of donor families' grief stages. Collaborating with law enforcement, applying successful medico-legal strategies, improving family communication, and clarifying brain death concepts ethically and legally can boost consent rates, fostering informed decisions and possibly achieving self-sufficiency in deceased organ donation.

Early Complications in Kidney Donors and Course of Health-related Quality of Life 12 mo After Donation: An Analysis of the Swiss Organ Living-Donor Health Registry

Background

Since 1998, the Swiss Organ Living-Donor Health Registry (SOL-DHR) has recorded peri- and postoperative complications of living kidney (LK) donors, as reported by all Swiss transplant centers and has collected follow-up data prospectively.

Methods

We analyzed the early complications of 2379 consecutive individuals who donated a kidney between January 1998 and June 2022 and assessed their health-related quality of life (HRQoL) 1 y after donation.

Results

In total, 447 early complications in 404/2379 LK donors (17.0%) were reported to the SOL-DHR. The frequency of donors with major complications (ie, Dindo-Clavien classification 3/4) was 2.4%. In total, 31 donors needed reoperation, and in 13/31 (42%), donors reoperation was necessary because of bleeding complications. Independent risk factors for major early complications were older donor age (P = 0.005) and type of surgical approach (ie, the laparoscopic retroperitoneal compared with laparoscopic transabdominal surgery; P = 0.01), but not sex. We observed a U-shaped association of body mass index, where very low/high body mass indexes had higher odds of major early complications, without reaching statistical significance. Although HRQoL was affected by kidney donation, 96.5% of donors indicated that they would donate their kidney again. The only independent risk factor for low HRQoL based on mental health scores was worsening EB after living kidney donation (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Overall, living kidney donation is a safe procedure, however, donor age and type of surgical approach affect the risk of complications. A decline in emotional bonding with the recipient after donation may worsen the quality of life of the donor.

Experiences of Unanticipated Outcomes Among Ethnically Diverse Living Kidney Donors: A Qualitative Pilot Study

INTRODUCTION

Although living kidney donation is generally considered a safe procedure, it is ethically critical that prospective donors are fully informed before consent. However, prospective donors lack a deep understanding of the donation experience, making the postdonation aftermath feel unanticipated. We sought to gain in-depth qualitative descriptions of the short- and long-term risks and benefits associated with kidney donation among an ethnically diverse group of donors to offer a balanced view of the positive and negative experiences that may occur postdonation.

METHODS

We conducted individual narrative in-depth interviews (September 2020-March 2021) using the DIPEx (database of individual patient experiences) method with former living kidney donors primarily via Zoom.

RESULTS

Fourteen donors (10 women; 8 White, 5 Hispanic, and 1 Native American) completed interviews. Interactions with healthcare providers leading up to donation were largely positive; however, lack of clarity regarding postdonation laboratory values among primary care providers led three participants to be erroneously told they developed kidney disease. Most experienced unanticipated outcomes, including postsurgical complications (e.g., hernia), long-term fatigue (i.e., ≥12 weeks), emotional distress (e.g., depression), hypertension, and gout. Difficulty obtaining life insurance following donation was an unexpected challenge. Despite these issues, participants were unanimously enthusiastic about living kidney donation and reported no regrets.

CONCLUSIONS

Enthusiasm for living kidney donation remained high among all participants despite most experiencing negative outcomes. These findings suggest that greater transparency regarding postdonation experiences may not preclude the decision to move forward with living kidney donation. These narratives will be utilized for an online module of lived experiences of donation.

Interactive Health Technology Tool for Kidney Living Donor Assessment to Standardize the Informed Consent Process: Usability and Qualitative Content Analysis

BACKGROUND

Kidney living donation carries risks, yet standardized information provision regarding nephrectomy risks and psychological impacts for candidates remains lacking.

OBJECTIVE

This study assesses the benefit of interactive health technology in improving the informed consent process for kidney living donation.

METHODS

The Kidney Hub institutional open portal offers comprehensive information on kidney disease and donation. Individuals willing to start the kidney living donation process at Helsinki University Hospital (January 2019-January 2022) were invited to use the patient-tailored digital care path (Living Donor Digital Care Path) included in the Kidney Hub. This platform provides detailed donation process information and facilitates communication between health care professionals and patients. eHealth literacy was evaluated via the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS), usability with the System Usability Scale (SUS), and system utility through Likert-scale surveys with scores of 1-5. Qualitative content analysis addressed an open-ended question.

RESULTS

The Kidney Hub portal received over 8000 monthly visits, including to its sections on donation benefits (n=1629 views) and impact on donors' lives (n=4850 views). Of 127 living kidney donation candidates, 7 did not use Living Donor Digital Care Path. Users' ages ranged from 20 to 79 years, and they exchanged over 3500 messages. A total of 74 living donor candidates participated in the survey. Female candidates more commonly searched the internet about kidney donation (n=79 female candidates vs n=48 male candidates; P=.04). The mean eHEALS score correlated with internet use for health decisions (r=0.45; P<.001) and its importance (r=0.40; P=.01). Participants found that the Living Donor Digital Care Path was technically satisfactory (mean SUS score 4.4, SD 0.54) and useful but not pivotal in donation decision-making. Concerns focused on postsurgery coping for donors and recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

Telemedicine effectively educates living kidney donor candidates on the donation process. The Living Donor Digital Care Path serves as a valuable eHealth tool, aiding clinicians in standardizing steps toward informed consent.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04791670; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04791670.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051166.

Worsening of Diabetes Control Measures and Decreased Kidney Function in Pre-Diabetic Kidney Donors Compared to Non-Diabetic Donors Whose BMI Before Kidney Donation was Above 30

BACKGROUND

The incidence of end-stage renal disease has increased dramatically over the past two decades. Kidney transplantation is the best treatment option for individuals with end-stage renal disease, and living donor kidney transplantation has significant advantages over deceased donor kidney transplantation. Although there are criteria for assessing living kidney donors, different medical centers handle certain medical problems differently. The aim of this study is to investigate how kidney donation affects renal biochemical indicators, blood pressure measurements, and glucose control in healthy young female adults without diabetes compared to a pre-diabetic group.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study recruited 142 female kidney donors, who were divided into two cohorts based on their diabetic history (pre-diabetic and non-diabetic). The participants were monitored for seven years after kidney donation. Key clinical and biochemical markers were measured before and after donation.

RESULTS

The pre-diabetic group had higher mean values for blood pressure readings, body mass indices, Oral Glucose Tolerance Test, HbA1c (DCCT) (%), serum creatinine levels, proteinuria, and lower e-GFR compared to those in the non-diabetic group. All these findings were statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-diabetic donors are at an increased risk for many adverse clinical and biochemical outcomes, including hypertension, glucose tolerance, and worsening kidney function tests and should be advised that their condition may worsen over time and can result in end-organ complications. If the donors decide to proceed, they should be closely and frequently monitored during both the short- and long-term periods.

Post-Donation Evaluation: Emotional Needs for Social Connection and Social Support among Living Kidney Donors-A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Evaluation of post-nephrectomy social health in living kidney donors is essential. This systematic review examines their emotional need for social relatedness post-donation.

METHODS

Following the PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycINFO.

RESULTS

Among the screened records, 32 quantitative and 16 qualitative papers met the inclusion criteria. Quantitative research predominantly utilized questionnaires featuring generic items on social functioning. However, a minority delved into emotional and social dimensions, aligning with qualitative studies emphasizing the importance of social connection and perceived social support post-donation. Specifically, post-donation changes in connecting with others encompass a sense of belongingness, heightened autonomy, shifts in concern for the recipient's health, and continued care by shielding the recipient from personal health issues. Social acknowledgment and social support from both close and extended networks are reported as relevant for recovery after nephrectomy.

DISCUSSION

These findings underscore the necessity for targeted measures of emotional needs and social functioning to effectively assess post-donation adjustment. They also inform the identification of key health themes for kidney donor Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) questions.

Fracture Risk Among Living Kidney Donors 25 Years After Donation

Importance

Living kidney donors may have an increased risk of fractures due to reductions in kidney mass, lower concentrations of serum 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, and secondary increases in serum parathyroid hormone.

Objective

To compare the overall and site-specific risk of fractures among living kidney donors with strictly matched controls from the general population who would have been eligible to donate a kidney but did not do so.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This survey study was conducted between December 1, 2021, and July 31, 2023. A total of 5065 living kidney donors from 3 large transplant centers in Minnesota were invited to complete a survey about their bone health and history of fractures, and 16 156 population-based nondonor controls without a history of comorbidities that would have precluded kidney donation were identified from the Rochester Epidemiology Project and completed the same survey. A total of 2132 living kidney donors and 2014 nondonor controls responded to the survey. Statistical analyses were performed from May to August 2023.

Exposure

Living kidney donation.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The rates of overall and site-specific fractures were compared between living kidney donors and controls using standardized incidence ratios (SIRs).

Results

At the time of survey, the 2132 living kidney donors had a mean (SD) age of 67.1 (8.9) years and included 1245 women (58.4%), and the 2014 controls had a mean (SD) age of 68.6 (7.9) years and included 1140 women (56.6%). The mean (SD) time between donation or index date and survey date was 24.2 (10.4) years for donors and 27.6 (10.7) years for controls. The overall rate of fractures among living kidney donors was significantly lower than among controls (SIR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81-0.97). However, there were significantly more vertebral fractures among living kidney donors than among controls (SIR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.05-1.83).

Conclusions and Relevance

This survey study found a reduced rate of overall fractures but an excess of vertebral fractures among living kidney donors compared with controls after a mean follow-up of 25 years. Treatment of excess vertebral fractures with dietary supplements such as vitamin D3 may reduce the numbers of vertebral fractures and patient morbidity.

'It is a life changing experience': The experiences of living kidney donors who live in rural Australia

INTRODUCTION

A growing body of research has examined the physical, psychological, social and financial impacts of living kidney donation. However, little is known about the unique experiences or additional burdens faced by living donors from regional or remote locations.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the experiences of living kidney donors who live outside metropolitan centres and to determine how support services could be orientated to better meet their unique needs.

DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Seventeen living kidney donors participated in semistructured telephone interviews. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis.

FINDINGS

Eight themes were identified: (1) donor's emotional well-being is influenced by the recipient's outcome, (2) varied levels of access to medical support and other important services in rural areas, (3) travel takes a toll on time, finances and well-being, (4) varied level of financial impact, (5) medical, emotional and social challenges, (6) both lay and health professional support is valued, (7) varied levels of knowledge and experiences accessing information and (8) a worthwhile experience overall.

CONCLUSION

Despite many challenges, and travel adding to the complexity, rural living kidney donors generally consider it to be a worthwhile experience. The provision of additional emotional, practical and educational support would be welcomed by this group.

The Minnesota attributable risk of kidney donation (MARKD) study: a retrospective cohort study of long-term (> 50 year) outcomes after kidney donation compared to well-matched healthy controls

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty about the long-term risks of living kidney donation. Well-designed studies with controls well-matched on risk factors for kidney disease are needed to understand the attributable risks of kidney donation.

METHODS

The goal of the Minnesota Attributable Risk of Kidney Donation (MARKD) study is to compare the long-term (> 50 years) outcomes of living donors (LDs) to contemporary and geographically similar controls that are well-matched on health status. University of Minnesota (n = 4022; 1st transplant: 1963) and Mayo Clinic LDs (n = 3035; 1st transplant: 1963) will be matched to Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP) controls (approximately 4 controls to 1 donor) on the basis of age, sex, and race/ethnicity. The REP controls are a well-defined population, with detailed medical record data linked between all providers in Olmsted and surrounding counties, that come from the same geographic region and era (early 1960s to present) as the donors. Controls will be carefully selected to have health status acceptable for donation on the index date (date their matched donor donated). Further refinement of the control group will include confirmed kidney health (e.g., normal serum creatinine and/or no proteinuria) and matching (on index date) of body mass index, smoking history, family history of chronic kidney disease, and blood pressure. Outcomes will be ascertained from national registries (National Death Index and United States Renal Data System) and a new survey administered to both donors and controls; the data will be supplemented by prior surveys and medical record review of donors and REP controls. The outcomes to be compared are all-cause mortality, end-stage kidney disease, cardiovascular disease and mortality, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) trajectory and chronic kidney disease, pregnancy risks, and development of diseases that frequently lead to chronic kidney disease (e.g. hypertension, diabetes, and obesity). We will additionally evaluate whether the risk of donation differs based on baseline characteristics.

DISCUSSION

Our study will provide a comprehensive assessment of long-term living donor risk to inform candidate living donors, and to inform the follow-up and care of current living donors.

How Long Does It Take to Acquire Mastery of Performance in Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy? A Center-Based and Surgeon-Based Operative Time CUSUM Analysis

BACKGROUND

The safety of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) has been widely documented, but its challenging learning curve (LC) requires an insightful assessment to expand its application. The aim of this study was to evaluate LC of LDN in a high-volume transplant center.

METHODS

Three hundred forty-three LDNs performed from 2001 to 2018 were evaluated. CUSUM analysis based on the operative time was used to assess the number of cases required to reach mastery in the technique for both the entire surgical team and for the 3 main surgeons considered separately. Analysis of association between demographics, perioperative characteristics, and complications within the different LC phases was conducted.

RESULTS

Mean operative time was 228.9 minutes. Mean length of stay was 3.8 days and mean warm ischemia time (WIT) was 170.8 seconds. Surgical and medical complication rates were 7.3% and 6.4%, respectively. The CUSUM-LC showed a requirement of 157 cases (for surgical team) and 75 cases (for single surgeons) to reach competence in the procedure. Patient baseline characteristic showed no differences among the LC phases. Compared with the initial LC phase, hospital stay was significantly lower at the end of the LC whereas WIT results were longer in the LC descendent phase.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the safety and efficacy of LDN, with a low rate of complications. This analysis suggests that about 75 procedures are required to reach competence and 93 cases to achieve mastery level of skill for a single surgeon. It can be hypothesized that, in a high-volume transplant enter, the time to guarantee training in LDN is compatible with the duration of a clinical fellowship.

Red Flags in the Living Kidney Donor Process

BACKGROUND

Ideally, no live kidney donor should regret their decision or feel they were not fully prepared for the process. Unfortunately, this is not a reality for all donors. The aim of our study is to identify areas for improvement, focusing on factors (red flags) that predict less favorable outcomes from a donor perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 171 living kidney donors responded to a questionnaire with 24 multiple-choice questions and space for comments. Less favorable outcomes were defined as lower satisfaction, extended physical recovery period, long-term fatigue, and longer sick leave.

RESULTS

Ten red flags were identified. Of these factors, more fatigue (range, P = .000-0.040) or pain (range, P = .005-0.008) than expected while still in hospital, the actual experience being harder or different than expected (range, P = .001-0.010), and the donor wishing to have had but not having been offered a previous donor as mentor (range, P = .008-.040) correlated significantly with at least 3 of the 4 less favorable outcomes. Another significant red flag was keeping existential issues to oneself (P = .006).

CONCLUSION

We identified several factors indicating that a donor could be at an increased risk for a less favorable outcome after donation. Four of these factors have, to our knowledge, not been described earlier: more early fatigue than expected, more postoperative pain than anticipated, not having been offered a mentor at an early stage, and keeping existential issues to oneself. Attention to these red flags already during the donation process could help health care professionals to act early to avoid unfavorable outcomes.

Recommendations for living donor kidney transplantation

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

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

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

Long-term Medical Outcomes of Living Kidney Donors

Historically, to minimize risks, living kidney donors have been highly selected and healthy. Operative risks are well-defined, yet concern remains about long-term risks. In the general population, even a mild reduction in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is associated with cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). However, reduction in GFR in the general population is due to kidney or systemic disease. Retrospective studies comparing donors with matched general population controls have found no increased donor risk. Prospective studies comparing donors with controls (maximum follow-up, 9 years) have reported that donor GFR is stable or increases slightly, whereas GFR decreases in controls. However, these same studies identified metabolic and vascular donor abnormalities. There are a few retrospective studies comparing donors with controls. Each has limitations in selection of the control group, statistical analyses, and/or length of follow-up. One such study reported increased donor mortality; 2 reported a small increase in absolute risk of ESKD. Risk factors for donor ESKD are similar to those in the general population. Postdonation pregnancies are also associated with increased risk of hypertension and preeclampsia. There is a critical need for long-term follow-up studies comparing donors with controls from the same era, geographic area, and socioeconomic status who are healthy, with normal renal function on the date matching the date of donation, and are matched on demographic characteristics with the donors. These data are needed to optimize donor candidate counseling and informed consent.

Perception regarding live kidney donation in the general population of South Korea

This study aimed to know how the general population recognizes live kidney donation in Korea. Participants were randomly selected from the general population after proportional allocation by region, sex, and age. Selected participants received a questionnaire that included demographic information, socioeconomic and marital statuses, prior recognition of live donor kidney transplantation, expected changes after donation, and the need for support after donor nephrectomy. Among the 1,000 participants from the web-based survey, 83.8% answered they fully understood living donor kidney transplantation, 81.1% knew about them, and 51.1% were willing to donate. Various complications after nephrectomy and deterioration in health after donation were the most significant reasons for those reluctant to donate. Most agreed that the government should provide social and economic support to living kidney donors, especially after exposure to the description of donor nephrectomy. Financial support, including surgery and regular medical check-up costs, was the most preferred government support. The Korean general population seemed aware of the value and safety of kidney donation, although only half of them were willing to donate due to concerns about possible complications. Most participants agreed on social and economic support for living kidney donors, especially surgery-related costs.

The Role of Registries in Kidney Transplantation Across International Boundaries

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

Complications After Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Living Donor Nephrectomy

OBJECTIVE

To study the complications of hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (HALLDN) with an emphasis on complications occurring early after hospital discharge up to 120 days after surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively categorized complications using the Clavien-Dindo classification in 3002 HALLDNs performed at 1 center from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2019. In addition to overall summaries, modeling was used to identify correlates of complications before and after living donation.

RESULTS

Of these donors, 87% were White, 59% were female, the mean age was 45 years (range, 18-77 years), 30.3% had a body mass index of at least 30, and 36.3% had previous abdominopelvic surgery. There were no deaths related to the surgery. The incidence of major complications (intraoperative complications plus Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III postoperatively) was 2.5% (n=74). The overall complication rate was 12.4% (n=371), including 15 intraoperative, 76 postoperative before discharge, and 280 after discharge to 120 days. Reoperation was required in 1.8% of patients (n=54), and all but 1 of these were incision-related problems. Seventy-six percent of all complications occurred after discharge, including 85% of the reoperations. For major complications, no risk factor was found. Risk factors for any complication included paramedian incision (hazard ratio [HR], 2.54; 95% CI, 1.49 to 4.34; P<.001); a history of abdominopelvic surgery (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.76; P=.01), male sex (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.76; P=.01), non-White race (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.88; P=.02), and early era of the experience.

CONCLUSION

Most major complications of HALLDN occur after discharge, suggesting that close follow-up is warranted and that the current literature may underestimate the true incidence.

Development and Preliminary Evaluation of a Patient-facing Educational Video About Live Kidney Donor Surgical Complications

Background.

Living kidney donation (LKD) improves transplant access; however, its use is compromised, in part, by individuals’ unaddressed concerns about perioperative complications.

Methods.

We developed an animated, patient-centered educational video about LKD surgical complications, with input from experts in transplantation, communication, and anthropology, 35 patients/care partners (5 LKD candidates, 5 prior LKDs, 10 kidney transplant recipients, 10 kidney transplant candidates, 5 care partners), and 1 community advocate. We then conducted an online pre-post study with 24 potential kidney donors and recipients to measure the video’s acceptability and feasibility to improve donation complication knowledge and concerns.

Results.

Knowledge of LKD surgical complications increased 23% (mean 5.7 to 7.0, P < 0.01) from pre- to post- animation viewing. Large knowledge effect size increases were observed for different levels of age, race, health literacy, and technology access. The frequency of positive responses about donation safety increased from 88% preanimation to 96% postanimation. Concerns about surgical complications remained at 17% before and after exposure. After viewing the animation, over 90% indicated positive ratings on ease of watching, understanding, and engaging.

Conclusions.

An animated educational video about LKD surgical complications was developed in collaboration with multiple stakeholders. The video was well received and promised to positively impact individuals’ knowledge and concerns.

Education Priorities and What Matters to Those Considering Living Kidney Donation

INTRODUCTION

Although informed consent content elements are prescribed in detailed regulatory guidance, many live kidney donors describe feeling underprepared and under informed. The goal of this pilot study was to explore the educational components needed to support an informed decision-making process for living kidney donors.

METHODS/APPROACH

A qualitative description design was conducted with thematic analysis of 5 focus groups with 2 cohorts: living kidney donor candidates (n = 11) and living kidney donors (n = 8).

FINDINGS

The educational components needed to engage in an informed decision-making process were: 1) contingent upon, and motivated by, personal circumstances; 2) supported through explanation of risks and benefits; 3) enhanced by understanding the overall donation experience; and 4) personalized by talking to another donor.

DISCUSSION

Tailoring education to meet the needs for fully informed decision-making is essential. Current education requirements, as defined by regulatory bodies, remain challenging to transplant teams attempting to ensure fully informed consent of living kidney donor candidates. Information on the emotional, financial, and overall life impact is needed, along with acknowledgement of relational ties driving donor motivations and the hoped-for recipient outcomes. Discussion of care practices, and access to peer mentoring may further strengthen the informed decision-making process.

Latest developments in living kidney donation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although the first successful kidney transplantation 65 years ago was performed with a living donor kidney, the number of living donor kidney transplantations has increased especially during the last 2 decades. The enlargement of living donor programs was made possible by new modes of living donation and by expansion of the living donor pool. At the same time, the long-term risks of kidney donation have been better delineated. In this review, the latest developments on these topics are summarized.

RECENT FINDINGS

While the results of ABO-incompatible living kidney transplantation are superior to those of deceased donor transplantation, recent meta-analyses show a reduced patient and graft survival as compared with ABO compatible transplantation as well as increased risk of severe infection and bleeding. Kidney paired donation programs can be extended by including compatible couples and by advanced donation, although the latter raises ethical concerns. Living donors appear to have a higher risk of end-stage renal disease and this is especially true for obese donors and probably also for black donors with an APOL1 high-risk genotype. The importance of psychosocial outcomes after living kidney donation is increasingly recognized.

SUMMARY

Living donor kidney transplantation remains the optimal treatment option for patients with end-stage renal disease. To increase the donor pool, a well developed paired kidney donation program and sufficient reimbursement of costs associated with donation are essential ingredients. Other ways of expanding the donor pool, such as ABO-incompatible transplantation, use of higher risk donors, providing donors with financial incentives and advanced donation are associated with medical, ethical and logistical complications. There should be a careful selection and follow-up of living kidney donors with attention for medical consequences as well as for psychosocial outcomes.

Pain expectancy, prevalence, severity, and patterns following donor nephrectomy: Findings from the KDOC Study

Postoperative pain is an outcome of importance to potential living kidney donors (LKDs). We prospectively characterized the prevalence, severity, and patterns of acute or chronic postoperative pain in 193 LKDs at six transplant programs. Three pain measurements were obtained from donors on postoperative Day (POD) 1, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 41, 49, and 56. The median pain rating total was highest on POD1 and declined from each assessment to the next until reaching a median pain-free score of 0 on POD49. In generalized linear mixed-model analysis, the mean pain score decreased at each pain assessment compared to the POD3 assessment. Pre-donation history of mood disorder (adjusted ratio of means [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 1.40 [0.99, 1.98]), reporting "severe" on any POD1 pain descriptors (adjusted ratio of means [95% CI]: 1.47 [1.12, 1.93]) and open nephrectomy (adjusted ratio of means [95% CI]: 2.61 [1.03, 6.62]) were associated with higher pain scores across time. Of the 179 LKDs who completed the final pain assessment, 74 (41%) met criteria for chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP), that is, any donation-related pain on POD56. Study findings have potential implications for LKD education, surgical consent, postdonation care, and outcome measurements.

Canadian Society of Transplantation and Canadian Society of Nephrology Commentary on the 2017 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

Purpose of review:

To review an international guideline on the evaluation and care of living kidney donors and provide a commentary on the applicability of the recommendations to the Canadian donor population.

Sources of information:

We reviewed the 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors and compared this guideline to the Canadian 2014 Kidney Paired Donation (KPD) Protocol for Participating Donors.

Methods:

A working group was formed consisting of members from the Canadian Society of Transplantation and the Canadian Society of Nephrology. Members were selected to have representation from across Canada and in various subspecialties related to living kidney donation, including nephrology, surgery, transplantation, pediatrics, and ethics.

Key findings:

Many of the KDIGO Guideline recommendations align with the KPD Protocol recommendations. Canadian researchers have contributed to much of the evidence on donor evaluation and outcomes used to support the KDIGO Guideline recommendations.

Limitations:

Certain outcomes and risk assessment tools have yet to be validated in the Canadian donor population.

Implications:

Living kidney donors should be counseled on the risks of postdonation outcomes given recent evidence, understanding the limitations of the literature with respect to its generalizability to the Canadian donor population.

The true risk of living kidney donation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The safety of living donor nephrectomy is essential to the continued success, growth, and sustainability of the clinical practice of living donor kidney transplantation. This review summarizes recent advances in our understanding of the perioperative and long-term risks faced by living kidney donors.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although adverse perioperative complications are extremely rare, donors particularly men, Black, or obese, frequently experience minor complications that result in delayed return to normal duties at home and work. Similarly, although long-term complications such as end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are rare, recent studies suggest a relative increase in risk of ESRD that is attributable to donation. Several risk calculators have been developed to help donors and their care providers quantify the baseline and postdonation risk of ESRD based on demographic and health characteristics. Thresholds of risk may help define what is an acceptable level of risk to the donor and the transplant center.

SUMMARY

Individualized risk calculators now allow care providers and potential donors to objectively and transparently participate in shared decision-making about the safety of living kidney donation.

Living kidney donor and recipient perspectives on their relationship: longitudinal semi-structured interviews

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Many donors and recipients report an improved bond posttransplantation; however, unexpected conflicts and tension may also occur. Insights into the lived experiences of the donor-recipient relationship can inform strategies for interventions and support. We aimed to describe donor and recipient expectations and experiences of their relationship before and after living kidney donor transplantation.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 16 donor-recipient pairs before the transplant and 11-14 months post-transplant. Transcripts were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

We identified seven themes (with respective subthemes): donation as enacting familial responsibility for care; analytical decision making to mitigate regret (avoiding anticipated regret and maintaining control, removing emotional impulsivity); strengthened interpersonal ties (gaining a deeper appreciation among family members, stronger empathy for each other, improving social participation); instability of relational impacts (anger and aggression threatening dynamics, unanticipated stress and emotional lability, triggering familial tension); renegotiating social roles (unexpected continuation of caregiving responsibilities, inability to relinquish the caregiving role, disappointment with unfulfilled renewal of intimacy, dissatisfaction over discrepant energy levels); guilt over unmet expectations and inevitability of the gift relationship (vague and transient indebtedness, expectation of reciprocity, transferring kidney ownership).

CONCLUSIONS

Donor-recipient relationships may be improved through increased empathy, appreciation, and ability to participate in life together; however, unfulfilled expectations and behavioural and emotional changes in recipients (a side effect related to immunosuppression) remain unresolved consequences of living kidney donor transplantation. Education and counselling to help donors and recipients adjust to potential changes in relationship dynamics may help protect and foster relational stability postdonation.

Risks of Living Kidney Donation: Current State of Knowledge on Outcomes Important to Donors

In the past decade, there have been increasing efforts to better define and quantify the short- and long-term risks of living kidney donation. Recent studies have expanded upon the previous literature by focusing on outcomes that are important to potential and previous donors, applying unique databases and/or registries to follow large cohorts of donors for longer periods of time, and comparing outcomes with healthy nondonor controls to estimate attributable risks of donation. Leading outcomes important to living kidney donors include kidney health, surgical risks, and psychosocial effects of donation. Recent data support that living donors may experience a small increased risk of severe CKD and ESKD compared with healthy nondonors. For most donors, the 15-year risk of kidney failure is <1%, but for certain populations, such as young, black men, this risk may be higher. New risk prediction tools that combine the effects of demographic and health factors, and innovations in genetic risk markers are improving kidney risk stratification. Minor perioperative complications occur in 10%-20% of donor nephrectomy cases, but major complications occur in <3%, and the risk of perioperative death is <0.03%. Generally, living kidney donors have similar or improved psychosocial outcomes, such as quality of life, after donation compared with before donation and compared with nondonors. Although the donation process should be financially neutral, living kidney donors may experience out-of-pocket expenses and lost wages that may or may not be completely covered through regional or national reimbursement programs, and may face difficulties arranging subsequent life and health insurance. Living kidney donors should be fully informed of the perioperative and long-term risks before making their decision to donate. Follow-up care allows for preventative care measures to mitigate risk and ongoing surveillance and reporting of donor outcomes to inform prior and future living kidney donors.