Search

Introduction: While living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) serves as the predominant method of adult liver transplant (LT) in the Republic of Korea (ROK), it represents a minority of LT in the United States (US). A survey was conducted to gain insight into these nations' anesthetic management., Methods: An electronic questionnaire was distributed to directors of LT anesthesiology overseeing LDLT programs in both countries between May 2021 and October 2021., Results: The response rate was 93.0% (100% [37/37] in the US and 80% [16/20] in the ROK). Both countries mainly adhered to deceased donor LT recipient management practices, including the frequency of routine pulmonary artery catheter use, transesophageal echocardiography, and point-of-care coagulation monitoring. Differences were observed in early extubation of recipients (US vs. ROK: 39.7% vs. 14.7% of all cases), participation in donor selection meetings (88.9% [32/36] vs. 6.3% [1/16], p < 0.0001), application of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery donor protocol (69.4% [25/36] vs. 12.5% [2/16], p < 0.0001), and cell saver usage for donors (94.4% [34/36] vs. 18.8% [3/16], p < 0.0001). More ROK programs implemented simultaneous donor/recipient anesthesia supervision by a single anesthesiologist., Conclusions: Several important differences were identified between the US and the ROK in adult LDLT anesthetic management., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Living liver donation improves survival of end-stage liver disease (ESLD) patients. Yet, it continues to represent a small proportion of United States (U.S.) liver transplantation with existing racial disparities. We investigated the interplay of donor-recipient relationship and donor race to understand donor subgroups with no significant increase., Methods: We studied 4407 living liver donors in the U.S. from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2022 (median age = 36 years, and 59% were biologically related to the recipient). We quantified the change in the number of donors per 3-year increment using negative binomial regression (incidence rate ratio [IRR]), stratified by donor-recipient relationship and race/ethnicity., Results: Among biologically related donors, the observed annual number of White donors increased from 146 to 253, Hispanic donors from 18 to 53, and Black donors decreased from 11 to 10. Among unrelated donors, White donors increased from 65 to 221, Hispanic donors from 4 to 25, and Black donors from 3 to 11. For the IRR of biologically related donors aged <40 and ≥40 years, White donors increased by 18% and 22%; Hispanic donors increased by 25% and 54%; and Black donors did not change. Likewise, the IRR of unrelated donors aged <40 and ≥40 years, White donors increased by 48% and 55%; Hispanic donors increased by 52% and 65%; and Black donors did not change., Conclusions: While biologically related donors represent the majority of donors, unrelated donors have substantially risen in recent years, primarily driven by White donors. Although the rate of unrelated donations increased among Hispanic donors, the absolute number remains very small (≤25 donors/year). Interventions are needed to increase education among Hispanic and Black communities to grow unrelated living liver donations across race/ethnicity., (© 2024 The Author(s). Clinical Transplantation published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

In the United States, the discrepancy between organ availability and need has persisted despite changes in allocation, innovations in preservation, and policy initiatives. Living donor liver transplant remains an underutilized means of improving access to timely liver transplantation and decreasing waitlist mortality. Liver paired exchange (LPE) represents an opportunity to overcome living donor liver transplant pair incompatibility due to size, anatomy, or blood type. LPE was adopted as a strategy to augment access to liver transplantation at our institution. Specific educational materials, consent forms, and selection processes were developed to facilitate LPE. From 2019 through October 2023, our center performed 11 LPEs, resulting in 23 living donor liver transplant pairs. The series included several types of LPE: those combining complementary incompatible pairs, the inclusion of compatible pairs to overcome incompatibility, and the use of altruistic nondirected donors to initiate chains. These exchanges facilitated transplantation for 23 recipients, including 1 pediatric patient. LPE improved access to liver transplantation at our institution. The ethical application of LPE includes tailored patient education, assessment and disclosure of exchange balance, mitigation of risk, and maximization of benefit for donors and recipients., (Copyright © 2024 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

A significant portion of liver transplantations in many countries is conducted via living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT). However, numerous potential donors are unable to donate to their intended recipients due to factors such as blood type incompatibility or size incompatibility. Despite this, an incompatible donor for one recipient may still be a viable donor for another patient. In recent decades, several transplant centers have introduced liver paired exchange (LPE) programs, facilitating donor exchanges between patients and their incompatible donors, thereby enabling compatible transplants. Initially, LPE programs in Asia primarily involved ABO-i pairs, resulting in 2-way exchanges mainly between blood type A and B recipients and donors. This practice has led to a modest 1% to 2% increase in LDLTs at some centers. Incorporating size incompatibility alongside blood type incompatibility further enhances the efficacy and significance of multiple-pair LPEs. Launched in July 2022, a single-center LPE program established at Inonu University Liver Transplant Institute in Malatya, Türkiye, has conducted thirteen 2-way, nine 3-way, four 4-way, two 5-way, and one 6-way LPEs until February 2024. In 2023 alone, this program facilitated 64 LDLTs, constituting 27.7% of the total 231 LDLTs performed. This paper presents the world's first two 5-way LPEs and the first 6-way LPE., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors of this manuscript have no conflicts of interest to disclose as described by the American Journal of Transplantation., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The evaluation of living kidney donor candidates is a complex and lengthy process. Donor candidates face geographic and socioeconomic barriers to completing donor evaluation. Inequities in access to living donations persist. With a growing demand for kidney transplants and a shortage of living donors, transplant centers are more permissive of accepting less-than-ideal donor candidates. Donors have an increased lifetime risk of kidney failure, but the absolute risk increase is small. Efforts are needed to support donor candidates to complete donor nephrectomy safely and efficiently and receive optimal follow-up care to prevent risk factors for kidney disease and detect complications early. In this article, the authors address key elements of donor kidney evaluation, including current living donation policy requirements and transplant center practices. The authors present a simplified comprehensive practical approach to help guide providers in completing donor evaluation and follow-up care with best outcomes possible., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Racial disparities in pediatric kidney transplantation have been well described over the last two decades and include disparities in preemptive transplantation, waitlisting, time from activation to transplantation, living donation, and graft outcomes. Changes to the organ allocation system including the institution of Share 35 in 2005 and the Kidney Allocation System (KAS) of 2014 have resulted in resolution of some, but not all racial-ethnic disparities. Despite overall improvements in time from waitlist activation to transplant, disparities remain in preemptive transplantation, time to waitlisting, and living donor transplantation. Although improving under the KAS, racial disparities remain in graft survival as well. Racial disparity in kidney transplant access and graft survival is an international problem within pediatric nephrology. Although the racial group affected may differ, various minoritized pediatric groups across the world are affected by transplant disparities. Social determinants of health including financial access, language barriers, and the presence of a healthy living donor play a role in mediating these disparities. Further investigation is needed to better understand and intervene upon modifiable social, biological, and cultural factors driving the remaining disparity in transplant outcomes., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to International Pediatric Nephrology Association.)

Background: Living donor kidney transplantation is the optimal treatment for end-stage kidney disease; however, few living donor candidates (LDCs) who begin evaluation actually donate. While some LDCs are deemed medically ineligible, others discontinue for potentially modifiable reasons., Methods: At five transplant centers, we conducted a prospective cohort study measuring LDCs' clinical and psychosocial characteristics, educational preparation, readiness to donate, and social determinants of health. We followed LDCs for 12 months after evaluation to determine whether they donated a kidney, opted to discontinue, had modifiable reasons for discontinuing, were medically ineligible, or had other recipient-related reasons for discontinuing., Results: Among 2184 LDCs, 18.6% donated, 38.2% opted to or had modifiable reasons for discontinuing, and 43.2% were deemed ineligible due to medical or recipient-related reasons. Multivariable analyses comparing successful LDCs with those who did not complete donation for modifiable reasons (N = 1241) found that LDCs who discussed donation with the recipient before evaluation (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.54-3.46), had completed high school (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.21-3.35), or were a "close relation" to their recipient (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.33-2.69) were more likely to donate. Conversely, LDCs who reported religion as important (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.38-0.80), were Non-White (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49-1.00), or had overall higher anxiety scores (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.99) were less likely to donate., Conclusion: With fewer than a fifth of LDCs donating, developing programs to provide greater emotional support and facilitate open discussions between LDCs and recipients earlier may increase living donation rates., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is one of the most effective treatment options for people with end-stage renal disease. Traditionally, LDKT can be either "directed" or "nondirected," based on whether the recipient is specified by the donor. Recently, there has been an increase in conditional and semidirected live kidney donation among strangers, where the donor specifies the characteristics of the recipient whom they wish to donate to. This practice has both gained popularity and sparked controversy in the state of Israel through the nonprofit organization Matnat Chaim. We analyze the ethical implications of this practice by applying traditional principles of medical ethics to conditional LDKT. Although semidirected and conditional LDKT presents some ethical challenges, overall, its practice effectively aligns with core ethical principles. The donors' right to make stipulations respects the donor's autonomy, the practice avoids harm and benefits both donor and recipient, and justice and utility are upheld as the practice specifically benefits marginalized patients and optimizes resource utilization. Finally, we present data from our institution demonstrating how conditional LDKT increased transplantation for all ethnic groups; Jewish recipients of LDKT increased by 151.32% (P = .034) Arab recipients of LDKT increased by 111.11% (P = .036)., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors of this manuscript have no conflicts of interest to disclose as described by the American Journal of Transplantation., (Copyright © 2024 American Society of Transplantation & American Society of Transplant Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Adults residing in deprived neighborhoods face various socioeconomic stressors, hindering their likelihood of receiving live-donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) and preemptive kidney transplantation (KT). We quantified the association between residential neighborhood deprivation index (NDI) and the likelihood of LDKT/preemptive KT, testing for a differential impact by race and ethnicity., Methods: We studied 403 937 adults (age ≥ 18) KT candidates (national transplant registry; 2006-2021). NDI and its 10 components were averaged at the ZIP-code level. Cause-specific hazards models were used to quantify the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of LDKT and preemptive KT across tertiles of NDI and its 10 components., Results: Candidates residing in high-deprivation neighborhoods were more likely to be female (40.1% vs. 36.2%) and Black (41.9% vs. 17.7%), and were less likely to receive both LDKT (aHR = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64-0.67) and preemptive KT (aHR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.59-0.62) than those in low-deprivation neighborhoods. These associations differedby race and ethnicity (Black: aHR LDKT  = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.55-0.62; aHR preemptive KT  = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.63-0.73; P interactions : LDKT < 0.001; Preemptive KT = 0.002). All deprivation components were associated with the likelihood of both LDKT and preemptive KT (except median home value): for example, higher median household income (LDKT: aHR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.07-1.09; Preemptive KT: aHR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.08-1.11) and educational attainments (≥high school [LDKT: aHR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.15-1.18; Preemptive KT: aHR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.21-1.25])., Conclusion: Residence in socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods is associated with a lower likelihood of LDKT and preemptive KT, differentially impacting minority candidates. Identifying and understanding which neighborhood-level socioeconomic status contributes to these racial disparities can be instrumental in tailoring interventions to achieve health equity in LDKT and preemptive KT., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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., (Copyright © 2023 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

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., (Clinical Transplantation© 2024 The Authors. Clinical Transplantation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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., (© 2024 The Authors. Clinical Transplantation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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.

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.

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., (Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Surgeons. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: The authors declare no funding or conflicts of interest.