Long-term psychosocial outcomes after nondirected donation: A single-center experience.

Short-term studies have demonstrated that nondirected donors (NDDs) have psychosocial outcomes that are similar to donors who donate directly, but long-term studies have not been done. NDDs at our center were surveyed regarding motivation; support during donation; stress related to donation; regret; financial resources used for donation; preferences about communication with the recipient; and cost reimbursement. Of 100 NDDs who donated at our center in the last 20 years, 95 remain in contact with us, and 77 responded to our survey (mean ± standard deviation [SD] 6.7 ± 4 years postdonation). The most common motivation for donation was the desire to help another (99%). Many NDDs received support from family, friends, and employers. NDDs voiced stress about the possibility of recipient kidney rejection, physical consequences to themselves, and financial burden. Only one donor expressed regret. Almost half wanted some recipient information at donation; 61% preferred routine recipient status updates; 56% believed meeting the recipient should occur at any mutually agreeable time; and 55% endorsed reimbursement for expenses. Stressors for NDDs are analogous to those of directed donors; NDDs prefer having some information about the recipient and prefer to be given a choice regarding the timing for communication with the recipient. NDDs supported donation being financially neutral.

KDIGO clinical practice guideline on the evaluation and care of living kidney donors

The 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors is intended to assist medical professionals who evaluate living kidney donor candidates and provide care before, during and after donation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies that included critical appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations. However, many recommendations, for which there was no evidence or no systematic search for evidence was undertaken by the Evidence Review Team, were issued as ungraded expert opinion recommendations. The guideline work group concluded that a comprehensive approach to risk assessment should replace decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation. Original data analyses were undertaken to produce a "proof-in-concept" risk-prediction model for kidney failure to support a framework for quantitative risk assessment in the donor candidate evaluation and defensible shared decision making. This framework is grounded in the simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics. The processes and framework for the donor candidate evaluation are presented, along with recommendations for optimal care before, during, and after donation. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, especially regarding the lack of definitive prospective studies and clinical outcome trials. Suggestions for future research, including the need for continued refinement of long-term risk prediction and novel approaches to estimating donation-attributable risks, are also provided.

KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors.

The 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors is intended to assist medical professionals who evaluate living kidney donor candidates and provide care before, during and after donation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies that included critical appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations. However, many recommendations, for which there was no evidence or no systematic search for evidence was undertaken by the Evidence Review Team, were issued as ungraded expert opinion recommendations. The guideline work group concluded that a comprehensive approach to risk assessment should replace decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation. Original data analyses were undertaken to produce a "proof-in-concept" risk-prediction model for kidney failure to support a framework for quantitative risk assessment in the donor candidate evaluation and defensible shared decision making. This framework is grounded in the simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics. The processes and framework for the donor candidate evaluation are presented, along with recommendations for optimal care before, during, and after donation. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, especially regarding the lack of definitive prospective studies and clinical outcome trials. Suggestions for future research, including the need for continued refinement of long-term risk prediction and novel approaches to estimating donation-attributable risks, are also provided.In citing this document, the following format should be used: Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Living Kidney Donor Work Group. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors. Transplantation. 2017;101(Suppl 8S):S1-S109.

Summary of Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors.

Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) engaged an evidence review team and convened a work group to produce a guideline to evaluate and manage candidates for living kidney donation. The evidence for most guideline recommendations is sparse and many "ungraded" expert consensus recommendations were made to guide the donor candidate evaluation and care before, during, and after donation. The guideline advocates for replacing decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation with a comprehensive approach to risk assessment using the best available evidence. The approach to simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics advances a new framework for assessing donor candidate risk and for defensible shared decision making.

Financial Burden Borne by Laparoscopic Living Kidney Donors.

BACKGROUND: Living kidney donors have donation-related out-of-pocket costs (direct costs) and/or ongoing daily expenses while losing income (indirect costs). Yet there is little information about how much of a subjective burden these constitute for the donors. METHODS: From December 2003 through December 2014, we surveyed donors 6 months postdonation to determine their financial burden related to donation (on a scale of 1 to 10) and what resources were used to cover expenses. RESULTS: Of 1136 surveyed, 796 (70%) responded. Among respondents, mean age at donation was 43.6 ± 10.6 years, 64% were women, 96% were white, and 53% were related by blood to their recipient. Overall, 26% scored their financial burden as 5 or higher; 8% scored it as 8 or higher. Increased expenses were associated with a higher reported burden; however, significant burden was reported by some with no out-of-pocket expenses (presumably due to lost wages and continuing expenses). The burden was scored as 5 or higher by 27% of those employed outside the home (n = 660), 15% homemakers, 13% retirees, 40% students; 28% unemployed; and 26% whose occupation was unknown. Over half (51%) of those receiving a local or (means-tested) national grant still reported moderate to severe burden. Besides grants, donors used a variety of sources to help offset expenses: dipped into savings, borrowed from friends or family, took out a loan, and/or had a fundraiser. Those with the highest burden reported using the most additional sources. CONCLUSIONS: Donors should not have to incur costs or a financial burden to donate; the transplant community should strive to make donation financially neutral.

Return to normal activities and work after living donor laparoscopic nephrectomy.

Transplant programs inform potential donors that they should be able to return to normal activities within ~2 weeks and to work by 6 weeks after laparoscopic nephrectomy. We studied actual time. Between 10/2004 and 9/2014, 911 donors having laparoscopic nephrectomy were surveyed 6 months post-donation. Surveys asked questions specific to their recovery experience, including time to return to normal activities and work and a description of their recovery time relative to pre-donation expectations. Of the 911, 646 (71%) responded: mean age at donation was 43.5±10.6 years; 65% were female, 95% were white, 51% were biologically related to their recipient, and 83% reported education beyond high school. Of the 646 respondents, a total of 35% returned to normal activities by 2 weeks post-donation; 79% by 4 weeks post-donation; 94% by 5-6 weeks; however, 6% took >6 weeks. Of the 646, 551 (85%) were working for pay; of these, mean time to return to work was 5.3±2.8 weeks; median, 5 weeks. Of the 551, a total of 14% returned to work in 1-2 weeks, 46% by 3-4 weeks, and 76% by 5-6 weeks. Importantly, 24% required >6 weeks before returning to work with the highest rates for donors in manual labor or a skilled trade. Significantly longer return to work was reported by females (vs males; P=.01), those without (vs those with) post-high school education (P=.010, those with longer hospital stay (P=.01), and those with a postoperative complication (P=.02). Of respondents, 37% described their recovery time as longer than expected. During the donor informed consent process, additional emphasis on realistic expectations around recovery to baseline activities and return to work is warranted.

The Right Organ for the Right Recipient: the Ninth Annual American Society of Transplant Surgeons' State-of-the-Art Winter Symposium.

With an increasing number of individuals with end-stage organ disease and the increasing success of organ transplantation, the demand for transplants has steadily increased. This growth has led to a greater need to utilize organs from as many donors as possible. As selection criteria have become less stringent to accommodate increasing demand, transplant outcomes are more strongly influenced by recipient and donor factors; thus, finding the right organ for the right recipient is more important than ever. The Ninth Annual American Society of Transplant Surgeons (ASTS) State-of-the-Art Winter Symposium, entitled "The Right Organ for the Right Recipient," addressed the matching of donor organs to appropriate recipients. Representative dilemmas in the matching of donor organs with recipients were discussed. These included the following: matching by donor and recipient risk characteristics; use of organs with risk for disease transmission; biologic incompatibility; use of organs from donors after cardiac death; the justification for combined organ transplants like liver-kidney and kidney-pancreas; and the role of allocation in facilitating the matching of donors and recipients. Regardless of the particular issue, decisions about donor-recipient matching should be evidence-based, practical, and made with the goal of maximizing organ utilization while still protecting individual patient interests.

Media appeals by pediatric patients for living donors and the impact on a transplant center.

Little is published regarding the effect of advertising for kidney donors on transplant centers. At our center, families of nine children used media appeals. Per candidate, there were 8 to 260 potential donor calls, 92 (11.6%) were medically ineligible, 326 (41.1%) voluntarily did not proceed or an alternate donor had been approved, 38 (4.8%) were ABO incompatible, and 327 (41.1%) had positive crossmatch or unsuitable human leukocyte antigens. Media appeals resulted in four living donor transplants and five nondirected donors to other candidates, and we made directed changes in our center. The ethical debate of advertising for organ donors continues.

KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the care of kidney transplant recipients: a summary.

The 2009 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline on the monitoring, management, and treatment of kidney transplant recipients is intended to assist the practitioner caring for adults and children after kidney transplantation. The guideline development process followed an evidence-based approach, and management recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant treatment trials. Critical appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The guideline makes recommendations for immunosuppression and graft monitoring, as well as prevention and treatment of infection, cardiovascular disease, malignancy, and other complications that are common in kidney transplant recipients, including hematological and bone disorders. Limitations of the evidence, especially the lack of definitive clinical outcome trials, are discussed and suggestions are provided for future research. This summary includes a brief description of methodology and the complete guideline recommendations but does not include the rationale and references for each recommendation, which are published elsewhere.

Persistent, asymptomatic, microscopic hematuria in prospective kidney donors.

BACKGROUND: Asymptomatic, microscopic hematuria is seen in 8-21% of the general population, has a good prognosis, and is generally not an indication for kidney biopsy. But whether it should preclude kidney donation is unclear. METHODS: Of 512 consecutive prospective donors, 14 (2.7%) continued to have asymptomatic, microscopic hematuria over 1 month. If the medical history, physical examination, and computerized tomographic angiography were unremarkable, and if they still wished to donate, a kidney biopsy was performed. RESULTS: In two prospective donors, hematuria resolved after treatment for urinary tract infection; two others declined donation and were referred to their primary care provider. Kidney biopsy in the remaining 10 showed: two normal; four thin basement membrane nephropathy (TBMN); one nonhomogeneous basement membrane abnormalities; one IgA nephropathy, 5 of 16 glomeruli globally sclerotic; one in a patient with a family history of Schimke's Syndrome, 7 of 30 glomeruli globally sclerotic; and one TBMN and early hypertensive changes without systemic hypertension. Only 4 of the 10 who underwent kidney biopsy donated (two normal, two TBMN). CONCLUSIONS: Kidney abnormalities are common in young, otherwise healthy, prospective kidney donor candidates with persistent, asymptomatic, microscopic hematuria. A kidney biopsy is often abnormal and aids in the decision-making process.

Twenty-two nondirected kidney donors: an update on a single center's experience.

At the University of Minnesota, we have defined 'nondirected donation' as organ donation by a volunteer who offered to donate an organ to anyone on the cadaver waiting list. From October 1, 1997, through October 31, 2003, we have had 360 inquiries about nondirected donation, have completed 42 detailed nondirected donor (NDD) evaluations for kidney donation, and have performed 22 NDD transplants. We herein review our program policies and how they have evolved, describe our evaluation and the motivation of our potential donors, summarize the outcome of NDD transplants, and raise issues requiring further attention and study. Our experience continues to support nondirected donation for kidney transplants.

Evolution of a nondirected kidney donor program: lessons learned.

From October 1, 1997 through November 30, 2003, the University of Minnesota received 362 inquiries from potential NDDs. Of these, 53 (15%) then underwent partial or full donor evaluation at our transplant center. Of these 53 potential NDDs, 24 have been accepted (23 donated, and one donation is pending), 23 were denied (15 for medical reasons, 8 for psychosocial reasons), and 6 chose not to pursue donation. Most of our potential NDDs were motivated by altruistic reasons. Their decision-making process was not impulsive or instantaneous, but rather rational and deliberate. They were self-educated about donation before contacting our transplant center. After donation, all 23 of our NDDs said they were glad they donated and were grateful for the opportunity to help another. Many desired to become involved in the transplant community by promoting donation. All NDDs who heard from their recipient appreciated the contact and the chance to learn how the recipient was doing posttransplant. An NDD program clearly mandates a dedicated donor team and additional time and resources, given the high number of inherent practical, logistical, and ethical issues. Our protocol has been a work in progress and continues to evolve with our ever-growing experience. Transplant centers interested in using NDDs must develop NDD protocols to address specific issues and must examine their available staffing and resources.