ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Living donor kidney transplant (LDKT) can be impeded by multiple barriers. One possible barrier to LDKT is a large physical distance between the living donor's home residence and the procuring transplant center. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, single-center study of living kidney donors in the United States who were geographically distant (residing ≥150 miles) from our transplant center. Each distant donor was matched to 4 geographically nearby donors (<150 miles from our center) as controls. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2010, of 429 live kidney donors, 55 (12.8%) were geographically distant. Black donors composed a higher proportion of geographically distant vs nearby donors (34.6% vs 15.5%), whereas Hispanic and Asian donors composed a lower proportion (P = .001). Distant vs nearby donors had similar median times from donor referral to actual donation (165 vs 161 days, P = .81). The geographically distant donors lived a median of 703 miles (25% to 75% range, 244 to 1072) from our center and 21.2 miles (25% to 75% range, 9.8 to 49.7) from the nearest kidney transplant center. The proportion of geographically distant donors who had their physician evaluation (21.6%), psychosocial evaluation (21.6%), or computed tomography angiogram (29.4%) performed close to home, rather than at our center, was low. CONCLUSIONS: Many geographically distant donors live close to transplant centers other than the procuring transplant center, but few of these donors perform parts of their donor evaluation at these closer centers. Black donors comprise a large proportion of geographically distant donors. The evaluation of geographically distant donors, especially among minorities, warrants further study.
Subject(s)
Directed Tissue Donation , Kidney Transplantation , Living Donors/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Black or African American , Black People , Female , Geography, Medical , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Minority Groups , Retrospective Studies , United StatesABSTRACT
The continued growth of kidney paired donation (KPD) to facilitate transplantation for otherwise incompatible or suboptimal living kidney donors and recipients has depended on a balance between the logistics required for patients and the collaborating transplant centers. The formation of chains for KPD and the shipping of kidneys have permitted networks such as the National Kidney Registry (NKR) to offer KPD to patients over a transcontinental area. However, over the last 3 years, we have encountered patient requests for a more flexible experience in KPD to meet their individual needs often due to rigid time constraints. To accommodate these requests, we have developed an Advanced Donation Program (ADP) in which the donor desires to donate by a specific date, but their paired recipient has not yet been matched to a specific donor or scheduled for surgery. After obtaining careful informed consent from both the donor and paired recipient, 10 KPD chains were constructed using an ADP donor. These 10 ADP donors have facilitated 47 transplants, and thus far eight of their paired recipients have received a kidney within a mean of 178 (range 10-562) days. The ADP is a viable method to support time limited donors in a KPD network.
Subject(s)
Kidney Transplantation , Living Donors , Tissue and Organ Procurement/organization & administration , Adult , Aged , Directed Tissue Donation , Donor Selection/methods , Donor Selection/organization & administration , Female , Humans , Informed Consent , Male , Middle Aged , Registries , Time Factors , Tissue and Organ Procurement/methodsABSTRACT
Live donor kidney transplantation is the best treatment option for most patients with late-stage chronic kidney disease; however, the rate of living kidney donation has declined in the United States. A consensus conference was held June 5-6, 2014 to identify best practices and knowledge gaps pertaining to live donor kidney transplantation and living kidney donation. Transplant professionals, patients, and other key stakeholders discussed processes for educating transplant candidates and potential living donors about living kidney donation; efficiencies in the living donor evaluation process; disparities in living donation; and financial and systemic barriers to living donation. We summarize the consensus recommendations for best practices in these educational and clinical domains, future research priorities, and possible public policy initiatives to remove barriers to living kidney donation.
