Search

Background: Desensitization protocols for HLA-incompatible living donor kidney transplantation (ILDKT) vary across centers. The impact of these, as well as other practice variations, on ILDKT outcomes remains unknown., Methods: We sought to quantify center-level variation in mortality and graft loss following ILDKT using a 25-center cohort of 1358 ILDKT recipients with linkage to Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients for accurate outcome ascertainment. We used multilevel Cox regression with shared frailty to determine the variation in post-ILDKT outcomes attributable to between-center differences and to identify any center-level characteristics associated with improved post-ILDKT outcomes., Results: After adjusting for patient-level characteristics, only 6 centers (24%) had lower mortality and 1 (4%) had higher mortality than average. Similarly, only 5 centers (20%) had higher graft loss and 2 had lower graft loss than average. Only 4.7% of the differences in mortality (P < 0.01) and 4.4% of the differences in graft loss (P < 0.01) were attributable to between-center variation. These translated to a median hazard ratio of 1.36 for mortality and 1.34 of graft loss for similar candidates at different centers. Post-ILDKT outcomes were not associated with the following center-level characteristics: ILDKT volume and transplanting a higher proportion of highly sensitized, prior transplant, preemptive, or minority candidates., Conclusions: Unlike most aspects of transplantation in which center-level variation and volume impact outcomes, we did not find substantial evidence for this in ILDKT. Our findings support the continued practice of ILDKT across these diverse centers., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Live kidney donors (LKDs) account for nearly a third of kidney transplants in the United States. While donor nephrectomy poses minimal post-surgical risk, LKDs face an elevated adjusted risk of developing chronic diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, and end-stage renal disease. Routine screening presents an opportunity for the early detection and management of chronic conditions. Transplant hospital reporting requirements mandate the submission of laboratory and clinical data at 6-months, 1-year, and 2-years after kidney donation, but less than 50% of hospitals are able to comply. Strategies to increase patient engagement in follow-up efforts while minimizing administrative burden are needed. We seek to evaluate the effectiveness of using small financial incentives to promote patient compliance with LKD follow-up., Methods/design: We are conducting a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) of patients who undergo live donor nephrectomy at The Johns Hopkins Hospital Comprehensive Transplant Center (MDJH) and the University of Maryland Medical Center Transplant Center (MDUM). Eligible donors will be recruited in-person at their first post-surgical clinic visit or over the phone. We will use block randomization to assign LKDs to the intervention ($25 gift card at each follow-up visit) or control arm (current standard of care). Follow-up compliance will be tracked over time. The primary outcome will be complete (all components addressed) and timely (60 days before or after expected visit date), submission of LKD follow-up data at required 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year time points. The secondary outcome will be transplant hospital-level compliance with federal reporting requirements at each visit. Rates will be compared between the two arms following the intention-to-treat principle., Discussion: Small financial incentivization might increase patient compliance in the context of LKD follow-up, without placing undue administrative burden on transplant providers. The findings of this RCT will inform potential center- and national-level initiatives to provide all LKDs with small financial incentives to promote engagement with post-donation monitoring efforts., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT03090646 Date of registration: March 2, 2017 Sponsors: Johns Hopkins University, University of Maryland Medical Center Funding: The Living Legacy Foundation of Maryland.

Rationale & Objective: Compared with recipients of blood group ABO-compatible (ABOc) living donor kidney transplants (LDKTs), recipients of ABO-incompatible (ABOi) LDKTs have higher risk for graft loss, particularly in the first few weeks after transplantation. However, the decision to proceed with ABOi LDKT should be based on a comparison of the alternative: waiting for future ABOc LDKTs (eg, through kidney paired exchange) or for a deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT). We sought to evaluate the patient survival difference between ABOi LDKTs and waiting for an ABOc LDKT or an ABOc DDKT., Study Design: Retrospective cohort study of adults in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients., Setting & Participants: 808 ABOi LDKT recipients and 2,423 matched controls from among 245,158 adult first-time kidney-only waitlist registrants who did not receive an ABOi LDKT and who remained on the waitlist or received either an ABOc LDKT or an ABOc DDKT, 2002 to 2017., Exposure: Receipt of ABOi LDKT., Outcome: Death., Analytical Approach: We compared mortality among ABOi LDKT recipients versus a weighted matched comparison population using Cox proportional hazards regression and Cox models that accommodated for changing hazard ratios over time., Results: Compared with matched controls, ABOi LDKT was associated with greater mortality risk in the first 30 days posttransplantation (cumulative survival of 99.0% vs 99.6%) but lower mortality risk beyond 180 days posttransplantation. Patients who received an ABOi LDKT had higher cumulative survival at 5 and 10 years (90.0% and 75.4%, respectively) than similar patients who remained on the waitlist or received an ABOc LDKT or ABOc DDKT (81.9% and 68.4%, respectively)., Limitations: No measurement of ABO antibody titers in recipients; eligibility of participants for kidney paired donation is unknown., Conclusions: Transplant candidates who receive an ABOi LDKT and survive more than 180 days posttransplantation experience a long-term survival benefit compared to remaining on the waitlist to potentially receive an ABOc kidney transplant., (Copyright © 2020 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Although minimized by expert evaluation, operative technique, and postoperative care, the extremely low risk of perioperative mortality following living kidney or liver donation will never be eliminated. Furthermore, anticipation of poor donor outcome may simultaneously be a source of anxiety for physicians and programs and also be a circumstance for which they are unprepared. We conducted a national survey of US transplant surgeons to understand experiences with and systemic preparedness for the event of a living donor death. Respondents represented 87 unique transplant programs (71 kidney and 16 liver donor programs). Perioperative deaths were rare, as expected. Although most respondents (N = 57, 64% of total respondents; 88% of liver programs) reported being moderately to extremely concerned about a future living donor death at their institution, only 30 (33% of total program respondents) had a written plan available in the case of such an event; 63% of programs would find guidance and recommendations useful. To help address this gap, the American Society of Transplantation Live Donor Community of Practice (AST LDCOP) developed Living Donor Crisis Management Plan Talking Points suitable to guide crisis plan development at transplant programs., (© 2019 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Background and Objectives: The risk of hypertension attributable to living kidney donation remains unknown as does the effect of developing postdonation hypertension on subsequent eGFR. We sought to understand the association between living kidney donation, hypertension, and long-term eGFR by comparing donors with a cohort of healthy nondonors., Design, Setting, Participants, & Measurements: We compared 1295 living kidney donors with median 6 years of follow-up with a weighted cohort of 8233 healthy nondonors. We quantified the risk of self-reported hypertension using a parametric survival model. We examined the association of hypertension with yearly change in eGFR using multilevel linear regression and clustering by participant, with an interaction term for race., Results: Kidney donation was independently associated with a 19% higher risk of hypertension (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.01 to 1.41; P =0.04); this association did not vary by race (interaction P =0.60). For white and black nondonors, there was a mean decline in eGFR (-0.4 and -0.3 ml/min per year, respectively) that steepened after incident hypertension (-0.8 and -0.9 ml/min per year, respectively; both P <0.001). For white and black kidney donors, there was a mean increase in eGFR after donation (+0.4 and +0.6 ml/min per year, respectively) that plateaued after incident hypertension (0 and -0.2 ml/min per year, respectively; P =0.07 and P =0.01, respectively, after hypertension)., Conclusions: Kidney donors are at higher risk of hypertension than similar healthy nondonors, regardless of race. Donors who developed hypertension had a plateau in the usual postdonation increase of eGFR., (Copyright © 2019 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

The number of live kidney donors has declined since 2005. This decline parallels the evolving knowledge of risk for biologically related, black, and younger donors. To responsibly promote donation, we sought to identify declining low-risk donor subgroups that might serve as targets for future interventions. We analyzed a national registry of 77 427 donors and quantified the change in number of donors per 5-year increment from 2005 to 2017 using Poisson regression stratified by donor-recipient relationship and race/ethnicity. Among related donors aged <35, 35 to 49, and ≥50 years, white donors declined by 21%, 29%, and 3%; black donors declined by 30%, 31%, and 12%; Hispanic donors aged <35 and 35 to 49 years declined by 18% and 15%, and those aged ≥50 increased by 10%. Conversely, among unrelated donors aged <35, 35 to 49, and ≥50 years, white donors increased by 12%, 4%, and 24%; black donors aged <35 and 35 to 49 years did not change but those aged ≥50 years increased by 34%; Hispanic donors increased by 16%, 21%, and 46%. Unlike unrelated donors, related donors were less likely to donate in recent years across race/ethnicity. Although this decline might be understandable for related younger donors, it is less understandable for lower-risk related older donors (≥50 years). Biologically related older individuals are potential targets for interventions to promote donation., (© 2019 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Background: United States transplant centers are required to report follow-up data for living kidney donors for 2 years post-donation. However, living kidney donor (LKD) follow-up is often incomplete. Mobile health (mHealth) technologies could ease data collection burden but have not yet been explored in this context., Methods: We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with a convenience sample of 21 transplant providers and thought leaders about challenges in LKD follow-up, and the potential role of mHealth in overcoming these challenges., Results: Participants reported challenges conveying the importance of follow-up to LKDs, limited data from international/out-of-town LKDs, and inadequate staffing. They believed the 2-year requirement was insufficient, but expressed difficulty engaging LKDs for even this short time and inadequate resources for longer-term follow-up. Participants believed an mHealth system for post-donation follow-up could benefit LKDs (by simplifying communication/tasks and improving donor engagement) and transplant centers (by streamlining communication and decreasing workforce burden). Concerns included cost, learning curves, security/privacy, patient language/socioeconomic barriers, and older donor comfort with mHealth technology., Conclusions: Transplant providers felt that mHealth technology could improve LKD follow-up and help centers meet reporting thresholds. However, designing a secure, easy to use, and cost-effective system remains challenging., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background and Objectives: Hypertension in older kidney donor candidates is viewed as safe. However, hypertension guidelines have evolved and long-term outcomes have not been explored. We sought to quantify the 15-year risk of ESKD and mortality in older donors (≥50 years old) with versus those without hypertension., Design, Setting, Participants, & Measurements: A United States cohort of 24,533 older donors from 1999 to 2016, including 2265 with predonation hypertension, were linked to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data and the Social Security Death Master File to ascertain ESKD development and mortality. The exposure of interest was predonation hypertension. From 2004 to 2016, hypertension was defined as documented predonation use of antihypertensive therapy, regardless of systolic BP or diastolic BP; from 1999 to 2003, when there was no documentation of antihypertensive therapy, hypertension was defined as predonation systolic BP ≥140 or diastolic BP ≥90 mm Hg., Results: Older donors were 82% white, 6% black, 7% Hispanic, and 3% Asian. The median follow-up was 7.1 years (interquartile range, 3.4-11.1; maximum, 18). There were 24 ESKD and 252 death events during the study period. The 15-year risk of ESKD was 0.8% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.4 to 1.6) for donors with hypertension (mean systolic BP, 138 mm Hg) versus 0.2% (95% CI, 0.1 to 0.4) for donors without hypertension (mean systolic BP, 123 mm Hg; adjusted hazard ratio, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.28 to 7.22; P =0.01). When predonation antihypertensive therapy was available, the risk of ESKD was 6.21-fold higher (95% CI, 1.20 to 32.17; P =0.03) for donors using antihypertensive therapy (mean systolic BP, 132 mm Hg) versus those not using antihypertensive therapy (mean systolic BP, 124 mm Hg). There was no significant association between donor hypertension and 15-year mortality (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.66; P =0.34)., Conclusions: Compared with older donors without hypertension, older donors with hypertension had higher risk of ESKD, but not mortality, for 15 years postdonation. However, the absolute risk of ESKD was small., (Copyright © 2019 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

Background: Social media platforms are increasingly used in surgery and have shown promise as effective tools to promote deceased donation and expand living donor transplantation. There is a growing need to understand how social media-driven communication is perceived by providers in the field of transplantation., Methods: We surveyed 299 members of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons about their use of, attitudes toward, and perceptions of social media and analyzed relationships between responses and participant characteristics., Results: Respondents used social media to communicate with: family and friends (76%), surgeons (59%), transplant professionals (57%), transplant recipients (21%), living donors (16%), and waitlisted candidates (15%). Most respondents (83%) reported using social media for at least 1 purpose. Although most (61%) supported sharing information with transplant recipients via social media, 42% believed it should not be used to facilitate living donor-recipient matching. Younger age (P = 0.02) and fewer years of experience in the field of transplantation (P = 0.03) were associated with stronger belief that social media can be influential in living organ donation. Respondents at transplant centers with higher reported use of social media had more favorable views about sharing information with transplant recipients (P < 0.01), increasing awareness about deceased organ donation (P < 0.01), and advertising for transplant centers (P < 0.01). Individual characteristics influence opinions about the role and clinical usefulness of social media., Conclusions: Transplant center involvement and support for social media may influence clinician perceptions and practices. Increasing use of social media among transplant professionals may provide an opportunity to deliver high-quality information to patients.

Background: As transplant centers start leveraging Twitter for information dissemination and public engagement, it is important to understand current living solid organ donation-related Twitter use., Methods: We identified public Twitter profiles available in 01/2017 that referenced living organ donation and analyzed the use of donation-related Twitter handles, names, or profile information. Tweets were manually abstracted and qualitatively analyzed for common themes. Social media influence of those tweeting about living donation was evaluated using Klout score., Results: We identified 93 donors, 61 professionals, 12 hospitals, and 19 organizations that met eligibility criteria. Social media influence was similar across these groups (P = 0.4). Donors (16%) and organizations (23%) were more likely than professionals (7%) or hospitals (0%) to include transplant-related educational information in their profiles (P = 0.007). Living donation-related tweets were most commonly donation stories (33%), news reports (20%), reports about new transplant research (15%), and sharing transplant candidates' searches for donors (14%)., Conclusions: This exploratory study of living donors and transplant professionals, hospitals, and organizations on Twitter provides insight into how the social media platform may be used to communicate about and disseminate information about living donation., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Previous studies have reported a wide range of prevalence of post-donation anxiety, depression, and regret in living kidney donors (LKDs). It is also unclear what risk factors are associated with these outcomes., Methods: We screened 825 LKDs for anxiety and depression using 2-item GAD-2 and PHQ-2 scales and asked about regret., Results: Overall, 5.5% screened positive for anxiety, 4.2% for depression, and 2.1% reported regretting their donation. While there was moderate correlation between positive anxiety and depression screens (r = 0.52), there was no correlation between regret and positive screens (r < 0.1 for both). A positive anxiety screen was more likely in LKDs with a positive depression screen (adjusted relative risk [aRR] 13.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.78-27.74, p < 0.001). Similarly, a positive depression screen was more likely in LKDs with a positive anxiety screen (aRR 19.50, 95% CI 6.94-54.81, p < 0.001), as well as in those whose recipients experienced graft loss (aRR 5.38, 95% CI 1.29-22.32, p = 0.02). Regret was more likely in LKDs with a positive anxiety screen (aRR 5.68, 95% CI 1.20-26.90, p = 0.03). This was a single center cross-sectional study which may limit generalizability and examination of causal effects. Also, due to the low prevalence of adverse psychosocial outcomes, we may lack power to detect some associations between donor characteristics and anxiety, depression, or regret., Conclusions: Although there is a low prevalence of anxiety, depression, and regret of donation among LKDs, these are interrelated conditions and a positive screen for one condition should prompt evaluation for other conditions.

Background: The donation of multiple allografts from a single living donor is a rare practice, and the patient characteristics and outcomes associated with these procedures are not well described., Methods: Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we identified 101 living multiorgan donors and their 133 recipients., Results: The 49 sequential (donations during separate procedures) multiorgan donors provided grafts to 81 recipients: 21 kidney-then-liver, 15 liver-then-kidney, 5 lung-then-kidney, 3 liver-then-intestine, 3 kidney-then-pancreas, 1 lung-then-liver, and 1 pancreas-then-kidney. Of these donors, 38% donated 2 grafts to the same recipient and 15% donated 2 grafts as non-directed donors. Compared to recipients from first-time, single organ living donors, recipients from second-time living donors had similar graft and patient survival. The 52 simultaneous (multiple donations during one procedure) multiorgan donors provided 2 grafts to 1 recipient each: 48 kidney-pancreas and 4 liver-intestine. Donors had median of 13.4 years (interquartile range, 8.3-18.5 years) of follow-up. There was one reported death of a sequential donor (2.5 years after second donation). Few postdonation complications were reported over a median of 116 days (interquartile range, 0-295 days) of follow-up; however, routine living donor follow-up data were sparse. Recipients of kidneys from second-time living donors had similar graft (P = 0.2) and patient survival (P = 0.4) when compared with recipients from first-time living donors. Similarly, recipients of livers from second-time living donors had similar graft survival (P = 0.9) and patient survival (P = 0.7) when compared with recipients from first-time living donors., Conclusions: Careful documentation of outcomes is needed to ensure ethical practices in selection, informed consent, and postdonation care of this unique donor community.