Search

There is a shortage of donor livers from deceased persons, which means there is a relatively high mortality rate among patients on the national liver-transplant waiting list in the Netherlands. This justifies expanding the current programme for liver transplants from living donors. The new law on donor organs law came into effect on 1 July 2020. The expectation is that this will lead to a greater supply of post-mortem donor livers. New methods for organ preservation could also lead to an increase in the number of available donor livers. An increase in the supply of donor livers could lead to changes in donor policy. These changes should take into consideration that a liver transplant from a living donor can take place earlier in the course of the disease and that the quality of the donor liver is better, which means that outcomes for the recipient are also better.

Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) following laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is a disregarded topic. In this cross-sectional study, all consecutive patients who underwent an LDN at the Radboud University Medical Center (Radboudumc; 2003-2016) were approached for participation. Five hundred twelve living kidney donors were included and asked to complete two questionnaires, including the McGill Pain Questionnaire and the RAND Short Form-36 Health Status Inventory (RAND SF-36) regarding their health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The mean prevalence of CPSP following LDN was 5.7%, with a mean follow-up time of 6 years. Possible predictors of CPSP following LDN are severe early postoperative pain, previous abdominal surgery, and preexisting backache. The RAND SF-36 revealed an impaired HRQoL in patients with CPSP when compared to patients without CPSP. In conclusion, this study revealed that the prevalence of CPSP following LDN is substantial. Given the possible association between the presence of CPSP and impaired HRQoL scores, living kidney donors should be well informed in the preoperative phase about the risk of CPSP., (© 2019 The Authors American Journal of Transplantation published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Background: Between 2000 and December 2013, 106 live donor nephrectomies from anonymous living-donors were performed at the Erasmus MC Rotterdam; five of the donors (5.4%) had a life-threatening disease. The aim of the present report is to give the rational and justification for this procedure., Methods: All five donors underwent the national standard living-donor screening procedure. Additionally, motivation to donate and psychologic stability were assessed by a psychologist using in-depth interview techniques and a psychologic complaints questionnaire. Post-donor nephrectomy follow-up consisted of standard questionnaires and clinical check-ups., Results: One patient had cerebral and caudal ependymomas, one had severe and progressive emphysema, two had Huntington's disease and one had a grade 2 oligodendroglioma. The psychologic screening revealed genuine motivation, adequate risk perception, and normal sense of reality. No contraindications for donation were found. The five donor nephrectomies made nine kidney transplantations possible. All donors were satisfied with the donation procedure. Three donors died during follow-up (0.6-4.9 years) as a result of their disease., Conclusion: In the absence of apparent additional health risks, medical, and psychologic contraindications, we consider it ethically justified to accept an offer from a cognitively competent patient with a life-threatening disease in view of their self-reported satisfaction during follow-up. Although based on a limited number of patients, we conclude that a stricter psychologic screening for seriously ill donors compared to healthy unspecified anonymous donors to unspecified patients is not necessary.

Background: This article studies multicenter coordination of unspecified living kidney donation and transplantation across the blood-type barrier in kidney exchange. Important questions are whether such coordination should use domino paired donation or non simultaneous extended altruistic donor chains, what the length of the segments in such chains should be, when they should be terminated, and how much time should be allowed between matching rounds. Furthermore, it is controversial whether the different modalities should be coordinated centrally or locally and independently., Methods: Kidney exchange policies are simulated using actual data from the Dutch national kidney exchange program. Sensitivity analysis is performed on the composition of the population, the time unspecified and bridge donors wait before donating to the wait list, the time between matching rounds, and donor renege rates., Results: Central coordination of unspecified donation and transplantation across the blood-type barrier can increase transplants by 10% (PG0.001). Especially highly sensitized and blood type O patients benefit. Sufficient time between matching rounds is essential: three-monthly exchanges result in 31% more transplants than weekly exchanges. Benefits of non simultaneous extended altruistic donor chains are limited in case of low numbers of highly sensitized patients and sufficient unspecified donors. Chains are best terminated when no further segment is part of an optimal exchange within 3 months., Conclusions: There is clear synergy in the central coordination of both unspecified donation and transplantation across the blood-type barrier in kidney exchange. The best configuration of a national program depends on the composition of the patient Y donor population.

Background: Expanding the use of elderly live donors may help meet the demand for kidney transplants. The aim of this study was to quantify the effect of the surgical procedure on the quality of life (QOL) of elderly donors compared with younger donors., Methods: Alongside three prospective studies (two randomized) running between May 2001 and October 2010, we asked 501 live donors to fill out the Short Form-36 questionnaire preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. We defined live donors 60 years or older as elderly. Between-group analyses regarding QOL were adjusted for baseline values and gender., Results: One hundred thirty-five donors were older and 366 donors were younger than 60 years. The response rate was high, with 87% at 12 months postoperatively. Elderly donors less often scored as American Society of Anaesthesiology classification 1 (60% vs. 81%; P<0.001) indicating a higher rate of minor comorbidity. At 1 month postoperatively, between-group analysis showed a significant advantage in QOL in favor of the elderly group regarding the dimensions "bodily pain" (7 points; P=0.001), "role physical" (18 points; P<0.001), and "vitality" (5 points; P=0.008). At 3 months, "bodily pain" (3 points, P=0.04) and "role physical" (8 points, P=0.02) were still in favor of the older group. At 6 and 12 months, "physical function" was in favor of the younger group (3 and 5 points, respectively; P=0.04 and P<0.001)., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that elderly donors recover relatively fast. The perspective of excellent postoperative QOL may help convince elderly individuals to donate.

Background: We have observed a significant inequality in the number of living-donor kidney transplants (LDKT) performed between patients of non-Western European origin and those of Western European origin. The aim of this study was to investigate modifiable factors that could be used as potential targets for an intervention in an attempt to reduce this inequality., Methods: A questionnaire on knowledge, risk perception, communication, subjective norm, and willingness to accept LDKT was completed by 160 end-stage renal patients who were referred to the pretransplantation outpatient clinic (participation rate of 92%). The questionnaire was available in nine languages. Multivariate analyses of variance were conducted to explore differences between patients with and without a living donor., Results: There were significantly fewer patients of non-Western descent (11 of 82) that brought a living donor to the outpatient clinic than patients of Western descent (38 of 78). After correcting for the unmodifiable sociodemographic factors non-Western descent, low knowledge, little communication about their kidney disease, and low willingness to communicate with individuals from the social network about LDKT were significantly associated with the absence of a living donor., Conclusions: Knowledge and communication are identified as modifiable factors that are associated with the likelihood of identifying a potential living donor for LDKT. This observation makes knowledge and communication targets for interventions to reduce inequality in access to LDKT.

Background: In the past 30 years, the number of living donor kidney transplantations has increased considerably and nowadays outnumbers the deceased donor transplantations in our center. We investigated which socioeconomic and clinical factors influence who undergoes living or deceased donor kidney transplantation., Methods: This retrospective study included all 1338 patients who received a kidney transplant between 2000 and 2011 in the Erasmus MC Rotterdam. Clinical and socioeconomic variables were combined in our study. Clinical variables were recipient age, gender, ethnicity, original disease, retransplants, ABO blood type, panel-reactive antibody, previous treatment, and transplantation year. Each recipient's postcode was linked to a postcode area information data base, to extract demographic information on urbanization level, percentage non-Europeans in the area, income, and housing value. Chi-square, analysis of variance, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed., Results: There were significant differences between the recipients of a living versus deceased donor kidney transplantation. In multivariate logistic regression analyses, 10 variables had a significant influence on the chance of receiving living donor kidney transplantation. Clinical and socioeconomic factors had an independent influence on this chance. Patients with ABO blood type O and B have smaller chances. Highly sensitized and elderly patients have smaller chances especially when combined with a collection of other unfavorable factors. Accumulation of unfavorable factors in non-Europeans prevents their participation in living donation programs., Conclusion: Both clinical and socioeconomic factors are associated with participation in living or deceased donor kidney transplantation. This study highlights the populations that would benefit from educational intervention regarding living donor transplantation.

In January 2004, the Dutch transplant centers agreed on a protocol for a national Living Donor Kidney Exchange Program for ABO blood type incompatible and positive cross match donor-recipient pairs. Here, we report the results of that program. All transplants performed within the Living Donor Kidney Exchange Program between January 2004 and December 2011 were analysed. We collected demographic data of recipients and donors. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses were performed, including recipient age, donor age, and reason for participation in the exchange program. We studied overall uncensored survival and graft survival censored for death in both ABO blood type incompatible and positive cross match groups. We enrolled 472 donor-recipient combinations, consisting of 269 ABO blood type incompatible pairs and 203 positive cross match pairs. In the end, we performed 187 kidney transplants (40% of those enrolled) with 83 ABO blood type incompatible and 104 positive cross match pairs. Most of the transplanted recipients (119/187, 64%) had an age difference of less than 5 years with their original incompatible donors. The age differences with their actual donors varied widely, but the number of recipients with a donor > 5 years older was comparable to the number of recipients with a donor > 5 years younger. In the multivariate Cox analysis, age as a continuous variable was found to have a significant influence on graft failure. Nevertheless, the 5-year uncensored survival (85%) and the graft survival censored for death (89%) were excellent and comparable to the results of direct living donation. No differences were found between the ABO incompatible and the positive cross match groups. The Dutch Living Donor Kidney Exchange Program has a high transplant rate of 40%, with excellent 5 year graft survival.

In Europe, living kidney donation rates differ considerably from country to country. These differences are related to deceased kidney donation rates: countries with higher deceased donation rates have lower living donation rates. Despite the differences, all countries have one thing in common, namely, the shortage of kidneys for transplantation. Living kidney donation is a good option to alleviate these shortages. In our center, 60% to 70% of all kidney transplants come from living donors. This article describes various strategies that may have contributed to these high living donation rates: team attitude, educational materials and meetings, and alternative donation programs (exchange donation, domino-paired donation, Good Samaritan donation). Also described are some less conventional strategies for increasing rate of living kidney donation that are not used in the Netherlands but may offer some good perspectives (e.g., the "Norwegian approach" and home-based educational programs).

Objective: Kidney transplantation with a living donor has proved to be an effective solution for kidney patients on the waiting list for transplantation. Nevertheless, it may be difficult to find a living kidney donor. The purpose of this explorative study is to investigate how kidney transplant candidates may, or may not, find a living donor in the Netherlands., Methods: We compared a group of 42 patients who did not find a living donor with a group of 42 patients who did, using semi-structured interviews., Results: We found that, although almost all patients recognized the advantages of living kidney donation and were willing to accept the offer of a living kidney donor, many found it very difficult to ask a potential donor directly. This was true for both groups., Conclusion: Patients may gain from professional support to deal with this situation in ways that balance their medical needs and their personal relationships., Practice Implications: Support programs should be developed to assist patients in developing strategies for discussing living kidney donation with potential donors.

The shortage of deceased donor kidneys for transplantation has resulted in the expansion of living donation programs. A number of possibilities have been explored, since it became clear that donors do not need to be genetically related to their recipients. Apart from classical direct donation, other options such as paired exchange, list exchange, altruistic donation and domino paired exchange programs have been implemented. In the Netherlands, patients who cannot be transplanted with their potential living donor because of ABO blood group incompatibility or a positive crossmatch, have the option to participate in a national paired kidney exchange program. The practical issues related to this program are described. The 5-years experience with the Dutch kidney exchange program is very positive as, so far, 42% of the recipients included have been transplanted. Recommendations are given for a successful implementation of a common kidney exchange program of different transplantation centers focusing on the advantage of a central histocompatibility laboratory.

Liver transplantations using a part of the liver from a living donor are already being performed around the world. The main arguments for performing such transplantations are the shortage of brain-dead donors and the consequently high mortality rate of patients on the waiting list for a liver transplantation. The disadvantages of this option are the mortality and morbidity risk for the living donor. The shortage of brain-dead donors could also be resolved by the implementation of special techniques such as split-liver and domino-liver transplantations or by using compromised and non-heart-beating donors. Furthermore, measures should be taken to reduce the shortage of brain-dead donors in the Netherlands. If such actions do not lead to an increase in the number of brain-dead donors and a willingness to restrict the indications for transplantation is not forthcoming then donation for liver transplantation by living donors is inevitable. Such a program should satisfy certain conditions and have the requisite medical-ethical and public support.

Objective: Evaluation of safety and technical feasibility of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy., Design: Descriptive., Method: The per- and postoperative results were analysed of 15 patients subjected to laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy in the Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, Dept. of General Surgery, the Netherlands. Both left and right nephrectomy were performed via the transperitoneal route. The kidney was removed via a subumbilical incision., Results: Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was attempted in 15 patients and completed successfully in 14. Conversion to flank incision was resorted to one patient because of a venous bleeding. Median operating time was 290 min (SD: 57). Mean warm ischaemia time was 7 min (range: 4-17), including laparoscopic harvest. All kidneys were functioning well after transplantation. The mean duration of postoperative hospitalization of the donors was 4 days., Conclusion: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is a safe and technically feasible procedure in a kidney transplant programme involving a living relative.