Factors associated with the quality of life of living kidney donors in Korea: A cross-sectional study.

This study investigated the relationship between self-determination, physical health status, and Health related Quality of Life (=HRQoL) among living kidney donors. A descriptive survey was conducted between 2019 and 2020 and included 111 kidney donors. Data were collected using a self-report questionnaire on general and donation-related characteristics, self-determination, and HRQoL. The data also included medical records reflecting the physical health status at the time of the survey. Data were analyzed using a multiple regression model. Factors associated with HRQoL were perceived health recovery after donation (ß = 0.42, P < .001), up to 1 year since donation (ß = 0.33, P = .008), more than 1 up to 5 years since donation (ß = 0.52, P < .001), more than 5 up to 10 years since donation (ß = 0.53, P < .001), and competence of self-determination (ß = 0.23, P = .033). The explanatory power of these variables was 43.3%. HRQoL of living kidney donors can be affected by subjective and psychological factors. Therefore, health care providers should help living kidney donors have high self-determination during pre and post donation and concentrate on the subjective and psychological factors as well as objective health status.

Evaluation of liver transplantation services in Kazakhstan from 2012 to 2023.

There is a scarcity of publications evaluating the performance of the national liver transplantation (LTx) program in Kazakhstan. Spanning from 2012 to 2023, it delves into historical trends in LTx surgeries, liver transplant centers, and the national cohort of patients awaiting LTx. Survival analysis for those awaiting LTx, using life tables and Kaplan-Meier, is complemented by time series analysis projecting developments until 2030. The overall per million population (pmp) LTx rate varied from 0.35 to 3.77, predominantly favoring living donor LTx. Liver transplant center rates ranged from 0.06 to 0.40. Of 474 LTx patients, 364 on the waiting list did not receive transplantation. The 30-day and 1-year survival rates on the waiting list were 87.0% and 68.0%, respectively. Viral hepatitis and cirrhosis prevalence steadily rose from 2015 to 2023, with projections indicating a persistent trend until 2030. Absent targeted interventions, stable pmp rates of LTx and liver transplant centers may exacerbate the backlog of unoperated patients. This study sheds light on critical aspects of the LTx landscape in Kazakhstan, emphasizing the urgency of strategic interventions to alleviate the burden on patients awaiting transplantation.

Longitudinal mortality risks and kidney functional outcomes in Japanese living kidney donors.

OBJECTIVES: Previous studies suggested that living kidney donors do not have a higher risk of death or kidney failure than the general population. However, living kidney donor risk is controversial. Furthermore, only a few studies have evaluated long-term kidney function after kidney donation. METHODS: This study evaluated Japanese kidney donor' long-term outcomes, including mortality and kidney function. From 1965 to 2015, 230 donors (76 males, 154 females, and a median age of 54) were enrolled in this study. The median observation period was 11.0 (range, 0.3-41.0) years. RESULTS: In total, 215 donors were still alive, and 15 had died. Causes of death included malignancies, cardiovascular disease, pneumonia, suicide, gastrointestinal bleeding, and kidney failure. Actual donor survival rates at 10, 20, and 30 years were 95.3%, 90.7%, and 80.9%, respectively. These values were comparable to age- and gender-matched expected survival. Long-term kidney function after donation was evaluated in 211 donors with serum creatinine data. Two donors developed kidney failure 24 and 26 years post-donation, respectively. The percentage of donors whose estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) remained ≥45 mL/min/1.73 m2 at 10, 20, and 30 years after donation were 84.2%, 73.0%, and 63.9%, respectively. Survival rates of donors with eGFR <45 mL/min/1.73 m2 were comparable to those in persons with eGFR >45 mL/min/1.73 m2. CONCLUSION: Our findings revealed that kidney donors did not have a higher long-term risk of death than the general population. Although some donors showed decreased kidney function after donation, kidney function did not impact their survival.

Neighborhood-level social determinants of health measures independently predict receipt of living donor liver transplantation in the United States.

Disparities exist in the access to living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in the United States. However, the association of neighborhood-level social determinants of health (SDoH) on the receipt of LDLT is not well-established. This was a retrospective cohort study of adult liver transplant recipients between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2021 at centers performing LDLT using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, which was linked through patients' ZIP code to a set of 24 neighborhood-level SDoH measures from different data sources. Temporal trends and center differences in neighborhood Social Deprivation Index (SDI), a validated scale of socioeconomic deprivation ranging from 0 to 100 (0=least disadvantaged), were assessed by transplant type. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the association of increasing SDI on receipt of LDLT [vs. deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT)]. There were 51,721 DDLT and 4026 LDLT recipients at 59 LDLT-performing centers during the study period. Of the 24 neighborhood-level SDoH measures studied, the SDI was most different between the 2 transplant types, with LDLT recipients having lower SDI (ie, less socioeconomic disadvantage) than DDLT recipients (median SDI 37 vs. 47; p < 0.001). The median difference in SDI between the LDLT and DDLT groups significantly decreased from 13 in 2005 to 3 in 2021 ( p = 0.003). In the final model, the SDI quintile was independently associated with transplant type ( p < 0.001) with a threshold SDI of ~40, above which increasing SDI was significantly associated with reduced odds of LDLT (vs. reference SDI 1-20). As a neighborhood-level SDoH measure, SDI is useful for evaluating disparities in the context of LDLT. Center outreach efforts that aim to reduce disparities in LDLT could preferentially target US ZIP codes with SDI > 40.

Increasing Living Donor Liver Transplantation Using Liver Paired Exchange.

BACKGROUND: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) continues to be the primary modality of liver transplantation in Asia, but it accounts for about 5% of all liver transplantations in the US. ABO incompatibility is the primary reason motivated donors are declined. Although kidney paired exchanges are common, liver paired exchange (LPE) is still evolving in the US. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective review (between January 1, 2019, and July 31, 2021) of our initial experience with LPE. RESULTS: A total of 10 LPEs (20 LDLTs) were performed during the study period. Seven LPEs were initiated by a nondirected O donor. The other 3 pair sets involved 1 ABO compatible and 1 ABO incompatible pair. Transplantations in a pair set were completed within a mean of 4.8 (range 1-14) days of each other. All 20 donors are doing well with no major complications at 12.7 (range 1-20) months. Seventeen of 20 recipients are alive and have good allograft function. One recipient died in the early postoperative period. Two late deaths of patients with functioning allografts were due to COVID-19 (at 8 months) and peritoneal carcinomatosis and gram-negative sepsis (at 9 months). CONCLUSIONS: LPE is feasible in a high-volume LDLT center and is a useful option to increase LDLT by overcoming ABO incompatibility. Nondirected donors can be utilized to initiate an LPE.

Barriers to the donation of living kidneys for kidney transplantation.

Since the waiting time for deceased donor kidney transplantation continues to increase, living donor kidney transplantation is an important treatment for end stage kidney disease patients. Barriers to living kidney donation have been rarely investigated despite a growing interest in the utilization of living donor transplantation and the satisfaction of donor safety. Here, we retrospectively analyzed 1658 potential donors and 1273 potential recipients who visited the Seoul National University Hospital for living kidney transplantation between 2010 and 2017 to study the causes of donation discontinuation. Among 1658 potential donors, 902 (54.4%) failed to donate kidneys. The average number of potential donors that received work-up was 1.30 ± 0.66 per recipient. Among living donor kidney transplant patients, 75.1% received kidneys after work-up of the first donor and 24.9% needed work-up of two or more donors. Donor-related factors (49.2%) were the most common causes of donation discontinuation, followed by immunologic or size mismatches between donors and recipients (25.4%) and recipient-related factors (16.2%). Interestingly, withdrawal of donation consent along with refusal by recipients or family were the commonest causes, suggesting the importance of non-biomedical aspects. The elucidation of the barriers to living kidney donation could ensure more efficient and safer living kidney donation.

Trasplante renal de donante vivo. Análisis de situación y hoja de ruta / Live donor kidney transplantation. Situation analysis and roadmap

El trasplante renal de donante vivo (TRDV) es la opción terapéutica con las mejores expectativas de supervivencia para el injerto y para el paciente con insuficiencia renal terminal; sin embargo, este tipo de trasplantes ha experimentado un descenso progresivo en los últimos años en España.Entre las posibles explicaciones del descenso de actividad se encuentra la coincidencia en el tiempo con un aumento en el número de donantes renales fallecidos, tanto por muerte encefálica como por asistolia controlada, que podría haber generado una falsa impresión de ausencia de necesidad del TRDV. Además, la disponibilidad de un mayor número de riñones para trasplante habría supuesto un incremento en la carga de trabajo de los profesionales que pudiera enlentecer los procesos de donación en vida. Otro posible argumento radica en un posible cambio de actitud hacia posturas más conservadoras a la hora de informar a pacientes y a familiares acerca de esta opción terapéutica, a raíz de los artículos publicados respecto al riesgo de la donación a largo plazo. Sin embargo, existe una importantísima variabilidad en la actividad entre centros y comunidades autónomas, no explicada por el volumen de trasplante procedente de otros tipos de donante. Este dato, unido a que la indicación de donación renal en vida se realiza de manera mayoritaria en situación de enfermedad renal crónica avanzada (ERCA) y que el tiempo en diálisis es un factor pronóstico negativo respecto a la supervivencia postrasplante, permite concluir que el descenso depende además de otros factores. ... (AU)

Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the best treatment option for end stage renal disease in terms of both patient and graft survival. However, figures on LDKT in Spain that had been continuously growing from 2005 to 2014, have experienced a continuous decrease in the last five years.One possible explanation for this decrease is that the significant increase in the number of deceased donors in Spain during the last years, both brain death and controlled circulatory death donors, might have generated the false idea that we have coped with the transplant needs. Moreover, a greater number of deceased donor kidney transplants have caused a heavy workload for the transplant teams.Furthermore, the transplant teams could have moved on to a more conservative approach to the information and assessment of patients and families considering the potential long-term risks for donors in recent papers. However, there is a significant variability in the LDKT rate among transplant centers and regions in Spain independent of their deceased donor rates. This fact and the fact that LDKT is usually a preemptive option for patients with advanced chronic renal failure, as time on dialysis is a negative independent factor for transplant outcomes, lead us to conclude that the decrease in LDKT depends on other factors.Thus, in the kidney transplant annual meeting held at ONT site in 2018, a working group was created to identify other causes for the decrease of LDKT in Spain and its relationship with the different steps of the process. The group was formed by transplant teams, a representative of the transplant group of the Spanish Society of Nephrology (SENTRA), a representative of the Spanish Society of Transplants (SET) and representatives of the Spanish National Transplant Organization (ONT). ... (AU)

Decreased access to pediatric liver transplantation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected all aspects of the US healthcare system, including liver transplantation. The objective of this study was to understand national changes to pediatric liver transplantation during COVID-19. METHODS: Using SRTR data, we compared waitlist additions, removals, and liver transplantations for pre-COVID-19 (March-November 2016-2019), early COVID-19 (March-May 2020), and late COVID-19 (June-November 2020). RESULTS: Waitlist additions decreased by 25% during early COVID-19 (41.3/month vs. 55.4/month, p < .001) with black candidates most affected (p = .04). Children spent longer on the waitlist during early COVID-19 compared to pre-COVID-19 (140 vs. 96 days, p < .001). There was a 38% decrease in liver transplantations during early COVID-19 (IRR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49-0.78), recovering to pre-pandemic rates during late COVID-19 (IRR 1.03, NS), and no change in percentage of living and deceased donors. White children had a 30% decrease in overall liver transplantation but no change in living donor liver transplantation (IRR 0.7, 95% CI 0.50-0.95; IRR 0.96, NS), while non-white children had a 44% decrease in overall liver transplantation (IRR 0.56, 95% CI 0.40-0.77) and 81% decrease in living donor liver transplantation (IRR 0.19, 95% CI 0.02-0.76). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic decreased access to pediatric liver transplantation, particularly in its early stage. There were no regional differences in liver transplantation during COVID-19 despite the increased national sharing of organs. While pediatric liver transplantation has resumed pre-pandemic levels, ongoing racial disparities must be addressed.

European Liver Transplant Registry: Donor and transplant surgery aspects of 16,641 liver transplantations in children.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The European Liver Transplant Registry (ELTR) has collected data on liver transplant procedures performed in Europe since 1968. APPROACH AND RESULTS: Over a 50-year period (1968-2017), clinical and laboratory data were collected from 133 transplant centers and analyzed retrospectively (16,641 liver transplants in 14,515 children). Data were analyzed according to three successive periods (A, before 2000; B, 2000-2009; and C, since 2010), studying donor and graft characteristics and graft outcome. The use of living donors steadily increased from A to C (A, n = 296 [7%]; B, n = 1131 [23%]; and C, n = 1985 [39%]; p = 0.0001). Overall, the 5-year graft survival rate has improved from 65% in group A to 75% in group B (p < 0.0001) and to 79% in group C (B versus C, p < 0.0001). Graft half-life was 31 years, overall; it was 41 years for children who survived the first year after transplant. The late annual graft loss rate in teenagers is higher than that in children aged <12 years and similar to that of young adults. No evidence for accelerated graft loss after age 18 years was found. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric liver transplantation has reached a high efficacy as a cure or treatment for severe liver disease in infants and children. Grafts that survived the first year had a half-life similar to standard human half-life. Transplantation before or after puberty may be the pivot-point for lower long-term outcome in children. Further studies are necessary to revisit some old concepts regarding transplant benefit (survival time) for small children, the role of recipient pathophysiology versus graft aging, and risk at transition to adult age.

Outcomes of living liver donors are worse than those of matched healthy controls.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Donor death is the most serious complication of living liver donation but is reported rarely. We investigated the actual mortality of living liver donors (LLDs) compared with matched control groups based on analysis of the Korean National Health Insurance Services (NHIS) database. METHODS: This cohort study included 12,372 LLDs who donated a liver graft between 2002 and 2018, and were registered in the Korean Network for Organ Sharing. They were compared to 3 matched control groups selected from the Korean NHIS and comprising a total of 123,710 individuals: healthy population (Group I); general population without comorbidities (Group II); and general population with comorbidities (Group III). RESULTS: In this population, 78.5% of living liver donors were 20-39 years old, and 64.7% of all donors were male. Eighty-nine donors (0.7%) in the LLD group died (68 males and 21 females), a mortality rate (/1,000 person-years) of 0.91 (0.74-1.12). Mortality rate ratio and the adjusted hazard ratio of the LLD group was 2.03 (1.61-2.55) and 1.71 (1.31-2.25) compared to Control Group I, 0.75 (0.60-0.93) and 0.63 (0.49-0.82) compared to Control Group II, and 0.58 (0.46-0.71) and 0.49 (0.39-0.60) compared to Control Group III. LLD group, depression, and lower income were risk factors for adjusted mortality. The incidence of liver failure, depression, cancer, diabetes, hypertension, brain infarction, brain hemorrhage, and end-stage renal disease in the LLD group was significantly higher than in Control Group I. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes of the LLD group were worse than those of the matched healthy control group despite the small number of deaths and medical morbidities in this group. LLDs should receive careful medical attention for an extended period after donation. LAY SUMMARY: The incidence of mortality, liver failure, depression, cancer, diabetes, hypertension, brain infarction, brain hemorrhage, and end-stage renal disease in the living liver donor group was significantly higher than in the matched healthy group. Careful donor evaluation and selection processes can improve donor safety and enable safe living donor liver transplantation.

Intermediate Renal Outcomes, Kidney Failure, and Mortality in Obese Kidney Donors.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is associated with the two archetypal kidney disease risk factors: hypertension and diabetes. Concerns that the effects of diabetes and hypertension in obese kidney donors might be magnified in their remaining kidney have led to the exclusion of many obese candidates from kidney donation. METHODS: We compared mortality, diabetes, hypertension, proteinuria, reduced eGFR and its trajectory, and the development of kidney failure in 8583 kidney donors, according to body mass index (BMI). The study included 6822 individuals with a BMI of <30 kg/m2, 1338 with a BMI of 30-34.9 kg/m2, and 423 with a BMI of ≥35 kg/m2. We used Cox regression models, adjusting for baseline covariates only, and models adjusting for postdonation diabetes, hypertension, and kidney failure as time-varying covariates. RESULTS: Obese donors were more likely than nonobese donors to develop diabetes, hypertension, and proteinuria. The increase in eGFR in obese versus nonobese donors was significantly higher in the first 10 years (3.5 ml/min per 1.73m2 per year versus 2.4 ml/min per 1.73m2 per year; P<0.001), but comparable thereafter. At a mean±SD follow-up of 19.3±10.3 years after donation, 31 (0.5%) nonobese and 12 (0.7%) obese donors developed ESKD. Of the 12 patients with ESKD in obese donors, 10 occurred in 1445 White donors who were related to the recipient (0.9%). Risk of death in obese donors was not significantly increased compared with nonobese donors. CONCLUSIONS: Obesity in kidney donors, as in nondonors, is associated with increased risk of developing diabetes and hypertension. The absolute risk of ESKD is small and the risk of death is comparable to that of nonobese donors.

Why Are Black People Less Likely to Find a Stem Cell Donor Match?

Building trust in the health care system could increase the number of donors.

Aggravation of fibrin deposition and microthrombus formation within the graft during kidney transplantation.

In kidney transplantation, microthrombi and fibrin deposition may lead to local perfusion disorders and subsequently poor initial graft function. Microthrombi are often regarded as donor-derived. However, the incidence, time of development, and potential difference between living donor kidneys (LDK) and deceased donor kidneys(DDK), remains unclear. Two open-needle biopsies, taken at preimplantation and after reperfusion, were obtained from 17 LDK and 28 DDK transplanted between 2005 and 2008. Paraffin-embedded sections were immunohistochemically stained with anti-fibrinogen antibody. Fibrin deposition intensity in peritubular capillaries(PTC) and glomeruli was categorized as negative, weak, moderate or strong and the number of microthrombi/mm2 was quantified. Reperfusion biopsies showed more fibrin deposition (20% to 100% moderate/strong, p < 0.001) and more microthrombi/mm2 (0.97 ± 1.12 vs. 0.28 ± 0.53, p < 0.01) than preimplantation biopsies. In addition, more microthrombi/mm2 (0.38 ± 0.61 vs. 0.09 ± 0.22, p = 0.02) and stronger fibrin intensity in glomeruli (28% vs. 0%, p < 0.01) and PTC (14% vs. 0%, p = 0.02) were observed in preimplantation DDK than LDK biopsies. After reperfusion, microthrombi/mm2 were comparable (p = 0.23) for LDK (0.09 ± 0.22 to 0.76 ± 0.49, p = 0.03) and DDK (0.38 ± 0.61 to 0.90 ± 1.11, p = 0.07). Upon reperfusion, there is an aggravation of microthrombus formation and fibrin deposition within the graft. The prominent increase of microthrombi in LDK indicates that they are not merely donor-derived.

The impact of measuring split kidney function on post-donation kidney function: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Studies have reported agreement between computed tomography (CT) and renography for the determination of split kidney function. However, their correlation with post-donation kidney function remains unclear. We compared CT measurements with renography in assessment of split kidney function (SKF) and their correlations with post-donation kidney function. METHODS: A single-centre, retrospective cohort study of 248 donors from January 1, 2009-July 31, 2019 were assessed. Pearson correlations were used to assess post-donation kidney function with renography and CT-based measurements. Furthermore, we examined high risk groups with SKF difference greater than 10% on renography and donors with post-donation eGFR less than 60 mL/min/1.73m2. RESULTS: 62% of donors were women with a mean (standard deviation) pre-donation eGFR 99 (20) and post-donation eGFR 67 (22) mL/min/1.73m2 at 31 months of follow-up. Post-donation kidney function was poorly correlated with both CT-based measurements and renography, including the subgroup of donors with post-donation eGFR less than 60 mL/min/1.73m2 (r less than 0.4 for all). There was agreement between CT-based measurements and renography for SKF determination (Bland-Altman agreement [bias, 95% limits of agreement] for renography vs: CT volume, 0.76%, -7.60-9.15%; modified ellipsoid,1.01%, -8.38-10.42%; CC dimension, 0.44%, -7.06-7.94); however, CT missed SKF greater than 10% found by renography in 20 out 26 (77%) of donors. CONCLUSIONS: In a single centre study of 248 living donors, we found no correlation between CT or renography and post-donation eGFR. Further research is needed to determine optimal ways to predict remaining kidney function after donation.

Visceral adiposity as a risk factor for lean non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in potential living liver donors.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between hepatic steatosis (HS) evaluated by biopsy and visceral adiposity assessed by computed tomography in lean living liver donor candidates and to determine the risk factors for lean non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). METHODS: This retrospective study included 250 lean (body mass index, < 23 kg/m2 ) potential living liver donors (mean age, 31.1 ± 8.6 years; 141 men) who had undergone liver biopsy and abdominal computed tomography between 2017 and 2018. Anthropometry, laboratory parameters, body composition, and the degree of HS were evaluated. Logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of lean NAFLD. RESULTS: The visceral fat area (VFA) was significantly correlated with the degree of HS in men (r = 0.408; P < 0.001) and women (r = 0.360; P < 0.001). The subcutaneous fat area was significantly correlated with the degree of HS in men (r = 0.398; P < 0.001), but not in women. The skeletal muscle area did not correlate with the degree of HS in either men or women. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, the VFA (odds ratio [OR], 1.028; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.013-1.044; P < 0.001) and subcutaneous fat area (OR, 1.016; 95% CI, 1.004-1.028; P = 0.009) were independent risk factors for lean NAFLD in men, and the VFA (OR, 1.036; 95% CI, 1.013-1.059; P = 0.002) was an independent risk factor for lean NAFLD in women. CONCLUSIONS: The severity of non-alcoholic fatty liver was positively correlated with visceral fat accumulation in a lean Asian population. Visceral adiposity may be a risk factor for lean NAFLD in potential living liver donors.

Why are there so many liver transplants from living donors in Asia and so few in Europe and the US?

Acceptance of liver transplantation (LT) as an established treatment modality for end-stage liver disease has led to an exponential increase in the demand for organs, resulting in an ever-increasing gap between the availability of organs and the number of sick patients waiting for them. Interestingly, influenced by cultural, socio-economic and other constraints, the West and the East have attempted to address this problem of shortage in different ways. Living donor LT (LDLT) became polarised to the East with over 90% of LT in this region being LDLT. On the other hand, the West chose to concentrate their efforts on optimising the use of cadaveric livers with techniques such as split LT, or by using extended criteria donors (including donation after cardiac death donors) and machine perfusion devices etc. Consequently, LDLT did not find the widespread acceptance it did in the East and hence over 90% of all LT are DDLT in this region. We review each regions' perspective and attempt to provide a globally viable roadmap to bridge the widening gap between the demand and availability of livers for LT.

Postoperative incision scars and cosmetic satisfaction of living liver donors.

ABSTRACT: Cosmetic appearance is a major concern for living donors. However, little is known about the impact of a surgical scar on body image changes in living liver donors. The aim of this study was to identify potential factors that cause displeasing upper midline incision scar, and to evaluate the overall satisfaction regarding body image and scarring after living donor hepatectomy.Donors who underwent right lobe hepatectomy were recruited. Exclusion criteria included reoperation, refusal to participate, and lost follow-up. All donors were invited to complete the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and the body image questionnaire. According to the VSS results of upper midline incision scar, donors were divided into 2 groups: good scarring group (VSS ≤4) and bad scarring group (VSS >4). we compared the clinical outcomes, including the demographics, preoperation, intraoperation, and postoperation variables. The study also analyzed the results of the body image questionnaire.The proportion of male donors was 48.9%. The bad scarring group consisted of 63% of the donors. On multivariate analysis, being a male donor was found to be an independent predictor of a cosmetically displeasing upper midline incision scar with statistical significance. The results of body image questionnaires, there were significant differences in cosmetic score and confidence score among the 2 groups.The upper midline incision and male donors have higher rates of scarring in comparison with the transverse incision and female donors. Donors who reported having a higher satisfaction with their scar appearance usually had more self-confidence. However, the body image won't be affected. Medical staff should encourage donors to take active participation in wound care and continuously observe the impact of surgical scars on psychological changes in living liver donors.

Long-term mortality of living kidney donors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To date, several studies have reported inconsistent findings regarding the mortality risk faced by living kidney donors and controls. Our study assessed the methodological quality of previous studies and performed an updated meta-analysis of the mortality risk. METHODS: Comprehensive literature searches were conducted involving the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases through September 2020. The search terms used included 'living donor' and 'kidney transplantation' and 'kidney donor' and 'mortality' or 'death' or 'survival'. We evaluated the risk of bias in such studies using ROBINS-I tool. Mortality risk was analyzed using OR and HR. RESULTS: The qualitative review involved 18 studies and the meta-analysis included nine studies. We identified 3 studies with an overall risk of bias rated as "Low", 2 studies rated as "Moderate", 8 studies rated as "Serious", and 5 studies rated as "Critical". The pooled overall mortality risk in the meta-analysis was 0.984 (95% CI: 0.743, 1.302). In the subgroup analysis of HR and OR, the summary effect estimates did not reach statistical significance. The meta-regression analysis revealed that the donor group of more than 60,000 (1.836, 95% CI: 0.371, 6.410) carried a significantly high mortality risk compared with the donor group of less than 60,000 (0.810, 95% CI: 0.604, 1.086) (P = 0.007). The number of total patients was associated with slightly elevated mortality risks (0.796 for < 10,000, 0.809 for 10,000-60,000, and 1.852 for > 60,000; P < .054). CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence based on this systematic review suggests that the methodology of previous studies was inconsistent and also carried a high risk in several aspects. Updated meta-analysis showed that the mortality risk was not significantly different. Future studies with well-designed methodology are necessary.