Search

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a curative treatment for various liver diseases, reducing waitlist times and associated mortality. We aimed to assess the overall survival (OS), identify predictors for mortality, and analyze differences in risk factors over time. Adult patients undergoing LDLT were selected from the United Network for Organ Sharing database from inception (1987) to 2023. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for analysis, and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were conducted. In total, 7257 LDLT recipients with a median age of 54 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 45-61 years), 54% male, 80% non-Hispanic White, body mass index of 26.3 kg/m 2 (IQR: 23.2-30.0 kg/m 2 ), and model for end-stage liver disease score of 15 (IQR: 11-19) were included. The median cold ischemic time was 1.6 hours (IQR: 1.0-2.3 hours) with 88% right lobe grafts. The follow-up was 4.0 years (IQR: 1.0-9.2 years). The contemporary reached median OS was 17.0 years (95% CI: 16.1, 18.1 years), with the following OS estimates: 1 year 95%; 3 years 89%; 5 years 84%; 10 years 72%; 15 years 56%; and 20 years 43%. Nine independent factors associated with mortality were identified, with an independent improved OS in the recent time era (adjusted hazards ratio: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.39, 0.71). The median center-caseload per year was 5 (IQR: 2-10), with observed center-specific improvement of OS. LDLT is a safe procedure with excellent OS. Its efficacy has improved despite an increase of risk parameters, suggesting its limits are yet to be met., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interests The authors of this manuscript have conflicts of interest to disclose as described by the American Journal of Transplantation. G. Sapisochin discloses consultancy for Astra-Zeneca, Roche, Evidera, Novartis, HepaRegenix, and Integra; has received financial compensation for talks for Roche, Astra-Zeneca, Chiesi, and Integra; and has received a grant from Roche. None of the other authors have any conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 American Society of Transplantation & American Society of Transplant Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In the United States, living donor liver transplant (LDLT), from both directed and nondirected living donors, has expanded over the past several years. LDLT is viewed as an important opportunity to expand the overall donor pool for liver transplantation (LT), shorten waiting times for a life-prolonging LT surgery, and reduce LT waitlist mortality. The LT community's focus on LDLT expansion in the United States is fostering discussions around future opportunities, which include the safe expansion of donor and recipient candidate eligibility criteria, broadening indications for LDLT including applications in transplant oncology, developing national initiatives around liver paired exchange, and maintaining vigilance to living donor and recipient candidate risk/benefit equipoise. Potential opportunities for expanding living liver donor and recipient candidate criteria include using donors with more than minimal hepatic steatosis, evaluating older donors, performing LDLT in older recipients to facilitate timely transplantation, and providing candidates who would benefit from an LT, but may otherwise have limited access (ie, lower MELD scores), an avenue to receive a life-prolonging organ. Expansion opportunities for LDLT are particularly robust in the transplant oncology realm, including leveraging LDLT for patients with advanced HCC beyond Milan, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and nonresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases. With ongoing investment in the deliberate growth of LDLT surgical expertise, experience, and technical advances in the United States, the LT community's future vision to increase transplant access to more patients with end-stage liver disease and selected oncology patients may be successfully realized., (Copyright © 2024 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

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.)

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.)

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.)

The shortage of organs for transplantations is increasing in Europe as well as globally. Many initiatives to the organ shortage, such as opt-out systems for deceased donation and expanding living donation, have been insufficient to meet the rising demand for organs. In recurrent discussions on how to reduce organ shortage, financial incentives and removal of disincentives, have been proposed to stimulate living organ donation and increase the pool of available donor organs. It is important to understand not only the ethical acceptability of (dis)incentives for organ donation, but also its societal acceptance. In this review, we propose a research agenda to help guide future empirical studies on public preferences in Europe towards the removal of disincentives and introduction of incentives for organ donation. We first present a systematic literature review on public opinions concerning (financial) (dis)incentives for organ donation in European countries. Next, we describe the results of a randomized survey experiment conducted in the United States. This experiment is crucial because it suggests that societal support for incentivizing organ donation depends on the specific features and institutional design of the proposed incentive scheme. We conclude by proposing this experiment's framework as a blueprint for European research on this topic., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Ambagtsheer, Bunnik, Pengel, Reinders, Elias, Lacetera and Macis.)

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., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

In March 2020, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spread rapidly nationally, causing widespread emergent changes to the health system. Our goal was to understand the impact of the epidemic on kidney transplantation (KT), at both the national and center levels, accounting statistically for waitlist composition. Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data, we compared data on observed waitlist registrations, waitlist mortality, and living-donor and deceased-donor kidney transplants (LDKT/DDKT) March 15-April 30, 2020 to expected events calculated from preepidemic data January 2016-February 2020. There were few changes before March 15, at which point the number of new listings/DDKT/LDKT dropped to 18%/24%/87% below the expected value (all P < .001). Only 12 centers performed LDKT March 15-31; by April 30, 40 centers had resumed LDKT. The decline in new listings and DDKT was greater among states with higher per capita confirmed COVID-19 cases. The number of waitlist deaths was 2.2-fold higher than expected in the 5 states with highest COVID-19 burden (P < .001). DCD DDKT and regional/national imports declined nationwide but most steeply in states with the highest COVID-19 burden. The COVID-19 epidemic has resulted in substantial changes to KT; we must adapt and learn rapidly to continue to provide safe access to transplantation and limit the growing indirect toll of an already deadly disease., (© 2020 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Objective: Normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) enables optimized ex-vivo preservation of a donor liver in a normal physiologic state. The impact of this emerging technology on donor liver utilization has yet to be assessed., Summary Background Data: NMP of the donor liver and ex-vivo enhancement of its function has been envisioned for decades, however only with recent technological advances have devices been suitable for transition to clinical practice. The present study examines the effect NMP on liver utilization in the United States., Methods: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried to identify deceased donor livers procured from 2016 to 2019 (n = 30596). Donor livers were divided by preservation method: standard cold-static preservation (COLD, n = 30,368) versus NMP (n = 228). Donor and recipient risk factors, liver disposition, and discard reasons were analyzed. The primary outcome was liver discard rate between 2 groups., Results: A total of 4037 livers were discarded. The NMP group had a 3.5% discard rate versus 13.3% in the COLD group (P < 0.001), and this was despite NMP donors being older (47.7 vs 39.5 years, P < 0.0001), more frequently donation after cardiac death (DCD) (18% vs 7%, P < 0.001), and having a greater donor risk index (1.6 vs 1.5, P < 0.05). The most common reasons for liver discard in the COLD group were biopsy findings (38%), DCD warm ischemic time (11%), and prolonged preservation time (10%). Survival analysis, following propensity score matching, found no significant difference in 1-year overall survival between recipients of NMP versus COLD livers., Conclusions: NMP reduces the discard rate of procured livers despite its use in donors traditionally considered of more marginal quality. NMP maintains excellent graft and patient survival. Broader application of NMP technology holds the potential to generate a significant number of additional liver grafts for transplantation every year, thus greatly reducing the nationwide disparity between supply and demand., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: Living donation has a tremendous impact in bridging the gap between the shortage of organs and the growing list of transplant candidates but remains underutilized as a percentage of total transplants performed. This review focuses on obesity and social determinants of health as potential barriers to the expansion of living kidney donation., Recent Findings: The growing rate of obesity and associated metabolic syndrome make many potential donors unacceptable as donor candidates because of the future risk for developing chronic health conditions, such as hypertension and diabetes. There is also increasing evidence demonstrating socioeconomic differences and racial disparities potentially limit access to living donation in certain populations. These potentially modifiable factors are not exclusive of each other and together serve as significant contributing factors to lower rates of living donation., Summary: Living donors make sacrifices to provide the gift of life to transplant recipients, despite the potential risks to their own health. Studies describing risk factors to living donation call attention to the overall need for more action to prioritize and promote the health and well being of living donors.

Introduction: The Living Kidney Donor Profile Index (LKDPI) was recently proposed in the United States to evaluate living donor quality. Japan has a largely different renal transplant circumstance, such as a high ABO incompatibility rate. The aim of this study was to validate the LKDPI among the Japanese population and adjust the score., Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 133 living donors in renal transplant in our institution. We analyzed the clinical characteristics and outcomes, and created a modified LKDPI score considering the favorable ABO incompatible kidney transplant outcomes in Japan., Results: Median (interquartile range [IQR]) donor age was 59 (51 to 65) and median (IQR) body mass index was 22.9 kg/m 2 (20.9 to 25.2). ABO incompatibility rate was 28.5%. Median (IQR) donor estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation) was 108.7 mL/min/1.73 m 2 (99.9 to 115.5). The 1-year graft survival rate was 98.5%, and the 3-year graft survival rate was 97%. The incidence of antibody mediated rejection was 5.2%. The median (IQR) LKDPI score was 30.2 (11.8 to 46.8). This was significantly higher than the previously reported score in the United States, which was 12.8 (-0.8 to 27.2). The modified LKDPI (mLKDPI) score was 23.2 (4.1 to 35.1). LKDPI and mLKDPI did not show a diagnostic value in graft survival; however, LKDPI and mLKDPI showed significant diagnostic value in eGFR at 1 year (area under the curve [AUC]=0.627, P = .017; and AUC=0.673, P = .01)., Conclusion: Our outcomes had better survival even though with higher ABO incompatibility rate. According to original LKDPI, our donor pool is higher than the general US population. In this study, lower LKDPI tended to be associated with good allograft function, and mLKDPI has better diagnostic value than LKDPI. To compare internationally, an adjusted model for Japan might be necessary based on the outcomes of a large population., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Increasing living-donor kidney transplant procedures via kidney paired donations could help combat organ shortages. We examined whether a higher volume of kidney paired donation transplants would lead to increased center performance., Materials and Methods: Kidney paired donation, living-donor, and deceased-donor transplant data from 165 centers between 2012 and 2016 were obtained from the UNOS OPTN database. The fixed-effects model was used for panel analysis based on Durbin-Wu-Hausman tests (P < .001). Regression analyses tested associations between total transplant number and kidney paired donation-to-living donor kidney transplant ratio, incorporating up to 2-year lag terms. Regression analyses also tested associations between number of new wait list registrations and kidney paired donation transplant ratio., Results: Mean and median number of kidney paired donor transplants equaled 3.59 and 1.2, respectively. Only 5 centers performed > 20 paired donation transplants annually. Mean and median ratios of paired donation transplants were 0.54 and 0.11. Total transplant number was not associated with paired donation transplant ratio of the same year (b= -.425, P = .662) or with that of 2 prior years (P = .830 and P = .629, respectively). Similarly, new wait list registrations were not correlated with paired donation transplant ratio of the same year (P= .501, P = .851) or that of 2 prior years (P = .792 and P = .816, respectively). When transplant centers were divided into those performing ≥ 10 paired donation trans-plants annually (18 transplant center, n = 90) versus those performing < 10 annually (147 transplant center, n = 735), no significant effects were shown (P > .10)., Conclusions: Kidney paired donation transplant does not appear to affect transplant center performance. This may be due to the small volume of these transplants currently performed by centers, thereby limiting overall growth in the number of transplants and new registrations.

This study sought to identify the prevalence, pattern, and predictors of clinical fatigue in 193 living kidney donors (LKDs) and 20 healthy controls (HCs) assessed at predonation and 1, 6, 12, and 24 months postdonation. Relative to HCs, LKDs had significantly higher fatigue severity (P = .01), interference (P = .03), frequency (P = .002), and intensity (P = .01), and lower vitality (P < .001), at 1-month postdonation. Using published criteria, significantly more LKDs experienced clinical fatigue at 1 month postdonation, compared to HCs, on both the Fatigue Symptom Inventory (60% vs. 37%, P < .001) and SF-36 Vitality scale (67% vs. 16%, P < .001). No differences in fatigue scores or clinical prevalence were observed at other time points. Nearly half (47%) reported persistent clinical fatigue from 1 to 6 months postdonation. Multivariable analyses demonstrated that LKDs presenting for evaluation with a history of affective disorder and low vitality, those with clinical mood disturbance and anxiety about future kidney failure after donation, and those with less physical activity engagement were at highest risk for persistent clinical fatigue 6 months postdonation. Findings confirm inclusion of fatigue risk in existing OPTN informed consent requirements, have important clinical implications in the care of LKDs, and underscore the need for further scientific examination in this population., (© 2019 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Donor-derived human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and hepatitis B virus (HBV) transmissions in transplantation have led to policies mandating assessment of donor behavioral history, and disclosure of donor increased risk (IR) status to recipients. Organ Procurement Transplantation Network (OPTN) policy safeguards were promulgated in the context of deceased donation, with its narrow time window for organ utilization and uncertainty about donor history. These policies have been applied to living donation without substantive data on risk of disease transmission in living donor transplantation. Unlike for deceased donors, the OPTN does not collect data on living donor IR status. Given the feasibility of thorough living donor evaluation via already-mandated lab tests and clinical assessments, living donor IR assessment and associated disclosures may have limited benefit in improving recipient informed consent. Applying the current IR policy to living donors may also introduce unintended consequences to donors and recipients, causing donors psychological harm, delays in donation to avoid IR status disclosure, and potential withdrawal from donation. We suggest strategies that reduce risk of harm to donor candidates while maintaining policy compliance, and review additional approaches for evaluating risk of disease transmission in living donor candidates. Data on the risk of disease transmission by living donors are needed to inform policy modification., (© 2019 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Kidney paired donation (KPD) and the new kidney allocation system (KAS) in the United States have led to improved transplantation rates for highly sensitized candidates. We aimed to assess the potential need for other approaches to improve the transplantation rate of highly sensitized candidates such as desensitization. Using the UNOS STAR file, we analyzed transplant rates in a prevalent active waiting-list cohort as of June 1, 2016, followed for 1 year. The overall transplantation rate was 18.9% (11 129/58769). However, only 9.7% (213/2204) of candidates with a calculated panel reactive antibody ≥99.9% received a transplant, and highly sensitized candidates were less likely to receive a living donor transplant. Among candidates with a CPRA ≥ 99.5% (ie. 100%), only 2.5% of transplants were from living donors (13 total, 7 from KPD). Nearly 4 years after KAS (6/30/2018), 1791 actively wait-listed candidates had a CPRA of ≥99.9% and 34.6% (620/1791) of these had ≥5 years of waiting time. Thus, despite KPD and KAS, many sensitized candidates have not been transplanted even with prolonged waiting time. We conclude that candidates with a CPRA ≥ 99.9% and sensitized candidates with an incompatible living donor and prolonged waiting time may benefit from desensitization to improve their ability to receive a transplant., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

We examined a novel linkage of national US donor registry data with records from a pharmacy claims warehouse (2007-2016) to examine associations (adjusted hazard ratio, LCL aHR UCL ) of post-donation fills of antidiabetic medications (ADM, insulin or non-insulin agents) with body mass index (BMI) at donation and other demographic and clinical factors. In 28 515 living kidney donors (LKDs), incidence of ADM use at 9 years rose in a graded manner with higher baseline BMI: underweight, 0.9%; normal weight, 2.1%; overweight, 3.5%; obese, 8.5%. Obesity was associated with higher risk of ADM use compared with normal BMI (aHR, 3.36 4.59 6.27 ). Metformin was the most commonly used ADM and was filled more often by obese than by normal weight donors (9-year incidence, 6.87% vs 1.85%, aHR, 3.55 5.00 7.04 ). Insulin use was uncommon and did not differ significantly by BMI. Among a subgroup with BMI data at the 1-year post-donation anniversary (n = 19 528), compared with stable BMI, BMI increase >0.5 kg/m 2 by year 1 was associated with increased risk of subsequent ADM use (aHR, 1.03 1.48 2.14, P = .04). While this study did not assess the impact of donation on the development of obesity, these data support that among LKD, obesity is a strong correlate of ADM use., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In the United States, kidney donation from international (noncitizen/nonresident) living kidney donors (LKDs) is permitted; however, given the heterogeneity of healthcare systems, concerns remain regarding the international LKD practice and recipient outcomes. We studied a US cohort of 102 315 LKD transplants from 2000-2016, including 2088 international LKDs, as reported to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. International LKDs were more tightly clustered among a small number of centers than domestic LKDs (Gini coefficient 0.76 vs 0.58, P < .001). Compared with domestic LKDs, international LKDs were more often young, male, Hispanic or Asian, and biologically related to their recipient (P < .001). Policy-compliant donor follow-up was substantially lower for international LKDs at 6, 12, and 24 months postnephrectomy (2015 cohort: 45%, 33%, 36% vs 76%, 71%, 70% for domestic LKDs, P < .001). Among international LKDs, Hispanic (aOR =  0.23 0.36 0.56 , P < .001) and biologically related (aOR =  0.39 0.59 0.89 , P < .01) donors were more compliant in donor follow-up than white and unrelated donors. Recipients of international living donor kidney transplant (LDKT) had similar graft failure (aHR =  0.78 0.89 1.02 , P = .1) but lower mortality (aHR =  0.53 0.62 0.72 , P < .001) compared with the recipients of domestic LDKT after adjusting for recipient, transplant, and donor factors. International LKDs may provide an alternative opportunity for living donation. However, efforts to improve international LKD follow-up and engagement are warranted., (© 2019 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Purpose of Review: With an increasing demand for donor organs, strategies to increase the number of available donor organs have become more focused. Compensating donors for donation is one strategy proposed to increase the availability of organs for transplant. This has been implemented in several systems internationally, but debate continues in the United States with respect to appropriate strategies. The National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) currently prohibits the transfer of any human organ 'for valuable consideration' for transplantation, but allows for the removal of financial disincentives., Recent Findings: Several proposals currently exist for compensating patients for living donation. Recent data have focused on studying and creating mechanisms for reimbursement of costs incurred as part of the donation process, which is related to the removal of disincentives to living donation. Others have advocated for the provision of actual incentives to patients for the act of donating, in an attempt to further expand living donation. The current debate focuses on what measures can reasonably be taken to increase donation, and whether additional incentives will encourage more donation or reduce the motivation for altruistic donation., Summary: Currently, the transplant community broadly supports the removal of disincentives for living donors, including reimbursement of expenses for travel, housing and lost wages incurred during evaluation, surgery and after care. Others have advocated for financial incentives to further increase the number of donor organs available for transplant. Although the removal of disincentives is currently allowed under the existing legal structure of NOTA, providing financial incentives for living donation would require further evaluation of the economics, law, ethics and public readiness for a significant policy shift.

Background: We examined the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in primiparous kidney donors compared to matched controls., Methods: Fifty-nine women with a history of kidney donation prior to their first pregnancy with normal renal function and no history of kidney disease, diabetes or chronic hypertension were matched 1:4 by age (within 2 years) and race to women with two kidneys using data from an integrated healthcare delivery system. Adverse pregnancy outcomes were defined as preterm delivery (delivery <37 weeks), delivery via cesarean section, gestational hypertension, preeclampsia/eclampsia, gestational diabetes, length of stay in the hospital >3 days, infant death/transfer to acute facility and low birthweight (<2500 g)., Results: Living kidney donors did not have a higher risk of adverse outcomes compared to matched controls. There was a trend toward an increased risk of preeclampsia/eclampsia in kidney donors but it did not reach statistical significance (Odds ratio [OR]: 2.96, 95% CI: 0.98-8.94, P = 0.06). However, in kidney donors ≤30 years of age, there was a fourfold increased risk of preeclampsia/eclampsia (OR: 4.09, 95% CI: 1.07-15.59, P = 0.04)., Conclusion: Overall, the risk of pregnancy-associated complications following kidney donation is small but potential female kidney donors should be counseled on the possible increased risk of preeclampsia., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Transplantation of organs from living donors helps to decrease the organ shortage and shortens waiting times. Living donor (LD) transplantation is also generally associated with better outcomes. Unfortunately, there has been no comprehensive analysis and comparison of all types of solid-organ transplantation from living donors since the inception of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS)., Methods: Using the UNOS/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) database, all LD transplants from October 1, 1987, to December 31, 2015, were studied with univariate and multivariate analyses., Results: A total of 140,090 organs were transplanted from LDs, accounting for 21% of all transplants in the United States. Over 95% were kidney; 4% were liver; and <1% intestine, lung, and pancreas LDs. Only LD kidney transplant patient and graft survival rates were significantly higher compared deceased donor transplants over the period of analysis. The best long-term LD transplant results were achieved in pediatric liver recipients. Significantly more women than men donated organs and significantly more men than women received solid-organ transplants. A regional disparity was observed for LD kidney as well as for LD liver transplants. Despite improvements in outcomes and increased use of nonbiologic donors, the number of LD transplants in the United States has declined. This decline was greater in children than adults and was noted for all types of organ transplants., Conclusion: Further efforts are needed to educate the public, health professionals, and transplant candidates on the advantages of living vs deceased donor organ transplantation. Compared with other countries, LD transplantation has yet to reach its full potential in the United States., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Living donor kidney transplantation has declined in the United States since 2004, but the relationship between population characteristics and rate of living donation is unknown. The goal of our study was to use data on general population health and socioeconomic status to investigate the association with living donation., Methods: This cross-sectional, ecological study used population health and socioeconomic status data from the CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to investigate the association with living donation. Transplant centers performing 10 or greater kidney transplants reported to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients in 2015 were included. Center rate of living donation was defined as the proportion of all kidney transplants performed at a center that were from living donors., Results: In a linear mixed-effects model, a composite index of health and socioeconomic status factors was negatively associated with living donation, with a rate of living donation that was on average 7.3 percentage points lower among centers in areas with more comorbid disease and poorer socioeconomic status (95% confidence interval, -12.2 to -2.3, P = 0.004). Transplant centers in areas with higher prevalence of minorities had a rate of living donation that was 7.1 percentage points lower than centers with fewer minorities (95% confidence interval, -11.8 to -2.3, P = 0.004)., Conclusions: Center-level variation in living donation was associated with population characteristics and minority prevalence. Further examination of these factors in the context of patient and center-level barriers to living donation is warranted.

Background: Vascularized composite allograft (VCA) transplantation is a developing area in the field of transplantation., Methods: This study used Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) VCA waiting list and transplant data from July 3, 2014 through February 28, 2018, to characterize the OPTN VCA waiting list in terms of composition, removal patterns, waiting time, resulting transplants, and trends over time., Results: Between implementation of the OPTN VCA waiting list on July 3, 2014 and February 28, 2018, 54 candidates-53.7% were male, 79.6% were white, and 70.4% aged 18 to 44 years-were added to the OPTN VCA waiting list. Of these, 22 received deceased donor VCA transplants (6 bilateral upper limb, 4 unilateral upper limb, 5 craniofacial, 1 scalp, 1 abdominal wall, 1 penile, and 4 uterine), and 6 received living donor uterine transplants. Registrations increased in 2016 after uterine and penile transplants were introduced in the United States, resulting in a large shift in the composition of the VCA waiting list. Waiting times for VCA candidates vary greatly, with some VCA candidates receiving deceased donor transplants quickly and others waiting more than 3 years before transplantation., Conclusions: The field of VCA transplantation and the composition of the OPTN VCA waiting list are evolving rapidly. Additional research is needed to understand these changes and investigate whether differences in need or differences in access have resulted in the variation seen on the VCA waiting list.

Incidence of postdonation hypertension, risk factors associated with its development, and impact of type of treatment received on renal outcomes were determined in 3700 kidney donors. Using Cox proportional hazard model, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for cardiovascular disease (CVD); estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60, <45, <30 mL/min/1.73m 2 ; end stage renal disease (ESRD); and death in hypertensive donors were determined. After a mean (standard deviation [SD]) of 16.6 (11.9) years of follow-up, 1126 (26.8%) donors developed hypertension and 894 with known antihypertensive medications. Hypertension developed in 4%, 10%, and 51% at 5, 10, and 40 years, respectively, and was associated with proteinuria, eGFR < 30, 45, and 60 mL/min/1.73m 2 , CVD, and death. Blood pressure was <140/90 mm Hg at last follow-up in 75% of hypertensive donors. Use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (compared to other antihypertensive agents) was associated with a lower risk for eGFR <45 mL/min/1.73m², HR 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-0.9), P = .01, and also less ESRD; HR 0.03 (95% CI 0.001-0.20), P = .004. In this predominantly Caucasian cohort, hypertension is common after donation, well controlled in most donors, and factors associated with its development are similar to those in the general population., (© 2018 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Numerous kidney exchange (kidney paired donation [KPD]) registries in the United States have gradually shifted to high-frequency match-runs, raising the question of whether this harms the number of transplants. We conducted simulations using clinical data from 2 KPD registries-the Alliance for Paired Donation, which runs multihospital exchanges, and Methodist San Antonio, which runs single-center exchanges-to study how the frequency of match-runs impacts the number of transplants and the average waiting times. We simulate the options facing each of the 2 registries by repeated resampling from their historical pools of patient-donor pairs and nondirected donors, with arrival and departure rates corresponding to the historical data. We find that longer intervals between match-runs do not increase the total number of transplants, and that prioritizing highly sensitized patients is more effective than waiting longer between match-runs for transplanting highly sensitized patients. While we do not find that frequent match-runs result in fewer transplanted pairs, we do find that increasing arrival rates of new pairs improves both the fraction of transplanted pairs and waiting times., (© 2017 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is a risk after kidney donation. We sought, in a large cohort of kidney donors, to determine the causes of donor ESRD, the interval from donation to ESRD, the role of the donor/recipient relationship, and the trajectory of the estimated GFR (eGFR) from donation to ESRD. From 1/1/1963 thru 12/31/2015, 4030 individuals underwent living donor nephrectomy at our center, as well as ascertainment of ESRD status. Of these, 39 developed ESRD (mean age ± standard deviation [SD] at ESRD, 62.4 ± 14.1 years; mean interval between donation and ESRD, 27.1 ± 9.8 years). Donors developing ESRD were more likely to be male, as well as smokers, and younger at donation, and to have donated to a first-degree relative. Of donors with a known cause of ESRD (n = 25), 48% was due to diabetes and/or hypertension; only 2 from a disease that would have affected 1 kidney (cancer). Of those 25 with an ascertainable ESRD cause, 4 shared a similar etiology of ESRD with their recipient. Almost universally, thechange of eGFR over time was stable, until new-onset disease (kidney or systemic). Knowledge of factors contributing to ESRD after living kidney donation can improve donor selection and counseling, as well as long-term postdonation care., (© 2018 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

The factors underlying the decline in living kidney donation in the United States since 2005 must be understood to inform strategies to ensure access to this option for future patients. Population-based estimates provide a better assessment of donation activity than do trends in the number of living donor transplants. Using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and the United States Census, we determined longitudinal changes in living kidney donation between 2005 and 2015, focusing on the effect of sex and income. We used multilevel Poisson models to adjust for differences in age, race, the incidence of ESRD, and geographic factors (including population density, urbanization, and daily commuting). During the study period, the unadjusted rate of donation was 30.1 and 19.3 per million population in women and men, respectively, and the adjusted incidence of donation was 44% higher in women (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.44; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.39 to 1.49). The incidence of donation was stable in women (IRR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.07) but declined in men (IRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.83). Income was associated with longitudinal changes in donation in both sexes, yet donation was stable in the highest two population income quartiles in women but only in the highest income quartile in men. In both sexes, living related donations declined, irrespective of income. In conclusion, living donation declined in men but remained stable in women between 2005 and 2015, and income appeared to have a greater effect on living donation in men., (Copyright © 2018 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

The impact of pre-donation obesity on long-term outcomes of living kidney donors remains controversial. Published guidelines offer varying recommendations regarding BMI (kg/m 2 ) thresholds for donor acceptance. We examined temporal and center-level variation in BMI of accepted donors across US transplant centers. Using national transplant registry data, we performed multivariate hierarchical logistic regression modeling using pairwise comparisons (overweight, BMI: 25-29.9; mildly obese, BMI: 30-34.9; very obese, BMI: ≥35; versus normal BMI: 18.5-24.9). Metrics of heterogeneity, including median odds ratio (MOR), were calculated. Among 90 013 living kidney donors, 2001-2016, proportions who were very obese decreased and proportions who were mildly obese or overweight increased. Significant center-level heterogeneity was noted in BMI of accepted donors; the MOR varied from 1.10 for overweight to 1.93 for very obese donors. At centers located in the 10 states with the highest general population obesity rates, adjusted odds of very obese donor status were 185% higher (reference: normal BMI) than in states with the lowest obesity rates. Although there is a declining trend in acceptance of very obese living kidney donors, variation across centers is significant. Furthermore, local population obesity rates may affect the decision to accept obese individuals as donors., (© 2017 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Kidney chains are a recent and novel method of increasing the number of available kidneys for transplantation and have the potential to save thousands of lives. However, because they are novel, kidney chains do not fit neatly within existing legal and ethicalframeworks, raising potential barriers to their full implementation. Kidney chains are an extension of paired kidney donation, which began in the United States in 2000. Paired kidney donations allow kidney patients with willing, but incompatible, donors to swap donors to increase the number of donor/recipient pairs and consequently, the number of transplants. More recently, transplant centers have been using non-simultaneous, extended, altruistic donor ("NEAD") kidney chains--which consist of a sequence of donations by incompatible donors--to further expand the number of donations. This Article fully explains paired kidney donation and kidney chains and focuses on whether NEAD chains are more coercive than traditional kidney donation to a family member or close friend and whether NEAD chains violate the National Organ Transplant Act's prohibition on the transfer of organs for valuable consideration.

Background: Although kidney paired donation (KPD) has led to thousands of transplants, the 2012 KPD Consensus Conference concluded that more could be done. Perceptions are that a large number of match offers never resulted in transplantations, and unfruitful matches have both financial and emotional costs., Methods: To describe, quantify, and analyze the unrealized match offers, we studied the matching process from registration to transplantation in the National Kidney Registry, a large KPD registry, over a 25-month period., Results: Of the 3,180 match offers, 454 were turned down. The most common reasons were the donor was not acceptable (50%) and their recipient had unacceptably high donor-specific antibodies (28%). Of the 2,228 accepted offers, 1,335 advanced to the cell-based cross-match stage because 893 of these were part of chains that fell through. Fifty-five of 887 recorded cell-based cross-matches were positive, 20 donors were unacceptable, and 22 recipients had unacceptably high donor-specific antibodies. Six hundred ninety transplantations were performed., Conclusion: Despite the success of KPD, by analyzing the matching process, we identify several strategies to increase the number of KPD transplantations, including recruiting more participants, processing the match offers more quickly at the transplant center level, enhancing the donor preselection tools, improving communication between centers and the registries, and combining desensitization with KPD.

Background: Previous studies demonstrate that graft survival from older living kidney donors (LD; age>60 years) is worse than younger LD but similar to deceased standard criteria donors (SCD). Limited sample size has precluded more detailed analyses of transplants from older LD., Methods: Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database from 1994 to 2012, recipients were categorized by donor status: SCD, expanded criteria donor (ECD), or LD (by donor age: <60, 60-64, 65-69, ≥70 years). Adjusted models, controlling for donor and recipient risk factors, evaluated graft and recipient survivals., Results: Of 250,827 kidney transplants during the study period, 92,646 were LD kidneys, with 4.5% of these recipients (n=4,186) transplanted with older LD kidneys. The use of LD donors 60 years or older increased significantly from 3.6% in 1994 to 7.4% in 2011. Transplant recipients with older LD kidneys had significantly lower graft and overall survival compared to younger LD recipients. Compared to SCD recipients, graft survival was decreased in recipients with LD 70 years or older, but overall survival was similar. Older LD kidney recipients had better graft and overall survival than ECD recipients., Conclusions: As use of older kidney donors increases, overall survival among kidney transplant recipients from older living donors was similar to or better than SCD recipients, better than ECD recipients, but worse than younger LD recipients. With increasing kidney donation from older adults to alleviate profound organ shortages, the use of older kidney donors appears to be an equivalent or beneficial alternative to awaiting deceased donor kidneys.

Background: Most pediatric kidney transplant recipients eventually require retransplantation, and the most advantageous timing strategy regarding deceased and living donor transplantation in candidates with only 1 living donor remains unclear., Methods: A patient-oriented Markov decision process model was designed to compare, for a given patient with 1 living donor, living-donor-first followed if necessary by deceased donor retransplantation versus deceased-donor-first followed if necessary by living donor (if still able to donate) or deceased donor (if not) retransplantation. Based on Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data, the model was designed to account for waitlist, graft, and patient survival, sensitization, increased risk of graft failure seen during late adolescence, and differential deceased donor waiting times based on pediatric priority allocation policies. Based on national cohort data, the model was also designed to account for aging or disease development, leading to ineligibility of the living donor over time., Results: Given a set of candidate and living donor characteristics, the Markov model provides the expected patient survival over a time horizon of 20 years. For the most highly sensitized patients (panel reactive antibody > 80%), a deceased-donor-first strategy was advantageous, but for all other patients (panel reactive antibody < 80%), a living-donor-first strategy was recommended., Conclusions: This Markov model illustrates how patients, families, and providers can be provided information and predictions regarding the most advantageous use of deceased donor versus living donor transplantation for pediatric recipients.

At the present time, increasing the use of living donors offers the best solution to the organ shortage problem. The clinical questions raised when the first living donor kidney transplant was performed, involving donor risk, informed consent, donor protection, and organ quality, have been largely answered. We strongly encourage a wider utilization of living donation and recommend that living donation, rather than deceased donation, become the first choice for kidney transplantation. We believe that it is ethically sound to have living kidney donation as the primary source for organs when the mortality and morbidity risks to the donor are known and kept extremely low, when the donor is properly informed and protected from coercion, and when accepted national and local guidelines for living donation are followed.

With over 101,000 people currently on the waiting list for a kidney transplant, innovative solutions are needed to expand the number of available donor organs. This article describes the experience of one transplant center in using living donor paired exchanges and donor swaps to result in a chain of 28 kidney transplant recipients in the past year.

Background and Objectives: Despite the benefits of kidney transplantation, the total number of transplants performed in the United States has stagnated since 2006. Transplant center quality metrics have been associated with a decline in transplant volume among low-performing centers. There are concerns that regulatory oversight may lead to risk aversion and lack of transplantation growth., Design, Setting, Participants, & Measurements: A retrospective cohort study of adults (age≥18 years) wait-listed for kidney transplantation in the United States from 2003 to 2010 using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was conducted. The primary aim was to investigate whether measured center performance modifies the survival benefit of transplantation versus dialysis. Center performance was on the basis of the most recent Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients evaluation at the time that patients were placed on the waiting list. The primary outcome was the time-dependent adjusted hazard ratio of death compared with remaining on the transplant waiting list., Results: Among 223,808 waitlisted patients, 59,199 and 32,764 patients received a deceased or living donor transplant, respectively. Median follow-up from listing was 43 months (25th percentile=25 months, 75th percentile=67 months), and there were 43,951 total patient deaths. Deceased donor transplantation was independently associated with lower mortality at each center performance level compared with remaining on the waiting list; adjusted hazard ratio was 0.24 (95% confidence interval, 0.21 to 0.27) among 11,972 patients listed at high-performing centers, adjusted hazard ratio was 0.32 (95% confidence interval, 0.31 to 0.33) among 203,797 patients listed at centers performing as expected, and adjusted hazard ratio was 0.40 (95% confidence interval, 0.35 to 0.45) among 8039 patients listed at low-performing centers. The survival benefit was significantly different by center performance (P value for interaction <0.001)., Conclusions: Findings indicate that measured center performance modifies the survival benefit of kidney transplantation, but the benefit of transplantation remains highly significant even at centers with low measured quality. Policies that concurrently emphasize improved center performance with access to transplantation should be prioritized to improve ESRD population outcomes., (Copyright © 2014 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

The annual number of living kidney donors in the United States peaked at 6647 in 2004. The preceding decade saw a 120% increase in living kidney donation. However, since 2004, living kidney donation has declined in all but 1 year, resulting in a 13% decline in the annual number of living kidney donors from 2004 to 2011. The proportional decline in living kidney donation has been more pronounced among men, blacks, younger adults, siblings, and parents. In this article, we explore several possible explanations for the decline in living kidney donation, including an increase in medical unsuitability, an aging transplant patient population, financial disincentives, public policies, and shifting practice patterns, among others. We conclude that the decline in living donation is not merely reflective of random variation but one that warrants action by the transplant centers, the broader transplant community, and the state and national governments.

The growth in living kidney donation has been accompanied by greater racial diversity. Most information on post-donation health comes from single-center studies of dominantly Caucasian cohorts. Recent linkage of U.S. donor registration data with death records demonstrated higher mortality risks among African American donors, but importantly, no differences in death compared with demographically matched, healthy controls. Within the donor population, some recent studies have also identified higher likelihoods of post-donation hypertension, diabetes mellitus and kidney failure in African American and Hispanic donors. Thus, based on concerns for higher risks of long-term end-organ damage, it may be reasonable to consider race within the living donor selection process, such as use of more stringent exclusion criteria among non-Caucasian living donors with baseline elevated blood pressure. Recently identified associations of coding variants in the apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) gene with nondiabetic renal failure in African Americans raise promise of APOL1 genotyping as a novel tool for risk stratifying African American potential donors, but more data are needed to understand implications for post-donation outcomes. To tailor counseling and informed consent, focused attention to long-term medical outcomes among non-Caucasian living donors is needed, and should include assembly of healthy non-donor controls for assessment of attributable risks of donation., (© 2013 The Authors Transplant International © 2013 Steunstichting ESOT. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)

Introduction: The relationship between pediatric primary care practitioners and families provides an early opportunity to address ethnic/racial pediatric subspecialty health care disparities. Living donor pediatric renal transplantation is safe and more effective than deceased donor renal transplantation. The purpose of this study is to identify groups of children who may be less likely to receive living donor renal transplantation, as the first step in assisting pediatric clinicians to increase living donor renal transplantation., Method: We employed a retrospective cohort design. We analyzed data from the medical records of 80 children receiving renal transplantation over 20 years in a large pediatric medical center., Results: The proportions of children receiving a living donor renal allograft differed by ethnicity/race (P = .04). Specifically, children of Asian ethnicity/ race were significantly less likely than children of White ethnicity/race to receive a living donor renal allograft (P = .01). There were no significant differences in age at transplantation or wait time for deceased donor transplantation., Discussion: We discuss the possible reasons for the discrepancy and potential directions for family-centered pediatric practice, policy, and research to address this potential pediatric healthcare disparity.

Importance: Despite the potential for altruistic nondirected donors (NDDs) to trigger multiple transplants through nonsimultaneous transplant chains, concerns exist that these chains siphon NDDs from the deceased donor wait list and that donors within chains might not donate after their partner receives a transplant., Objective: To determine the number of transplantations NDDs trigger through chains., Design: Retrospective review of large, multicenter living donor-recipient database., Setting: Fifty-seven US transplant centers contributing donor-recipient pairs to the database., Participants: The NDDs initiating chain transplantation., Main Outcomes Measure: Number of transplants per NDD., Results: Seventy-seven NDDs enabled 373 transplantations during 46 months starting February 2008. Mean chain length initiated by NDDs was 4.8 transplants (median, 3; range, 1-30). The 40 blood type O NDDs triggered a mean chain length of 6.0 (median, 4; range, 2-30). During the interval, 66 of 77 chains were closed to the wait list, 4 of 77 were ongoing, and 7 of 77 were broken because bridge donors became unavailable. No chains were broken in the last 15 months, and every recipient whose incompatible donor donated received a kidney. One hundred thirty-three blood type O recipients were transplanted., Conclusion and Relevance: This large series demonstrates that NDDs trigger almost 5 transplants on average, more if the NDD is blood type O. There were more blood type O recipients than blood type O NDDs participating. The benefits of transplanting 373 patients and enabling others without living donors to advance outweigh the risk of broken chains that is decreasing with experience. Even 66 patients on the wait list without living donors underwent transplantation with living-donor grafts at the end of these chains.

In 1980, when there was approximately a one-year wait for a standard criteria donor kidney (young trauma victim), there was little rationale for considering incentives for donation. Today, however, in the United States, there are over 100,000 candidates on the waiting list for a deceased donor kidney transplant. Yet, in spite of numerous attempts to increase the donation rate, there has not been an increase in the last seven years. As a result, the waiting list and the resultant waiting time continue to grow, leading to an increased number of deaths (or removals from the list because of development of comorbidity) while waiting. A number of concerns have been raised about incentives. However, the real question is that - on balance - do these concerns justify continuing a ban on incentives (and the resultant thousands of deaths per year) or should we develop trials of incentives to determine whether or not incentives increase donation while simultaneously not increasing short- and long-term donor or recipient risks over those seen with today's conventional donation?

In an effort to increase living donor transplantation while minimizing risk and morbidity, recent advances have been made in surgical technique, kidney paired donation, desensitization, identification of living donors and research into living donor outcomes. Single-port nephrectomy and vaginal extraction have reduced donor nephrectomy incision size. Transport of live donor kidneys has reduced geographic barriers to kidney paired donation, and participation of compatible pairs and nondirected donors has increased match opportunities for incompatible pairs participating in this modality. ABO-incompatible transplantation can now be successfully performed without high-intensity immunomodulation, and HLA-incompatible transplantation has been shown in a large single-center study to provide profound survival benefit compared with waiting for a compatible donor. Complement inhibition is an exciting, emerging approach that may facilitate incompatible transplantation and treat antibody-mediated rejection. Educational and communications interventions are proving valuable in helping patients find living donors, and large studies continue to provide reassurance to carefully screened living donors that risks are very low. As living donors are critical to addressing the profound organ shortage, efforts to increase living donation remain important.

Background: Organ shortage has resulted in greater emphasis on partial liver transplantation (PLT) as an alternative to whole-organ liver transplantation., Methods: This study was conducted to assess outcomes in PLT and to compare outcomes of deceased donor split-liver transplantation (DD-SLT) and live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in adults transplanted in the USA using data reported to the United Network for Organ Sharing in the era of Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores., Results: Between 2002 and 2009, 2272 PLTs were performed in the USA; these represented 5.3% of all liver transplants carried out in the country and included 557 (24.5%) DD-SLT and 1715 LDLT (75.5%) procedures. The most significant differences between the DD-SLT and LDLT groups related to mean MELD scores, which were lower in LDLT recipients (14.5 vs. 20.9; P < 0.001), mean recipient age, which was lower in the LDLT group (50.7 years vs. 52.8 years; P < 0.001), and mean donor age, which was lower in the DD-SLT group (23.0 years vs. 37.3 years; P < 0.001). Allograft survival was comparable between the two groups (P= 0.438), but patient survival after LDLT was better (P= 0.04). In Cox regression analysis, LDLT was associated with better allograft (hazards ratio [HR]= 0.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.630-0.791; P < 0.0001) and patient (HR = 0.6, 95% CI 0.558-0.644; P < 0.0001) survival than DD-SLT., Conclusions: Partial liver transplantation represents a potentially underutilized resource in the USA. Despite the differences in donor and recipient characteristics, LDLT is associated with better allograft and patient survival than DD-SLT. A different allocation system for DD-SLT allografts that takes into consideration cold ischaemia time and recipient MELD score should be considered., (© 2011 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association.)

The movement to try to close the ever-widening gap between demand and supply of organs has recently arrived at the prison gate. While there is enthusiasm for using executed prisoners as sources of organs, there are both practical barriers and moral concerns that make it unlikely that proposals to use prisoners will or should gain traction. Prisoners are generally not healthy enough to be a safe source of organs, execution makes the procurement of viable organs difficult, and organ donation post-execution ties the medical profession too closely to the act of execution.

Patients with incompatible live donors have had to resort to the long wait on the deceased donor list. Now, through kidney paired donation, these incompatible pairs can enter a kidney exchange program where kidneys are "swapped" between incompatible pairs. This review highlights the evolution of kidney paired exchange and reviews the challenges and ethical considerations within a paired exchange system.

Background and Objectives: Use of incompatible kidney transplantation (IKT) is growing as a response to the organ shortage and the increase in sensitization among candidates. However, recent regulatory mandates possibly threaten IKT, and the potential effect of these mandates cannot be estimated because dissemination of this modality remains unknown. The goal of this study was to better understand practice patterns of IKT in the United States., Design, Setting, Participants, & Measurements: Directors from all 187 unique active adult kidney transplant programs were queried about transplantation across the following antibody barriers: positive Luminex, negative flow crossmatch (PLNF); positive flow, negative cytotoxic crossmatch (PFNC); positive cytotoxic crossmatch (PCC); and ABO incompatible (ABOi)., Results: Responses from 125 centers represented 84% of the live-donor transplant volume in the United States. Barriers of PLNF, PFNC, PCC, and ABOi are being crossed in 70%, 51%, 18%, and 24%, respectively, of transplant centers that responded. Desensitization was performed in 58% of PLNF, 76% of PFNC, 100% of PCC, and 80% of ABOi using plasmapheresis and low-dose intravenous Ig (IVIg) in 71% to 83% and high-dose IVIg in 29% to 46%., Conclusions: A higher proportion of centers perform IKT than might be inferred from the literature. The rapid dissemination of these protocols despite adequate evidence of a clear advantage of IKT transplants argues for the creation of a national registry and randomized studies.

Transplantation is generally the treatment of choice for those suffering from kidney failure. Not only does transplantation offer improved quality of life and increased longevity relative to dialysis, it also reduces end-stage renal disease program expenditures, providing savings to Medicare. Unfortunately, the waiting list for kidney transplants is long, growing, and unlikely to be substantially reduced by increases in the recovery of cadaveric kidneys. Another approach is to obtain more kidneys through payment to living "donors," or vendors. Such direct commodification, in which a price is placed on kidneys, has generally been opposed by medical ethicists. Much of the ethical debate, however, has been in terms of commodification through market exchange. Recognizing that there are different ethical concerns associated with the purchase of kidneys and their allocation, it is possible to design a variety of institutional arrangements for the commodification of kidneys that pose different sets of ethical concerns. We specify three such alternatives in detail sufficient to allow an assessment of their likely consequences and we compare these alternatives to current policy in terms of the desirable goals of promoting human dignity, equity, efficiency, and fiscal advantage. This policy analysis leads us to recommend that kidneys be purchased at administered prices by a nonprofit organization and allocated to the transplant centers that can organize the longest chains of transplants involving willing-but-incompatible donor-patient dyads.

Outcomes of locally rejected kidneys transplanted at other centers (import KTX) are unknown. SRTR data from 2000 to 2009 of deceased-donor KTXs excluding 0-mismatch, paybacks, and other mandatory shares were compared by location of KTX at local (n = 48,165), regional (n = 4428) or national (n = 4104) centers using multivariable regression models. Compared to nonmandatory share local transplants, import KTX were associated with significantly higher overall risks of patient death (regional aHR 1.15, p < 0.01; national aHR 1.14, p < 0.01), and graft failure (regional aHR 1.17, p < 0.01; national aHR1.21, p < 0.01). In paired analysis, the risk of delayed graft function (DGF) for import KTX was higher compared to locally transplanted mates (regional aOR 1.53, p < 0.01, national aOR 2.14, p < 0.01); however, despite longer ischemia times, overall graft survival was similar. Mean cold ischemia times (CIT) pre- and post-DonorNet were similar for local and regional transplants, but significantly higher for national transplants (28.9 ± 9.9 vs. 29.9 ± 9.7 h, respectively, p = 0.01). Import KTX is associated with increased risks of graft failure, patient death and DGF. In the era of DonorNet cold ischemia times of kidneys imported to regional centers are not improved compared to pre-DonorNet; and, those of national centers are significantly prolonged., (©2010 The Authors Journal compilation©2010 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)