The Results of Spousal Donor Kidney Transplantation Via Exchange Donor Program and Direct Spousal Donor Kidney Transplantation in Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: Single Center Experience / 대한이식학회지

BACKGROUND: The shortage of living related and deceased donor groups is one of the major problems of kidney transplantation. We examined the results of spouse and spousal exchange among living kidney transplantation. METHODS: Living donor kidney transplants at a single center between 1991 and 2005 were studied, retrospectively (n=593). We compared the graft survival rates of 24 spousal, 53 spousal exchange transplantations with those of 125 sibling, 142 other living related donor (LRD) or 249 other living unrelated donor (LURD) procedures. We analyzed graft survival rate, acute rejection rate among each groups. RESULTS: The 5, 10 year graft survival rates of spousal donor were 75.0%, 69.2%, those of other LURD and spousal exchange were 74.6%, 64.5% (P=0.80) and 86.6%, 84.8% (P=0.11), those of sibling and other LRD were 82.3%, 75.9% (P=0.37) and 75.7%, 65.4% (P=0.84). Spousal exchange donor were more good graft survival rates rather than other LRD and LURD (P=0.01, 0.01). Acute rejection rates of spousal donor were not significant difference among sibling, other LRD and LURD groups. But acute rejection rates of spousal exchange donor (22.6%) were lower than spousal (45.8%) and other LURD (38.7%) (P=0.04, 0.04). In the multivariate analysis of donor groups, other LRD and LURD groups were associated with a high relative odds of graft survival (odds ratio 2.88+/-0.38 (P=0.02), 2.35+/-0.37 (P=0.01)) compared to spousal exchange donor groups. CONCLUSIONS: The spousal exchange donors had more good graft survival rates than other LRD and LURD groups and spousal donors were as good as other living donors. We expect that the spousal and spousal exchange transplantations are one of the good programs for donor pool expansion.

Exchange Living-donor Kidney Transplantation: The Present and Future

The shortage of donor organs is one of the major barriers of transplantation worldwide. After the success of the direct exchange donor (swap) program in Korea since 1991, a swaparound program has been developed. Recently, a web-based (computerized) algorithm to facilitate donor kidney exchange was devised and tested in multi-center settings. An excellent longterm outcome was achieved by using the donor exchange program as an option to reduce the donor organ shortage. Herein, we discussed on the current status of the exchange donor renal transplantation in Korea, a couple of problems we have had, and future directions we have to head and make better to improve organ donation activities.

The Outcome of Renal Transplantation Using Exchange Donor Program / 대한이식학회지

PURPOSE: The availability of living donors is the major limiting factor in living related kidney transplantion. In 1997, Ross et al. proposed that the living unrelated kidney transplantation through exchange arrangement of ABO-incompatible donors-recipient pairs to expand donor pool is ethically acceptable as living related kidney transplantation. We analyzed exchange donor program whether this could expand the kidney donor pool in living donor renal transplantation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of the 121 exchange donor renal transplantations performed from 1991 to 2005 in our center. Recipient's and donor's mean age were 38.8 (15~64) and 40.4 (21~60) year-old, respectively. Mean follow up period is 81 months (1~170). The reasons of exchanging donor were ABO incompatibility (92/121, 76%), positive HLA cross matching (20/121, 16%) and patients who received kidneys from unknown volunteer donors (9/121, 7%). We compared graft survival and acute rejection rate of exchange donor group and living related donor group. RESULTS: The graft survival rate (1, 5, 10 year) of exchange donor group (92%, 80.6%, 72%) was similar to living related donor groups (95%, 77%, 66%). The acute rejection rate were 34% (42/121 ) and 24%, respectively. We have observed acute rejections during the same time in both groups from 1991 to 2005. Although acute rejection rate of exchange donor group is higher, we see the similar survival rate of transplanted kidneys in exchange donor group. CONCLUSION: We suggest that exchange donor program could expand the donor pool in living donor renal transplantation, when recipient cannot receive kidney from healthy donor because of ABO incompatibility or positive HLA cross matching.

Donor Exchange (Swap) Program in Renal Transplantation / 대한이식학회지

PURPOSE: Currently, donor supply for transplantation is in serious shortage. In Korea, numbers of patients with end- stage renal failure have been increasing, while patients who could have a graft kidney are limited because of donor organ shortage. To alleviate this problem, donor exchange (Swap) program was launched in Korea. After the success of direct Swap program between two families, we have developed the Swap-around program to expand the donor pool by enrolling close relatives, spouses, friends of potential recipients and motivated voluntary donors. Herein, we report our results of Swap program. METHODS: Medical records of 918 renal recipients who have undertaken a transplantation surgery between January 1995 to December 2002 in our units, were retrospectively reviewed in terms of donor-recipient relationship and way of donor recruit, episode of acute rejection, and 5-year patient and graft survival. RESULTS: Transplantation was performed in 90 patients (9.8%) by way of Swap program. The percentage Swap patients among the number of unrelated donor renal transplant has been increasing: 4.2% in 1995, 10.4% in 1997, 40.0% in 2000, 44% in 2002. Five year patient/graft survival rates were 92.1%/90.6% in 90 Swap recipients, which were comparable to 94.3%/90.0% in other kinds of living unrelated recipients (n=240), and 94.5%/90.7% in HLA 1-haplotype mismatched related recipients (n=454). Among the groups, incidence of acute rejection was comparable. CONCLUSION: We could achieve some success in reducing the organ shortage with Swap program in addition to current unrelated living donor programs without jeopardizing the graft survival. Potentially exchangeable donors should undergo careful and strict medical and social evaluation as a pre-requisite to rule out the commercialism and conserve health of potential donor and recipients. Expanding Swap program to a regional or national pool could be an option to reduce donor organ shortage in the near future.

Exchange-donor Program in Renal Transplantation: A single center experience

BACKGROUND: A shortage of kidney donors has produced a progressively increasing gap between the supply of cadaveric kidneys and the demand for cadaveric transplants. Thus, efforts to expand the donor pool have included the use of the living related and unrelated kidney donors in Korea. In certain countries like ours, cadaveric kidney sources are very limited for various reasons, therefore, the living kidney donors have been a major source for uremic patients in our hospital. We propose a new program for donation, in which is an exchange-donor program. It is a program in which the donation is not commercial, but voluntary, thus overcoming the shortage of cadaveric donors, and giving the opportunity for transplant to as many uremic patients as possible. METHODS: Between Jan. 1991 and Dec. 1997, 411 living-donor renal transplants were performed in our hospital. Of those, 61 patients received grafts from exchange donors. We compared the graft survival rate of the exchange-donor transplantations with that of the living related donor transplantations based on the recipient's age and sex, the donor's age and sex, human leukocyte antigens (HLA) mismatching, and the frequency of acute rejection. RESULTS: Fifty-nine (59) of 61 patients were still alive in Dec. 1997, with a median follow-up of 31 months (6-76 months), and the mean serum creatinine level was 1.64 mg/dL. The graft survival rates of the exchange-donor renal transplantations at 1 and 5 years were 92.12% and 80.27%, respectively, and there were no significant differences compared with those of the living related renal transplantations (p=0.1424). The graft survival rates at 1 and 5 years were 93.75% and 81.25%, respectively, for those with more than one HLA-haploidentical pair, and 91.89% and 78.76% for those with less than a one-haplotype match, respectively. The frequency of acute rejection was 37.7% in the exchange-donor group. The renal function of the exchange donors after the donation was not altered, and the postoperative complication rate was 1.6%. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that the graft survival rates of the exchange-donor program were similar to those of the living related renal transplantations, and that the good graft survival rates for the exchange-donor group could not be attributed to better HLA matching. We propose an exchange-donor program that will be able to expand the donor pool and overcome the shortage of cadaveric organ donors.