The Living Donor Collective: A Scientific Registry for Living Donors.

In the setting of an overall decline in living organ donation and new questions about long-term safety, a better understanding of outcomes after living donation has become imperative. Adequate information on outcomes important to donors may take many years to ascertain and may be evident only by comparing large numbers of donors with suitable controls. Previous studies have been unable to fully answer critical questions, primarily due to lack of appropriate controls, inadequate sample size, and/or follow-up duration that is too short to allow detection of important risks attributable to donation. The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network does not follow donors long term and has no prospective control group with which to compare postdonation outcomes. There is a need to establish a national living donor registry and to prospectively follow donors over their lifetimes. In addition, there is a need to better understand the reasons many potential donors who volunteer to donate do not donate and whether the reasons are justified. Therefore, the US Health Resources and Services Administration asked the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients to establish a national registry to address these important questions. Here, we discuss the efforts, challenges, and opportunities inherent in establishing the Living Donor Collective.

Consensus conference on best practices in live kidney donation: recommendations to optimize education, access, and care.

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.

Is rapid organ recovery a good idea? An exploratory study of the public's knowledge and attitudes.

In 2006, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommended demonstration projects on uncontrolled donation after cardiac death or rapid organ recovery (ROR). To investigate what the public thinks about key ethical and policy questions associated with ROR, 70 African-American, Caucasian and Latino community members in St. Louis, MO, participated in focus groups and completed surveys, before and after being educated about ROR. Before the focus group, most participants believed mistakenly that they could donate organs following an unexpected cardiac arrest (76%). After the focus group, 84% would want to donate organs after unexpected cardiac arrest; 81% would support organ cooling to enable this. The public generally supported organ cooling without family consent if the individual had joined the donor registry, but were mixed in their opinions about what should be done if they were not on the registry. African-American and Latino participants expressed greater fears than Caucasians that if they consented to organ donation, physicians might do less to save their life; however, support for ROR was not significantly lower in these subgroups. Although this study is exploratory, public support for ROR was present. We recommend that adequate consent processes and safeguards be established to foster trust and support for ROR.

Incompatible kidney donor candidates' willingness to participate in donor-exchange and non-directed donation.

Although paired donation, list donation and non-directed donation allow more recipients to receive living donor transplants, policy makers do not know how willing incompatible potential donors are to participate. We surveyed 174 potential donors ruled out for ABO-incompatibility or positive cross-match about their participation willingness. They were more willing to participate in paired donation as compared to list donation where the recipient receives the next deceased donor kidney (63.8% vs. 37.9%, p < 0.001) or non-directed donation (63.8% vs. 12.1%, p < 0.001). Their list donation willingness was greater when their intended recipients moved to the top versus the top 20% of the waiting list (37.9% vs. 19.0%, p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression modeling revealed that potential donors' empathy, education level, relationship with their intended recipient and the length of time their intended recipient was on dialysis also affected willingness. For paired donation, close family members of their intended recipient (odds ratio (OR) = 3.01, confidence intervals (CI) = 1.29, 7.02), with high levels of empathy (OR = 2.68, CI = 1.16, 6.21) and less than a college education (OR = 2.67, CI = 1.08, 6.61) were more willing to participate compared to other donors. Extrapolating these levels of willingness nationally, a 1-11% increase in living donation rates yearly (84-711 more transplants) may be possible if donor-exchange programs were available nationwide.

Establishing and running an effective telephone-based anticoagulation service.

Observational studies and randomized controlled trials have revealed improvement in international normalized ratio (INR) control and reduced thrombotic and hemorrhagic events in patients taking warfarin who are managed by an anticoagulation service (ACS) compared with traditional physician care. In this article, we describe how to establish a multidisciplinary telephone-based ACS to monitor INRs, dose warfarin, and heparin therapy, and to educate patients by telephone. We address how to improve ACS efficiency by using an electronic medical record, charting by exception, holding group-based education, communicating by telephone, and conducting quality assurance. We also make recommendations for improving the quality of care of patients taking anticoagulants that can be implemented in any setting and we discuss how to apply these guidelines to other remote disease-state management programs (eg, diabetes).

Patient and physician satisfaction with a telephone-based anticoagulation service.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the satisfaction and knowledge of patients who have their warfarin managed by their physician or by a multidisciplinary, telephone-based anticoagulation service (ACS) and to assess referring physicians' satisfaction with the ACS. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We surveyed 300 patients taking warfarin (mean age 73 years): 150 at health centers randomized to have access to an ACS, and 150 at control health centers without ACS access. We also surveyed 17 physicians who refer patients to the ACS. SETTING: Eight outpatient health centers in Missouri and Southern Illinois. MEASUREMENTS: We asked patients about the timeliness of international normalized ratio (INR) monitoring, perceived safety of warfarin, overall satisfaction with their warfarin management, and knowledge of what a high INR meant. We asked physicians at ACS-available health centers how many minutes they saved per INR by referring patients to the ACS, their satisfaction with the ACS, and their willingness to recommend the ACS to a colleague. MAIN RESULTS: As compared with patients at control health centers, patients at ACS-available health centers were more satisfied with the timeliness of getting blood test results (mean 4.31 vs 4.03, P =.02), were more likely to know what a safe INR value was (45% vs 15%, P =.001), and felt safer taking warfarin (mean 5.7 vs 5.2, P =.04). Physicians reported that using the ACS saved, on average, four minutes of their time and 13 minutes of their staff's time, per INR. All physicians recommended use of the ACS to a colleague and were highly satisfied with the ACS. CONCLUSIONS: A telephone-based ACS can be endorsed by primary-care physicians and improve patients' satisfaction with and knowledge about their antithrombotic therapy.

Validation of clinical classification schemes for predicting stroke: results from the National Registry of Atrial Fibrillation.

CONTEXT: Patients who have atrial fibrillation (AF) have an increased risk of stroke, but their absolute rate of stroke depends on age and comorbid conditions. OBJECTIVE: To assess the predictive value of classification schemes that estimate stroke risk in patients with AF. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Two existing classification schemes were combined into a new stroke-risk scheme, the CHADS( 2) index, and all 3 classification schemes were validated. The CHADS( 2) was formed by assigning 1 point each for the presence of congestive heart failure, hypertension, age 75 years or older, and diabetes mellitus and by assigning 2 points for history of stroke or transient ischemic attack. Data from peer review organizations representing 7 states were used to assemble a National Registry of AF (NRAF) consisting of 1733 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 to 95 years who had nonrheumatic AF and were not prescribed warfarin at hospital discharge. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Hospitalization for ischemic stroke, determined by Medicare claims data. RESULTS: During 2121 patient-years of follow-up, 94 patients were readmitted to the hospital for ischemic stroke (stroke rate, 4.4 per 100 patient-years). As indicated by a c statistic greater than 0.5, the 2 existing classification schemes predicted stroke better than chance: c of 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.71) for the scheme developed by the Atrial Fibrillation Investigators (AFI) and c of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.71-0.76) for the Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation (SPAF) III scheme. However, with a c statistic of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.80-0.84), the CHADS( 2) index was the most accurate predictor of stroke. The stroke rate per 100 patient-years without antithrombotic therapy increased by a factor of 1.5 (95% CI, 1.3-1.7) for each 1-point increase in the CHADS( 2) score: 1.9 (95% CI, 1.2-3.0) for a score of 0; 2.8 (95% CI, 2.0-3.8) for 1; 4.0 (95% CI, 3.1-5.1) for 2; 5.9 (95% CI, 4.6-7.3) for 3; 8.5 (95% CI, 6.3-11.1) for 4; 12.5 (95% CI, 8.2-17.5) for 5; and 18.2 (95% CI, 10.5-27.4) for 6. CONCLUSION: The 2 existing classification schemes and especially a new stroke risk index, CHADS( 2), can quantify risk of stroke for patients who have AF and may aid in selection of antithrombotic therapy.