Why Altruistic Organ Donations Are Not Meeting Demands.

Solid-organ transplantation remains the optimal therapeutic option for end-stage organ disease. Altruistic donation represents the ultimate sign of generosity and the most important gift of life. Currently, <10% of the global needs for transplant are fulfilled. Organ shortages result from an inability to provide an adequate organ supply to match demands. The recently observed stagnation in living kidney donations in the United States is related to a drop in all types of organ donations from living related donors, which has been paralleled with a steady and continuous increase in all living unrelated donations. Some forms of living unrelated donation represent a financially driven survival system within which wealthy recipients exploit poor donors. Low rates of altruistic donation are related to cultural barriers, religious obstacles, fear, and consequent distrust in the system. The low rate indicates a state of lack of societal solidarity, a consequence of the state of subconsciousness at the individual and collective levels that humanity is living in. Human domestication, the conditioning process that humans go through since birth and the primary facilitator of this subconscious state, is guarded through familial, social, cultural, religious, political, and mass media organizations, which are all under the influence of the monetary establishment. Acquired beliefs, mainly during the domestication process, influence our perception of the environment, our values, and ultimately our way of life. Unfortunately, this conditioning process is negatively enforced, leading to a stressful state. The powerful subconscious mind places humans in a permanent survival mode, resulting in loss of intelligence, indispensable for well-being and happiness. Altruistic donation requires a close cooperation between all parties involved in the donation process and necessitates a positive reprograming of our subconscious based on sharing, generosity, satisfaction, gratitude, trust, inner peace, and ultimately happiness, well-known constituents of unconditional love, which represents the peak of consciousness.

Organ Donation in Syria.

The first living donor kidney transplant in Syria was performed 44 years ago; by the end of 2022, 6265 renal transplants had been performed in Syria. Kidney, bone marrow, cornea, and stem cells are the only organs or tissues that can be transplanted in Syria. Although 3 heart transplants from deceased donors were performed in the late 1980s, cardiac transplant activities have since discontinued. In 2003, national Syrian legislation was enacted authorizing the use of organs from living unrelated and deceased donors. This important law was preceded by another big stride: the acceptance by the higher Islamic religious authorities in Syria in 2001 of the principle of procurement of organs from deceased donors, provided that consent is given by a first- or second-degree relative. After the law was enacted, kidney transplant rates increased from 7 per million population in 2002 to 17 per million population in 2007. Kidney transplants performed abroad for Syrian patients declined from 25% in 2002 to <2% in 2007. Rates plateaued through 2010, before the political crisis started in 2011. Forty-four years after the first successful kidney transplant in Syria, patients needing an organ transplant rely on living donors only. Moreover, 20 years after the law authorizing use of organs from deceased donors, a program is still not in place in Syria. The war, limited resources, and lack of public awareness about the importance of organ donation and transplant appear to be factors inhibiting initiation of a deceased donor program in Syria. A concerted and ongoing education campaign is needed to increase awareness of organ donation, change negative public attitudes, and gain societal acceptance. Every effort must be made to initiate a deceased donor program to lessen the burden on living donors and to enable national self-sufficiency in organs for transplant.

Impact of delayed listing after initiating kidney transplant evaluation on transplant outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Longer end-stage renal disease time has been associated with inferior kidney transplant outcomes. However, the contribution of transplant evaluation is uncertain. We explored the relationship between time from evaluation to listing (ELT) and transplant outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective study included 2535 adult kidney transplants from 2000 to 2015. Kaplan-Meier survival curves, log-rank tests, and Cox regression models were used to compare transplant outcomes. RESULTS: Patient survival for both deceased donor (DD) recipients (p < .001) and living donor (LD) recipients (p < .0001) was significantly higher when ELT was less than 3 months. The risks of ELT appeared to be mediated by other risks in DD recipients, as adjusted models showed no associated risk of graft loss or death in DD recipients. For LD recipients, ELT remained a risk factor for patient death after covariate adjustment. Each month of ELT was associated with an increased risk of death (HR = 1.021, p = .04) but not graft loss in LD recipients in adjusted models. CONCLUSIONS: Kidney transplant recipients with longer ELT times had higher rates of death after transplant, and ELT was independently associated with an increased risk of death for LD recipients. Investigations on the impact of pretransplant evaluation on post-transplant outcomes can inform transplant policy and practice.

Expanding the access to kidney transplantation: Strategies for kidney transplant programs.

Kidney transplantation is the most successful kidney replacement therapy available, resulting in improved recipient survival and societal cost savings. Yet, nearly 70 years after the first successful kidney transplant, there are still numerous barriers and untapped opportunities that constrain the access to transplant. The literature describing these barriers is extensive, but the practices and processes to solve them are less clear. Solutions must be multidisciplinary and be the product of strong partnerships among patients, their networks, health care providers, and transplant programs. Transparency in the referral, evaluation, and listing process as well as organ selection are paramount to build such partnerships. Providing early culturally congruent and patient-centered education as well as maximizing the use of local resources to facilitate the transplant work up should be prioritized. Every opportunity to facilitate pre-emptive kidney transplantation and living donation must be taken. Promoting the use of telemedicine and kidney paired donation as standards of care can positively impact the work up completion and maximize the chances of a living donor kidney transplant.

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.

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)

[Organ donations in Algeria: restrictions and perspectives]. / Le don d´organes en Algérie: limites et perspectives.

The purpose of this study is to highlight the need and the obligation to combine living donation with deceased one, this later is an incomparable source of organ donation, a plea with a triple objective: 1) analyzing the contribution of living donations in terms of numbers, through two elements: the degree of involvement of our medico-surgical competencies and our regulations governing organ donations. 2) Showing that, even though optimized, living donations will always fall short of the needs of our patients and are only part of the solution. 3) The other part is deceased donors: a source of donation which can not be substituted by that of the living donors, and which concerns patients awaiting a vital organ with no possibility of another substitute treatment. Patients are sentenced to death if not transplanted in a few weeks. In this respect, only professionalism and full staff availability can rid us of prejudices which unjustly and systematically overwhelm our society with regard to this type of life-saving donations. In countries promoting and performing this source of donation, a national priority planning network has been developed. This program ensures reliable results, based on universal standards for ethics, recruitment, training and organization. For health authorities of these same countries, the sharing of these organs with others countries is irrational and unreasonable. As long as these organs remain the only life-saving for this type of seriously ill patients, and this source of grafts will be insufficient to meet the needs of all their patients.

Native lung complications after living-donor lobar lung transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Living-donor lobar lung transplantation (LDLLT) is viable for critically ill patients in situations of donor shortage. Because it is sometimes difficult to find 2 ideal living donors with suitable graft sizes, we developed native lung-sparing procedures, including single LDLLT and native upper lobe-sparing LDLLT. This study aimed to investigate native lung complications (NLCs) in native lung-sparing LDLLT. METHODS: Between April 2002 and March 2019, 92 LDLLTs and 124 cadaveric lung transplantations (CLTs) were performed at the Kyoto University Hospital. Our prospectively maintained database and clinical records were reviewed to compare NLCs among recipients who underwent native lung-sparing LDLLT (n = 21) with those among recipients who underwent single CLT (n = 61). RESULTS: Among 21 recipients who underwent native lung-sparing LDLLT, 11 NLCs occurred in 8 recipients. No fatal NLC was noted; however, 2 required surgical intervention. Post-transplant survival was not significantly different between native lung-sparing LDLLT recipients with NLCs and those without NLCs. The incidence of NLCs was comparable between native lung-sparing LDLLT recipients and single CLT recipients (8/21 vs 26/61, p = 0.80); however, NLCs occurred significantly later in LDLLT recipients than in CLT recipients (median: 665 vs 181.5 days after transplantation, p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: NLCs after native lung-sparing LDLLT had favorable outcomes. Therefore, native lung-sparing LDLLT is a useful treatment option for severely ill patients who cannot wait for CLT. However, it is important to recognize that NLCs may occur later in LDLLT than in CLT.

Temporal trends in living kidney donation in France between 2007 and 2017.

BACKGROUND: Long-term studies have demonstrated a slight increased risk for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) for living kidney donors (LKD). In France, living kidney donation doubled within the past 10 years. We investigated the change in characteristics of LKD between 2007 and 2017 and the adequacy of follow-up. METHODS: Data were obtained from the national registry for LKD. We compared characteristics of LKD between two study periods: 2007-11 and 2012-17, and stratified donors by age and relation to recipient. We aggregated four characteristics associated with higher ESRD risk [young age, first-degree relation to recipient, obesity, low glomerular filtration rate (GFR) for age] in a single risk indicator ranging from 0 to 4. RESULTS: We included 3483 donors. The proportion of unrelated donors >56 years of age increased significantly. The proportion of related donors <56 years of age decreased significantly. The body mass index and proportion of obese donors did not change significantly. The proportion of donors with low estimated GFR for age decreased significantly from 5% to 2.2% (P < 0.001). The proportion of donors with adequate follow-up after donation increased from 19.6% to 42.5% (P < 0.001). No donor had a risk indicator equal to 4, and the proportion of donors with a risk indicator equal to 0 increased significantly from 19.2% to 24.9% (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: An increase in living kidney donation in France does not seem to be associated with the selection of donors at higher risk of ESRD and the proportion of donors with adequate annual follow-up significantly increased.

Robot-assisted kidney transplantation: update from the European Robotic Urology Section (ERUS) series.

OBJECTIVE: To report the results of the robot-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) experience performed in 10 European centres by members of the European Robotic Urology Section (ERUS)-RAKT group. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a multicentre prospective observational study of RAKT. Descriptive analysis of recipients and donor characteristics, surgical data, intraoperative outcomes, complications rate and functional results were collected and analysed. RESULTS: Between July 2015 and September 2019, 291 living-donor RAKTs were performed. Recipients were mostly male (189 [65%]), the mean Standard deviation (sd) age was 45.2 (13.35) years, the mean (sd) body mass index was 27.13 (19.28) kg/m2 , and RAKT was pre-emptive in 155 (53.8%) cases. Right and multiple arteries kidneys were used in 15.4%. The mean (sd) total surgical and re-warming time was 244 (70.5) min and 53.16 (15.27) min, respectively. In all, 17 patients presented with postoperative bleeding (5.7%). Five kidneys had delayed graft function; five (2%) were lost due to thrombosis and one due to acute rejection. Two patients had arterial stenosis, three had incisional hernias, six had ureteric stenosis, and nine had lymphoceles. Neither surgical nor re-warming times were correlated with postoperative serum creatinine levels (P > 0.05). Comparison of surgical data between the first 120 cases and the following 171 cases showed a significantly shorter total surgical time in the second group (265 vs 230 min, P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest European multicentre study of RAKT with good surgical and functional results competitive with open kidney transplant series, with a relatively short learning curve when performed in centres with a wide experience in open kidney transplantation and robotic surgery.

Live Donor Liver Transplantation in the United States: Impact of Share 35 on Live Donor Utilization.

BACKGROUND: Share 35 was a policy implemented in 2013 to increase regional sharing of deceased donor livers to patients with model for end-stage liver disease ≥ 35 to decrease waitlist mortality for the sickest patients awaiting liver transplantation (LT). The purpose of this study was to determine whether live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) volume was impacted by the shift in allocation of deceased donor livers to patients with higher model for end-stage liver disease scores. METHODS: Using Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Standard Transplant Analysis and Research files, we identified all adults who received a primary LT between October 1, 2008, and March 31, 2018. LT from October 1, 2008, through June 30, 2013, was designated as the pre-Share 35 era and July 1, 2013, through March 31, 2018, as the post-Share 35 era. Primary outcomes included transplant volumes, graft survival, and patient survival in both eras. RESULTS: In total, 48 779 primary adult single-organ LT occurred during the study period (22 255 pre-Share 35, 26 524 post). LDLT increased significantly (6.8% post versus 5.7% pre, P < 0.001). LDLT volume varied significantly by region (P < 0.001) with regions 2, 4, 5, and 8 demonstrating significant increases in LDLT volume post-Share 35. The number of centers performing LDLT increased only in regions 4, 6, and 11. Throughout the 2 eras, there was no difference in graft or patient survival for LDLT recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, LDLT volume increased following the implementation of Share 35, which was largely due to increased LDLT volume at centers with experience in LDLT, and corresponded to significant geographic variation in LDLT utilization.

UK national study of barriers to renal transplantation in children.

AIMS: To investigate access to paediatric renal transplantation and examine potential barriers within the process. METHODS: Cross-sectional, multicentre, observational study where paediatric nephrology centres in the UK were requested to provide data on transplantation plans for all children (<18 years) with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). RESULTS: 308 children with ESKD were included in this study from 12 out of 13 UK paediatric nephrology centres. 139 (45%) were being prepared for living donor transplantation and 82 (27%) were listed for deceased donor transplantation. The most common cited factors delaying transplantation from occurring in children were disease factors (36%), donor availability (27%) and size of the child (20%). Psychosocial factors were listed as a barrier in 19% of children. CONCLUSIONS: In this study we have documented the main barriers to renal transplantation in children. Some identified factors may be modifiable through local or national intervention, including donor availability and patient psychosocial factors.

Development and validation of a risk score for the prediction of cardiovascular disease in living donor kidney transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major cause of death in kidney transplant (KT) recipients. To improve their long-term survival, it is clinically important to estimate the risk of CVD after living donor KT via adequate pre-transplant CVD screening. METHODS: A derivation cohort containing 331 KT recipients underwent living donor KT at Kyushu University Hospital from January 2006 to December 2012. A prediction model was retrospectively developed and risk scores were investigated via a Cox proportional hazards regression model. The discrimination and calibration capacities of the prediction model were estimated via the c-statistic and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test. External validation was estimated via the same statistical methods by applying the model to a validation cohort of 300 KT recipients who underwent living donor KT at Tokyo Women's Medical University Hospital. RESULTS: In the derivation cohort, 28 patients (8.5%) had CVD events during the observation period. Recipient age, CVD history, diabetic nephropathy, dialysis vintage, serum albumin and proteinuria at 12 months after KT were significant predictors of CVD. A prediction model consisting of integer risk scores demonstrated good discrimination (c-statistic 0.88) and goodness of fit (Hosmer-Lemeshow test P = 0.18). In a validation cohort, the model demonstrated moderate discrimination (c-statistic 0.77) and goodness of fit (Hosmer-Lemeshow test P = 0.15), suggesting external validity. CONCLUSIONS: The above-described simple model for predicting CVD after living donor KT was accurate and useful in clinical situations.