Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Kidney paired donation (KPD) offers the best transplant option for patients with incompatible live kidney donors. Although studies suggest substantial expansion of the donor pool if fully used, few patients in the United States have undergone KPD. METHODS: We analyzed the 209 KPD and 89 list paired donation (LPD) transplants reported to United Network for Organ Sharing to better understand access to these modalities, clinical outcomes, and areas of potential expansion. RESULTS: Although many centers offer KPD/LPD, most centers have performed no more than a handful of transplants. As expected, outcomes with KPD/LPD were equivalent to direct donation matched controls. In analyzing current practice, we identified two limitations to KPD in its current use. First, KPD is likely limited now by benefiting mostly patients who are easy to identify and match (such as A donors with B recipients or B donors with A recipients). Second, although some expansion of local KPD availability has reduced travel requirements for patients in those areas, significant room for growth remains. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that full utilization of KPD would encourage registration of and improve matching for patients who are more difficult to identify and match (such as highly sensitized recipients). Furthermore, expansion of KPD would likely reduce travel requirements and thereby improve access to this treatment modality.

A deceased donor (DD) allocation system incorporating net life survival benefit has been proposed. In this system, many kidneys will be shifted to younger recipients, thereby decreasing their waiting times. The goal of this study was to determine the potential effects of altering waiting times on the likelihood of live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). We analyzed 93,727 waiting list candidates to determine the association of various patient factors with likelihood of LDKT. The proportion of patients receiving LDKT was compared by the median DD waiting time at that patient's transplant center for someone of that patient's age category and race. LDKT was consistently higher as waiting times became longer. After adjusting for all other factors associated with likelihood of LDKT, waiting time remained a significant, independent predictor. Patients with the longest DD waiting times had 2.3-fold higher odds of LDKT (95% CI 2.11-2.58, p < 0.001). In planning the new DD allocation policy, we must account for resulting alterations in LDKT. It is possible that shifting DD kidneys to younger recipients may decrease LDKT or shift it to older recipients, net effects not consistent with the goal of net life survival benefit.

In kidney paired donation (KPD), incompatible pairs exchange kidneys so that each recipient receives a compatible organ. This modality is underutilized partly because of the difficulty of finding a suitable match among incompatible pairs. Alternatively, recipients with compatible donors might enter KPD arrangements in order to be matched with a donor predicted to give greater allograft durability or for other altruistic reasons. Using simulated donors and recipients, we investigated the impact of allowing recipients and their compatible donors to participate in KPD. For KPD programs of any size, the participation of compatible donor/recipient pairs nearly doubled the match rate for incompatible pairs (28.2% to 64.5% for single-center program, 37.4% to 75.4% for national program). Legal, logistical, and governmental controversies have hampered the expansion of KPD in the United States by delaying the creation of a national program. The inclusion of compatible pairs into small single-center pools could achieve match rates that would surpass that which could be realized by a national list made up of only incompatible pairs. This new paradigm of KPD can immediately be instituted at the single-center level, while the greatest gains will be achieved by incorporating compatible pairs into a national program.

One of the greatest obstacles to the implementation of regional or national kidney paired donation programs (KPD) is the need for the donor to travel to their matched recipient's hospital. While transport of the kidney is an attractive alternative, there is concern that prolonged cold ischemia time (CIT) would diminish the benefits of live donor transplantation (LDTx). To examine the impact of increased CIT in LDTx, 1-year serum creatinine (SCr), delayed graft function (DGF), acute rejection (AR) and allograft survival (AS) were analyzed in 38 467 patients by 2 h CIT groups (0-2, 2-4, 4-6 and 6-8 h) using data from the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (UNOS/OPTN). Adjusted probabilities of DGF and AR were estimated in multivariate logistic regression models and AS was examined in multivariate Cox proportional hazards models. Although some increase in DGF was observed between the 0-2 h (4.7%) and 4-6 h (8.3%) groups, prolonged CIT did not result in inferior SCr, increased AR or compromised AS in any group with >2 h CIT compared with the 0-2 h group. Comparable long-term outcomes for these grafts suggests that transport of live donor organs may be a feasible alternative to donor travel in KPD regions where CIT can be limited to 8 h.

Purpose of review. The aim of this article is to review all publications regarding kidney paired donation published over the past 2 years and in doing so provide an evaluation of the current state of development of the field. Recent findings. A few large multicenter paired donation consortia have been developed, and using computer-based matching algorithms have entered significant numbers of donor-recipient pairs (although no program to date has conducted computer match runs with over 75donor-recipient pairs). In addition, significant progress has been made in developing innovative matching strategies and in modeling potential results of paired donation programs. Despite these advances, these programs have only scratched the surface of the estimated potential of paired donation programs to increase living kidney donation. The greatest effects on increasing volume can be made by increasing donor/recipient identification and enrolment. Summary. Significant advances have been made in clinical experience and technological development of paired donation programs. Technical advances have occurred, however, at a more rapid pace than clinical advances in paired donation. Significant work with respect to ethical and educational foundations needs to be accomplished to close this gap.