Search

In 2013, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)/ United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) mandated that transplant centers collect data on living kidney donors (LKDs) at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postdonation, with policy-defined thresholds for the proportion of complete living donor follow-up (LDF) data submitted in a timely manner (60 days before or after the expected visit date). While mandated, it was unclear how centers across the country would perform in meeting thresholds, given potential donor and center-level challenges of LDF. To better understand the impact of this policy, we studied Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data for 31,615 LKDs between January 2010 and June 2015, comparing proportions of complete and timely LDF form submissions before and after policy implementation. We also used multilevel logistic regression to assess donor- and center-level characteristics associated with complete and timely LDF submissions. Complete and timely 2-year LDF increased from 33% prepolicy (January 2010 through January 2013) to 54% postpolicy (February 2013 through June 2015) (p < 0.001). In an adjusted model, the odds of 2-year LDF increased by 22% per year prepolicy (p < 0.001) and 23% per year postpolicy (p < 0.001). Despite these annual increases in LDF, only 43% (87/202) of centers met the OPTN/UNOS-required 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year LDF thresholds for LKDs who donated in 2013. These findings motivate further evaluation of LDF barriers and the optimal approaches to capturing outcomes after living donation., (© 2017 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Incompatible living donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) has been established as an effective option for end-stage renal disease patients with willing but HLA-incompatible living donors, reducing mortality and improving quality of life. Depending on antibody titer, ILDKT can require highly resource-intensive procedures, including intravenous immunoglobulin, plasma exchange, and/or cell-depleting antibody treatment, as well as protocol biopsies and donor-specific antibody testing. This study sought to compare the cost and Medicare reimbursement, exclusive of organ acquisition payment, for ILDKT (n = 926) with varying antibody titers to matched compatible transplants (n = 2762) performed between 2002 and 2011. Data were assembled from a national cohort study of ILDKT and a unique data set linking hospital cost accounting data and Medicare claims. ILDKT was more expensive than matched compatible transplantation, ranging from 20% higher adjusted costs for positive on Luminex assay but negative flow cytometric crossmatch, 26% higher for positive flow cytometric crossmatch but negative cytotoxic crossmatch, and 39% higher for positive cytotoxic crossmatch (p < 0.0001 for all). ILDKT was associated with longer median length of stay (12.9 vs. 7.8 days), higher Medicare payments ($91 330 vs. $63 782 p < 0.0001), and greater outlier payments. In conclusion, ILDKT increases the cost of and payments for kidney transplantation., (© 2017 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

New federal regulations allow HIV-positive individuals to be live kidney donors; however, potential candidacy for donation is poorly understood given the increased risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) associated with HIV infection. To better understand this risk, we compared the incidence of ESRD among 41 968 HIV-positive participants of North America AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design followed for a median of 5 years with the incidence of ESRD among comparable HIV-negative participants of National Health and Nutrition Examination III followed for a median of 14 years. We used risk associations from multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to derive cumulative incidence estimates for selected HIV-positive scenarios (no history of diabetes, hypertension, AIDS, or hepatitis C virus coinfection) and compared these estimates with those from similarly selected HIV-negative scenarios. For 40-year-old HIV-positive individuals with health characteristics that were similar to those of age-matched kidney donors, viral load <400 copies/mL, and CD4 + count ≥500 cells/μL, the 9-year cumulative incidence of ESRD was higher than that of their HIV-negative peers, yet still low: 2.5 versus 1.1 per 10 000 among white women, 3.0 versus 1.3 per 10 000 among white men, 13.2 versus 3.6 per 10 000 among black women, and 15.8 versus 4.4 per 10 000 among black men. HIV-positive individuals with no comorbidities and well-controlled disease may be considered low-risk kidney donor candidates., (© 2017 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Implications of opioid use in living kidney donors for key outcomes, including readmission rates after nephrectomy, are unknown. We integrated Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data with records from a nationwide pharmacy claims warehouse and administrative records from an academic hospital consortium to quantify predonation prescription opioid use and postdonation readmission events. Associations of predonation opioid use (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]) in the year before donation and other baseline clinical, procedural, and center factors with readmission within 90 days postdonation were examined by using multivariate logistic regression. Among 14 959 living donors, 11.3% filled one or more opioid prescriptions in the year before donation. Donors with the highest level of predonation opioid use (>305 mg/year) were more than twice as likely as nonusers to be readmitted (6.8% vs. 2.6%; aOR 2.49, 95% confidence interval 1.74-3.58). Adjusted readmission risk was also significantly (p < 0.05) higher for women (aOR = 1.25), African Americans (aOR = 1.45), spouses (aOR = 1.42), exchange participants (aOR = 1.46), uninsured donors (aOR = 1.40), donors with predonation estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 (aOR = 2.68), donors with predonation pulmonary conditions (aOR = 1.54), and after robotic nephrectomy (aOR = 1.68). Predonation opioid use is independently associated with readmission after donor nephrectomy. Future research should examine underlying mechanisms and approaches to reducing risks of postdonation complications., (© Copyright 2016 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Kidney transplantation has become more resource intensive as recipient complexity has increased and average donor quality has diminished over time. A national retrospective cohort study was performed to assess the impact of kidney donor and recipient characteristics on transplant center cost (exclusive of organ acquisition) and Medicare reimbursement. Data from the national transplant registry, University HealthSystem Consortium hospital costs, and Medicare payments for deceased donor (N = 53 862) and living donor (N = 36 715) transplants from 2002 to 2013 were linked and analyzed using multivariate linear regression modeling. Deceased donor kidney transplant costs were correlated with recipient (Expected Post Transplant Survival Score, degree of allosensitization, obesity, cause of renal failure), donor (age, cause of death, donation after cardiac death, terminal creatinine), and transplant (histocompatibility matching) characteristics. Living donor costs rose sharply with higher degrees of allosensitization, and were also associated with obesity, cause of renal failure, recipient work status, and 0-ABDR mismatching. Analysis of Medicare payments for a subsample of 24 809 transplants demonstrated minimal correlation with patient and donor characteristics. In conclusion, the complexity in the landscape of kidney transplantation increases center costs, posing financial disincentives that may reduce organ utilization and limit access for higher-risk populations., (© Copyright 2016 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

The incidence of live donor transplantation has declined over the past decade, and waitlisted candidates report substantial barriers to identifying a live donor. Since asking someone to donate feels awkward and unfamiliar, candidates are hesitant to ask directly and may be more comfortable with a passive approach. In collaboration with Facebook leadership (Facebook Inc., Menlo Park, CA), we developed a mobile application-an app-that enables waitlisted candidates to create a Facebook post about their experience with organ failure and their need for a live donor. We conducted a single-center prospective cohort study of 54 adult kidney-only and liver-only waitlisted candidates using the Facebook app. Cox proportional hazards models were used to describe donor referral on behalf of candidates using the app compared with matched controls. The majority of candidates who used the app reported it to be "good" or "excellent" with regard to the installation process (82.9%), readability (88.6%), simplicity (70.6%), clarity (87.5%) and the information provided (85.3%). Compared with controls, candidates using the Facebook app were 2.43 6.61 17.98 times more likely to have a donor come forward on their behalf (p < 0.001). The Facebook app is an easy-to-use instrument that enables waitlisted candidates to passively communicate with their social network about their need for a live donor., (© Copyright 2016 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Inferences about late risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in live kidney donors have been extrapolated from studies averaging <10 years of follow-up. Because early (<10 years) and late (≥10 years) postdonation ESRD may differ by causal mechanism, it is possible that extrapolations are misleading. To better understand postdonation ESRD, we studied patterns of common etiologies including diabetes, hypertension and glomerulonephritis (GN; as reported by providers) using donor registry data linked to ESRD registry data. Overall, 125 427 donors were observed for a median of 11.0 years (interquartile range 5.3-15.7 years; maximum 25 years). The cumulative incidence of ESRD increased from 10 events per 10 000 at 10 years after donation to 85 events per 10 000 at 25 years after donation (late vs. early ESRD, adjusted for age, race and sex: incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.3 1.7 2.3 [subscripts are 95% confidence intervals]). Early postdonation ESRD was predominantly reported as GN-ESRD; however, late postdonation ESRD was more frequently reported as diabetic ESRD and hypertensive ESRD (IRR 2.3 7.7 25.2 and 1.4 2.6 4.6 , respectively). These time-dependent patterns were not seen with GN-ESRD (IRR 0.4 0.7 1.2 ). Because ESRD in live kidney donors has traditionally been reported in studies averaging <10 years of follow-up, our findings suggest caution in extrapolating such results over much longer intervals., (© Copyright 2016 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Live kidney donors have an increased risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) compared with nondonors; however, it is unknown whether undetected, subclinical kidney disease exists at donation that subsequently contributes to this risk. To indirectly test this hypothesis, the authors followed the donated kidneys, by comparing the outcomes of 257 recipients whose donors subsequently developed ESRD with a matched cohort whose donors remained ESRD free. The compared recipients were matched on donor (age, sex, race/ethnicity, donor-recipient relationship), transplant (HLA mismatch, peak panel-reactive antibody, previous transplantation, year of transplantation), and recipient (age, sex, race/ethnicity, body mass index, cause of ESRD, and time on dialysis) risk factors. Median recipient follow-up was 12.5 years (interquartile range 7.4-17.9, maximum 20 years). Recipients of allografts from donors who developed ESRD had increased death-censored graft loss (74% versus 56% at 20 years; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5-2.0; p < 0.001) and mortality (61% versus 46% at 20 years; aHR 1.5; 95% CI 1.2-1.8; p < 0.001) compared with matched recipients of allografts from donors who did not develop ESRD. This association was similar among related, spousal, and unrelated nonspousal donors. These findings support a novel view of the mechanisms underlying donor ESRD: that of pre-donation kidney disease. However, biopsy data may be required to confirm this hypothesis., (© Copyright 2016 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Choosing between multiple living kidney donors, or evaluating offers in kidney paired donation, can be challenging because no metric currently exists for living donor quality. Furthermore, some deceased donor (DD) kidneys can result in better outcomes than some living donor kidneys, yet there is no way to compare them on the same scale. To better inform clinical decision-making, we created a living kidney donor profile index (LKDPI) on the same scale as the DD KDPI, using Cox regression and adjusting for recipient characteristics. Donor age over 50 (hazard ratio [HR] per 10 years = 1.15 1.241.33 ), elevated BMI (HR per 10 units = 1.01 1.091.16 ), African-American race (HR = 1.15 1.251.37 ), cigarette use (HR = 1.09 1.161.23 ), as well as ABO incompatibility (HR = 1.03 1.271.58 ), HLA B (HR = 1.03 1.081.14 ) mismatches, and DR (HR = 1.04 1.091.15 ) mismatches were associated with greater risk of graft loss after living donor transplantation (all p < 0.05). Median (interquartile range) LKDPI score was 13 (1-27); 24.2% of donors had LKDPI < 0 (less risk than any DD kidney), and 4.4% of donors had LKDPI > 50 (more risk than the median DD kidney). The LKDPI is a useful tool for comparing living donor kidneys to each other and to deceased donor kidneys., (© Copyright 2016 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

We integrated the US transplant registry with administrative records from an academic hospital consortium (97 centers, 2008-2012) to identify predonation comorbidity and perioperative complications captured in diagnostic, procedure, and registry sources. Correlates (adjusted odds ratio, aOR) of perioperative complications were examined with multivariate logistic regression. Among 14 964 living kidney donors, 11.6% were African American. Nephrectomies were predominantly laparoscopic (93.8%); 2.4% were robotic and 3.7% were planned open procedures. Overall, 16.8% of donors experienced a perioperative complication, most commonly gastrointestinal (4.4%), bleeding (3.0%), respiratory (2.5%), surgical/anesthesia-related injuries (2.4%), and "other" complications (6.6%). Major Clavien Classification of Surgical Complications grade IV or higher affected 2.5% of donors. After adjustment for demographic, clinical (including comorbidities), procedure, and center factors, African Americans had increased risk of any complication (aOR 1.26, p = 0.001) and of Clavien grade II or higher (aOR 1.39, p = 0.0002), grade III or higher (aOR 1.56, p < 0.0001), and grade IV or higher (aOR 1.56, p = 0.004) events. Other significant correlates of Clavien grade IV or higher events included obesity (aOR 1.55, p = 0.0005), predonation hematologic (aOR 2.78, p = 0.0002) and psychiatric (aOR 1.45, p = 0.04) conditions, and robotic nephrectomy (aOR 2.07, p = 0.002), while annual center volume >50 (aOR 0.55, p < 0.0001) was associated with lower risk. Complications after live donor nephrectomy vary with baseline demographic, clinical, procedure, and center factors, but the most serious complications are infrequent. Future work should examine underlying mechanisms and approaches to minimizing the risk of perioperative complications in all donors., (© Copyright 2015 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

The infrequent use of ABO-incompatible (ABOi) kidney transplantation in the United States may reflect concern about the costs of necessary preconditioning and posttransplant care. Medicare data for 26 500 live donor kidney transplant recipients (2000 to March 2011), including 271 ABOi and 62 A2-incompatible (A2i) recipients, were analyzed to assess the impact of pretransplant, transplant episode and 3-year posttransplant costs. The marginal costs of ABOi and A2i versus ABO-compatible (ABOc) transplants were quantified by multivariate linear regression including adjustment for recipient, donor and transplant factors. Compared with ABOc transplantation, patient survival (93.2% vs. 88.15%, p = 0.0009) and death-censored graft survival (85.4% vs. 76.1%, p < 0.05) at 3 years were lower after ABOi transplant. The average overall cost of the transplant episode was significantly higher for ABOi ($65 080) compared with A2i ($36 752) and ABOc ($32 039) transplantation (p < 0.001), excluding organ acquisition. ABOi transplant was associated with high adjusted posttransplant spending (marginal costs compared to ABOc - year 1: $25 044; year 2: $10 496; year 3: $7307; p < 0.01). ABOi transplantation provides a clinically effective method to expand access to transplantation. Although more expensive, the modest increases in total spending are easily justified by avoiding long-term dialysis and its associated morbidity and cost., (© Copyright 2015 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Background: Live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT), an optimal therapy for many patients with end-stage kidney disease, is underutilized, particularly by African Americans. Potential recipient difficulties initiating and sustaining conversations about LDKT, identifying willing and medically eligible donors, and potential donors' logistical and financial hurdles have been cited as potential contributors to race disparities in LDKT. Few interventions specifically targeting these factors have been tested., Methods/design: We report the protocol of the Talking about Living Kidney Donation Support (TALKS) study, a study designed to evaluate the effectiveness of behavioral, educational and financial assistance interventions to improve access to LDKT among African Americans on the deceased donor kidney transplant recipient waiting list. We adapted a previously tested educational and social worker intervention shown to improve consideration and pursuit of LDKT among patients and their family members for its use among patients on the kidney transplant waiting list. We also developed a financial assistance intervention to help potential donors overcome logistical and financial challenges they might face during the pursuit of live kidney donation. We will evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions by conducting a randomized controlled trial in which patients on the deceased donor waiting list receive 1) usual care while on the transplant waiting list, 2) the educational and social worker intervention, or 3) the educational and social worker intervention plus the option of participating in the financial assistance program. The primary outcome of the randomized controlled trial will measure potential recipients' live kidney donor activation (a composite rate of live donor inquiries, completed new live donor evaluations, or live kidney donation) at 1 year., Discussion: The TALKS study will rigorously assess the effectiveness of promising interventions to reduce race disparities in LDKT., Trial Registration: NCT02369354.

Unlike antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) with clinical features, it remains unclear whether subclinical AMR should be treated, as its effect on allograft loss is unknown. It is also uncertain if AMR's effect is homogeneous across donor (deceased/live) and (HLA/ABO) antibody types. We compared 219 patients with AMR (77 subclinical, 142 clinical) to controls matched on HLA/ABO-compatibility, donor type, prior transplant, panel reactive antibody (PRA), age and year. One and 5-year graft survival in subclinical AMR was 95.9% and 75.7%, compared to 96.8% and 88.4% in matched controls (p = 0.0097). Subclinical AMR was independently associated with a 2.15-fold increased risk of graft loss (95% CI: 1.19-3.91; p = 0.012) compared to matched controls, but not different from clinical AMR (p = 0.13). Fifty three point two percent of subclinical AMR patients were treated with plasmapheresis within 3 days of their AMR-defining biopsy. Treated subclinical AMR patients had no difference in graft loss compared to matched controls (HR 1.73; 95% CI: 0.73-4.05; p = 0.21), but untreated subclinical AMR patients did (HR 3.34; 95% CI: 1.37-8.11; p = 0.008). AMR's effect on graft loss was heterogeneous when stratified by compatible deceased donor (HR = 4.73; 95% CI: 1.57-14.26; p = 0.006), HLA-incompatible deceased donor (HR = 2.39; 95% CI: 1.10-5.19; p = 0.028), compatible live donor (no AMR patients experienced graft loss), ABO-incompatible live donor (HR = 6.13; 95% CI: 0.55-67.70; p = 0.14) and HLA-incompatible live donor (HR = 6.29; 95% CI: 3.81-10.39; p < 0.001) transplant. Subclinical AMR substantially increases graft loss, and treatment seems warranted., (© Copyright 2015 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

The impact of kidney donation on the ability to change or initiate health or life insurance following donation is unknown. To quantify this risk, we surveyed 1046 individuals who donated a kidney at our center between 1970 and 2011. Participants were asked whether they changed or initiated health or life insurance after donation, and if they had any difficulty doing so. Among 395 donors who changed or initiated health insurance after donation, 27 (7%) reported difficulty; among those who reported difficulty, 15 were denied altogether, 12 were charged a higher premium and 8 were told they had a preexisting condition because they were kidney donors. Among 186 donors who changed or initiated life insurance after donation, 46 (25%) reported difficulty; among those who reported difficulty, 23 were denied altogether, 27 were charged a higher premium and 17 were told they had a preexisting condition because they were kidney donors. In this single-center study, a high proportion of kidney donors reported difficulty changing or initiating insurance, particularly life insurance. These practices by insurers create unnecessary burden and stress for those choosing to donate and could negatively impact the likelihood of live kidney donation among those considering donation., (© Copyright 2014 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Incompatible live donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) offers a survival advantage over dialysis to patients with anti-HLA donor-specific antibody (DSA). Program-specific reports (PSRs) fail to account for ILDKT, placing this practice at regulatory risk. We collected DSA data, categorized as positive Luminex, negative flow crossmatch (PLNF) (n = 185), positive flow, negative cytotoxic crossmatch (PFNC) (n = 536) or positive cytotoxic crossmatch (PCC) (n = 304), from 22 centers. We tested associations between DSA, graft loss and mortality after adjusting for PSR model factors, using 9669 compatible patients as a comparison. PLNF patients had similar graft loss; however, PFNC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 1.64, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15-2.23, p = 0.007) and PCC (aHR = 5.01, 95% CI: 3.71-6.77, p < 0.001) were associated with increased graft loss in the first year. PLNF patients had similar mortality; however, PFNC (aHR = 2.04; 95% CI: 1.28-3.26; p = 0.003) and PCC (aHR = 4.59; 95% CI: 2.98-7.07; p < 0.001) were associated with increased mortality. We simulated Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services flagging to examine ILDKT's effect on the risk of being flagged. Compared to equal-quality centers performing no ILDKT, centers performing 5%, 10% or 20% PFNC had a 1.19-, 1.33- and 1.73-fold higher odds of being flagged. Centers performing 5%, 10% or 20% PCC had a 2.22-, 4.09- and 10.72-fold higher odds. Failure to account for ILDKT's increased risk places centers providing this life-saving treatment in jeopardy of regulatory intervention., (© Copyright 2014 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

In 2011, live donor transmission events involving Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Hepatitis C virus (HCV) prompted consideration of changing the process of live donor testing and evaluation in the United States. Following CDC recommendations for screening all live donors with nucleic acid testing for HIV, HCV and Hepatitis B (HBV), a consensus conference was convened to evaluate this recommendation. Workgroups focused on determining whether there was an evidence based rationale for identifying live donors at increased risk for HIV, HBV and HCV, testing options and timing for diagnosing these infections in potential donors and consent issues specific to potential increased risk donor utilization. Strategies for donor assessment were proposed. Based on review of the limited available evidence as well as guidance documents and policies currently in place in the United States and other countries, the conference participants recommended that HIV, HBV and HCV NAT should not be required for live donor evaluation; the optimal timing of live donor testing for these blood borne pathogens has not been determined., (© Copyright 2013 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

With many multicenter consortia and a United Network for Organ Sharing program, participation in kidney paired donation (KPD) has become mainstream in the United States and should be feasible for any center that performs live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). Lack of participation in KPD may significantly disadvantage patients with incompatible donors. To explore utilization of this modality, we analyzed adjusted center-specific KPD rates based on casemix of adult LDKT-eligible patients at 207 centers between 2006 and 2011 using SRTR data. From 2006 to 2008, KPD transplants became more evenly distributed across centers, but from 2008 to 2011 the distribution remained unchanged (Gini coefficient = 0.91 for 2006, 0.76 for 2008 and 0.77 for 2011), showing an unfortunate stall in dissemination. At the 10% of centers with the highest KPD rates, 9.9-38.5% of LDKTs occurred through KPD during 2009-2011; if all centers adopted KPD at rates observed in the very high-KPD centers, the number of KPD transplants per year would increase by a factor of 3.2 (from 494 to 1593). Broader implementation of KPD across a wide number of centers is crucial to properly serve transplant candidates with healthy but incompatible live donors., (© Copyright 2013 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Optimizing the possibilities for kidney-paired donation (KPD) requires the participation of donor-recipient pairs from wide geographic regions. Initially it was envisaged that donors would travel to the recipient center; however, to minimize barriers to participation and simplify logistics, recent trends have involved transporting the kidneys rather than the donors. The goal of this study was to review outcomes of this practice. KPD programs throughout the United States were directly queried about all transplants involving live donor kidney transport. Early graft function was assessed by urine output in the first 8 h, postoperative serum creatinine trend, and incidence of delayed graft function. Between April 27, 2007 and April 29, 2010, 56 live donor kidneys were transported among 30 transplant centers. Median CIT was 7.2 h (IQR 5.5-9.7, range 2.5-14.5). Early urine output was robust (>100 cc/h) in all but four patients. Creatinine nadir was <2.0 mg/dL in all (including the four with lower urine output) but one patient, occurring at a median of 3 days (IQR 2-5, range 1-49). No patients experienced delayed graft function as defined by the need for dialysis in the first week. Current evidence suggests that live donor kidney transport is safe and feasible., (©2011 The Authors Journal compilation©2011 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

A 43-year-old patient with end-stage renal disease, a hypercoagulable condition and 100% panel reactive antibody was transferred to our institution with loss of hemodialysis access and thrombosis of the superior and inferior vena cava, bilateral iliac and femoral veins. A transhepatic catheter was placed but became infected. Access through a stented subclavian into a dilated azygos vein was established. Desensitization with two cycles of bortezomib was undertaken after anti-CD20 and IVIg were given. A flow-positive, cytotoxic-negative cross-match live-donor kidney at the end of an eight-way multi-institution domino chain became available, with a favorable genotype for this patient with impending total loss of a dialysis option. The patient received three pretransplant plasmapheresis treatments. Intraoperatively, the superior mesenteric vein was the only identifiable patent target for venous drainage. Eculizumab was administered postoperatively in the setting of antibody-mediated rejection and an inability to perform additional plasmapheresis. Creatinine remains normal at 6 months posttransplant and flow cross-match is negative. In this report, we describe the combined use of new agents (bortezomib and eculizumab) and modalities (nontraditional vascular access, splanchnic drainage of graft and domino paired donation) in a patient who would have died without transplantation., (© 2010 The Authors Journal compilation © 2010 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

The recent decrease in the total number of living kidney transplants coupled with the increase in the number of candidates on the waiting list underscores the importance of eliminating barriers to living kidney donation. We report what we believe to be the first pure right-sided laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy with extraction of the kidney through the vagina. The warm ischemia time was 3 min and the renal vessels and ureter of the procured kidney were of adequate length for routine transplantation. The donor did not receive any postoperative parenteral narcotic analgesia, was discharged home within 24 h and was back to normal activity in 14 days. The kidney functioned well with no complications or infections. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy with vaginal extraction may be a viable alternative to open and standard laparoscopic approaches. Potential advantages include reduced postoperative pain, shorter hospital stay and convalescence and a more desirable cosmetic result. These possible, but yet unproven, advantages may encourage more individuals to consider live donation.

Certain patient groups are predicted to derive significant survival benefit from transplantation with expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys. An algorithm published in 2005 by Merion and colleagues characterizes this group: older adults, diabetics and registrants at centers with long waiting times. Our goal was to evaluate ECD listing practice patterns in the United States in terms of these characteristics. We reviewed 142 907 first-time deceased donor kidney registrants reported to United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) between 2003 and 2008. Of registrants predicted to benefit from ECD transplantation according to the Merion algorithm ('ECD-benefit'), 49.8% were listed for ECD offers ('ECD-willing'), with proportions ranging from 0% to 100% by transplant center. In contrast, 67.6% of adults over the age of 65 years were ECD-willing, also ranging from 0% to 100% by center. In multivariate models, neither diabetes nor center waiting time was significantly associated with ECD-willingness in any subgroup. From the time of initial registration, irrespective of eventual transplantation, ECD-willingness was associated with a significant adjusted survival advantage in the ECD-benefit group (HR for death 0.88, p < 0.001) and in older adults (HR 0.89, p < 0.001), but an increased mortality in non-ECD-benefit registrants (HR 1.11, p < 0.001). In conclusion, ECD listing practices are widely varied and not consistent with published recommendations, a pattern that may disenfranchise certain transplant registrants.

The waiting list for kidney transplantation continued to grow between 1999 and 2008, from 41 177 to 76 089 candidates. However, active candidates represented the minority of this increase (36 951-50 624, a 37% change), while inactive candidates increased over 500% (4226-25 465). There were 5966 living donor (LD) and 10 551 deceased donor (DD) kidney transplants performed in 2008. The total number of pancreas transplants peaked at 1484 in 2004 and has declined to 1273. Although the number of LD transplants increased by 26% from 1999 to 2008, the total number peaked in 2004 at 6647 before declining 10% by 2008. The rate of LD transplantation continues to vary significantly as a function of demographic and geographic factors, including waiting time for DD transplant. Posttransplant survival remains excellent, and there appears to be greater use of induction agents and reduced use of corticosteroids in LD recipients. Significant changes occurred in the pediatric population, with a dramatic reduction in the use of LD organs after passage of the Share 35 rule. Many strategies have been adopted to reverse the decline in LD transplant rates for all age groups, including expansion of kidney paired donation, adoption of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy and use of incompatible LD.

Efforts to expand kidney paired donation have included matching nondirected donors (NDDs) to incompatible pairs. In domino paired donation (DPD), an NDD gives to the recipient of an incompatible pair, beginning a string of simultaneous transplants that ends with a living donor giving to a recipient on the deceased donor waitlist. Recently, nonsimultaneous extended altruistic donor (NEAD) chains were introduced. In a NEAD chain, the last donor of the string of transplants initiated by an NDD is reserved to donate at a later time. Our aim was to project the impact of each of these strategies over 2 years of operation for paired donation programs that also allocate a given number of NDDs. Each NDD facilitated an average of 1.99 transplants using DPD versus 1.90 transplants using NEAD chains (p = 0.3), or 1.0 transplants donating directly to the waitlist (p < 0.001). NEAD chains did not yield more transplants compared with simultaneous DPD. Both DPD and NEAD chains relax reciprocality requirements and rebalance the blood-type distribution of donors. Because traditional paired donation will leave many incompatible pairs unmatched, novel approaches like DPD and NEAD chains must be explored if paired donation programs are to help a greater number of people.

Use of live non-directed donors (LNDDs), or altruistic donors, has increased significantly over the past decade and has fueled debate regarding the ethics and allocation of this new source of live donor kidneys. Three allocation philosophies are currently in use, including donor-centric, recipient-centric and socio-centric models, and our group has also advocated the use of LNDDs in paired donation. However, no universally accepted allocation policy exists, nor does national oversight. To determine allocation patterns resulting from current practice models, we analyzed the 372 LNDD kidney transplants performed in the United States since 1998. Most LNDD transplants occurred at a minority of centers, with only five centers performing over 10, and over 28% of LNDDs traveled out-of-state to donate. Furthermore, a center's use of LNDD kidneys did not correlate with that center's organ shortage. Finally, African Americans were significantly under-represented among recipients who were allocated LNDD kidneys, even after accounting for differences in the racial makeup of the waiting list representing centers using LNDD kidneys. These disparities suggest the need for continued monitoring and discussion of LNDD at a national level. If non-directed donation continues to rise at its current rate, a national allocation policy may be reasonable.

A deceased donor (DD) allocation system incorporating net life survival benefit has been proposed. In this system, many kidneys will be shifted to younger recipients, thereby decreasing their waiting times. The goal of this study was to determine the potential effects of altering waiting times on the likelihood of live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). We analyzed 93,727 waiting list candidates to determine the association of various patient factors with likelihood of LDKT. The proportion of patients receiving LDKT was compared by the median DD waiting time at that patient's transplant center for someone of that patient's age category and race. LDKT was consistently higher as waiting times became longer. After adjusting for all other factors associated with likelihood of LDKT, waiting time remained a significant, independent predictor. Patients with the longest DD waiting times had 2.3-fold higher odds of LDKT (95% CI 2.11-2.58, p < 0.001). In planning the new DD allocation policy, we must account for resulting alterations in LDKT. It is possible that shifting DD kidneys to younger recipients may decrease LDKT or shift it to older recipients, net effects not consistent with the goal of net life survival benefit.