Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:To gather information on long-term outcomes after living donation, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) conducted a pilot on the feasibility of establishing a comprehensive donor candidate registry. METHODS:A convenience sample of 6 US living liver donor programs evaluated 398 consecutive donor candidates in 2018, ending with the March 12, 2020, COVID-19 emergency. RESULTS:For 333/398 (83.7%), the donor or program decided whether to donate; 166/333 (49.8%) were approved, and 167/333 (50.2%) were not or opted out. Approval rates varied by program, from 27.0% to 63.3% (median, 46%; intraquartile range, 37.3-51.1%). Of those approved, 90.4% were white, 57.2% were women, 83.1% were < 50 years, and 85.5% had more than a high school education. Of 167 candidates, 131 (78.4%) were not approved or opted out because of: medical risk (10.7%); chronic liver disease risk (11.5%); psychosocial reasons (5.3%); candidate declined (6.1%); anatomical reasons increasing recipient risk (26.0%); recipient-related reasons (33.6%); finances (1.5%); or other (5.3%). CONCLUSIONS:A comprehensive national registry is feasible and necessary to better understand candidate selection and long-term outcomes. As a result, the US Health Resources and Services Administration asked SRTR to expand the pilot to include all US living donor programs.

Allografts from living kidney donors with hypertension may carry subclinical kidney disease from the donor to the recipient and, thus, lead to adverse recipient outcomes. We examined eGFR trajectories and all-cause allograft failure in recipients from donors with versus without hypertension, using mixed-linear and Cox regression models stratified by donor age. We studied a US cohort from 1/1/2005 to 6/30/2017; 49 990 recipients of allografts from younger (<50 years old) donors including 597 with donor hypertension and 21 130 recipients of allografts from older (≥50 years old) donors including 1441 with donor hypertension. Donor hypertension was defined as documented predonation use of antihypertensive therapy. Among recipients from younger donors with versus without hypertension, the annual eGFR decline was -1.03 versus -0.53 ml/min/m² (P = 0.002); 13-year allograft survival was 49.7% vs. 59.0% (adjusted allograft failure hazard ratio [aHR] 1.23; 95% CI 1.05-1.43; P = 0.009). Among recipients from older donors with versus without hypertension, the annual eGFR decline was -0.67 versus -0.66 ml/min/m² (P = 0.9); 13-year allograft survival was 48.6% versus 52.6% (aHR 1.05; 95% CI 0.94-1.17; P = 0.4). In secondary analyses, our inferences remained similar for risk of death-censored allograft failure and mortality. Hypertension in younger, but not older, living kidney donors is associated with worse recipient outcomes.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Gaps in our knowledge of long-term outcomes affect decision making for potential living kidney donors. Methods/UNASSIGNED:The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was asked to determine the feasibility of a candidate registry. Results/UNASSIGNED:Ten living kidney donor programs evaluated 2107 consecutive kidney donor candidates; 2099 of 2107 (99.6%) completed evaluations, 1578 of 2099 (75.2%) had a decision, and 790 of 1578 (50.1%) were approved to donate as of March 12, 2020. By logistic regression, candidates most likely to be approved were married or had attended college or technical school; those least likely to be approved had ≥1 of the following characteristics: Black race, history of cigarette smoking, and higher blood pressure, higher triglycerides, or higher urine albumin-to-creatinine ratios. Reasons for 617 candidates not being approved included medical issues other than chronic kidney disease risk (25.3%), chronic kidney disease risk (18.5%), candidate withdrawal (15.2%), recipient reason (13.6%), anatomical risk to the recipient (10.3%), noneconomic psychosocial (10.3%), economic (0.5%), and other reasons (6.4%). Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:These results suggest that a comprehensive living donor registry is both feasible and necessary to assess long-term outcomes that may inform decision making for future living donor candidates. There may be socioeconomic barriers to donation that require more granular identification so that active measures can address inequities. Some candidates who did not donate may be suitable controls for discerning the appropriateness of acceptance decisions and the long-term outcomes attributable to donation. We anticipate that these issues will be better identified with modifications to the data collection and expansion of the registry to all centers over the next several years.

The framework currently used for living kidney donor selection is based on estimation of acceptable donor risk, under the premise that benefits are only experienced by the recipient. However, some interdependent donors might experience tangible benefits from donation that cannot be considered in the current framework (ie, benefits experienced directly by the donor that improve their daily life, well-being, or livelihood).

The first sustained increase in live kidney donation in the United States in 15 years was observed from 2017 to 2019. To help sustain this surge, we studied 35 900 donors (70.3% white, 14.5% Hispanic, 9.3% black, 4.4% Asian) to understand the increase in 2017-2019 vs 2014-2016 using Poisson regression. Among biologically related donors aged <35, 35-49, and ≥50 years, the number of donors did not change across race/ethnicity but increased by 38% and 29% for Hispanic and black ≥50. Among unrelated donors <35, 35-49, and ≥50, white donors increased by 18%, 14%, and 27%; Hispanic donors <35 did not change but increased by 22% and 35% for 35-49 and ≥50; black donors <35 declined by 23% and did not change for 35-49 and ≥50; Asian donors did not change. Among kidney paired donors <35, 35-49, and ≥50, white donors increased by 42%, 50%, and 68%; Hispanic donors <35 and 35-49 increased by 36% and 55% and did not change for ≥50; black donors did not change; Asian donors <35 did not change but increased by 107% and 82% for 35-49 and ≥50. The increase in donation was driven predominantly by unrelated and paired white donors. Donation among unrelated black individuals should be promoted.