Search

The National Kidney Registry (NKR) Advanced Donation Program enables living donors the opportunity to donate altruistically, or in advance of a potential recipient's transplant, and to receive a voucher that can be redeemed for a future transplant facilitated by the NKR. Family vouchers allow a donor to identify multiple individuals within their immediate family, with the first person in that group in need of a transplant being prioritized to receive a kidney. An increase in vouchers introduces concerns that demand for future voucher redemptions could exceed the supply of available donors and kidneys. A Monte Carlo simulation model was constructed to estimate the annual number of voucher redemptions relative to the number of kidneys available over a 50-year time horizon under several projected scenarios for growth of the program. In all simulated scenarios, the number of available kidneys exceeded voucher redemptions every year. While not able to account for all real-life scenarios, this simulation study found that the NKR should be able to satisfy the likely redemption of increasing numbers of vouchers under a range of possible scenarios over a 50-year time horizon. This modeling exercise suggests that a donor family's future needs can be satisfied through the voucher program.

Increasing numbers of compatible pairs are choosing to enter paired exchange programs, but motivations, outcomes, and system-level effects of participation are not well described. Using a linkage of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and National Kidney Registry, we compared outcomes of traditional (originally incompatible) recipients to originally compatible recipients using the Kaplan–Meier method. We identified 154 compatible pairs. Most pairs sought to improve HLA matching. Compared to the original donor, actual donors were younger (39 vs. 50 years, p < .001), less often female (52% vs. 68%, p < .01), higher BMI (27 vs. 25 kg/m(2), p = .03), less frequently blood type O (36% vs. 80%, p < .001), and had higher eGFR (99 vs. 94 ml/min/1.73 m(2), p = .02), with a better LKDPI (median 7 vs. 22, p < .001). We observed no differences in graft failure or mortality. Compatible pairs made 280 additional transplants possible, many in highly sensitized recipients with long wait times. Compatible pair recipients derived several benefits from paired exchange, including better donor quality. Living donor pairs should receive counseling regarding all options available, including kidney paired donation. As more compatible pairs choose to enter exchange programs, consideration should be given to optimizing compatible pair and hard-to-transplant recipient outcomes.

This review article provides ethical guidance for determining which kinds of financial benefits provided to living organ donors are ethically appropriate. It does so by way of ethical analysis of a policy case study: the National Kidney Registry (NKR) has implemented a donor insurance program to all its living donors. Is such a policy ethically supportable, or is it an unethical practice? The article proceeds as follows. First, a framework for grounding the ethical commitments of transplant programs is defended. It is argued that this framework can be accepted by all who work in transplant medicine, regardless of differences in ethical theory preference or background. Second, from this framework two ethical principles are formulated. (1) Living donors should, as far as possible, not be worse off for donating. (2) Disincentives towards donation should be removed as much as possible. Third, issues with unethical incentives are explored: undue inducement, commodification of the body, potential decreased organ donation rates, and potential exploitation of vulnerable populations. Lastly, these ethical considerations are applied to the policy change at the NKR, showing that the NKR policy change appears to be ethically supportable. Financial benefits provided to donors are ethically sound if they are in keeping with principles (1) and (2), and do not cause undue inducement, commodification, decreased organ donation, or exploitation. It is ethically appropriate for transplant programs to institute as well as study such programs with the goal of serving the welfare and interests of patients, donors, and the general public.

The practice of kidney paired donation (KPD) is expanding annually, offering the opportunity for live donor kidney transplant to more patients. We sought to identify if voluntary KPD networks such as the National Kidney Registry (NKR) were selecting or attracting a narrower group of donors or recipients compared with national registries. For this purpose, we merged data from the NKR database with the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) database, from February 14, 2008, to February 14, 2017, encompassing the first 9 years of the NKR. Compared with all United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) live donor transplant patients (49 610), all UNOS living unrelated transplant patients (23 319), and all other KPD transplant patients (4236), the demographic and clinical characteristics of NKR transplant patients (2037) appear similar to contemporary national trends. In particular, among the NKR patients, there were a significantly (P .001) greater number of retransplants (25.6% vs 11.5%), hyperimmunized recipients (22.7% vs 4.3% were cPRA80%), female recipients (45.9% vs 37.6%), black recipients (18.2% vs 13%), and those on public insurance (49.7% vs 41.8%) compared with controls. These results support the need for greater sharing and larger pool sizes, perhaps enhanced by the entry of compatible pairs and even chains initiated by deceased donors, to unlock more opportunities for those harder-to-match pairs.

The continued growth of kidney paired donation (KPD) to facilitate transplantation for otherwise incompatible or suboptimal living kidney donors and recipients has depended on a balance between the logistics required for patients and the collaborating transplant centers. The formation of chains for KPD and the shipping of kidneys have permitted networks such as the National Kidney Registry (NKR) to offer KPD to patients over a transcontinental area. However, over the last 3 years, we have encountered patient requests for a more flexible experience in KPD to meet their individual needs often due to rigid time constraints. To accommodate these requests, we have developed an Advanced Donation Program (ADP) in which the donor desires to donate by a specific date, but their paired recipient has not yet been matched to a specific donor or scheduled for surgery. After obtaining careful informed consent from both the donor and paired recipient, 10 KPD chains were constructed using an ADP donor. These 10 ADP donors have facilitated 47 transplants, and thus far eight of their paired recipients have received a kidney within a mean of 178 (range 10-562) days. The ADP is a viable method to support time limited donors in a KPD network.

Kidney donor exchanges enable recipients with immunologically incompatible donors to receive compatible living donor grafts; however, the financial management of these exchanges, especially when an organ is shipped, is complex and thus has the potential to impede the broader implementation of donor exchange programs. Representatives from transplant centers that utilize the National Kidney Registry database to facilitate donor exchange transplants developed a financial model applicable to paired donor exchanges and donor chain transplants. The first tenet of the model is to eliminate financial liability to the donor. Thereafter, it accounts for the donor evaluation, donor nephrectomy hospital costs, donor nephrectomy physician fees, organ transport, donor complications and recipient inpatient services. Billing between hospitals is based on Medicare cost report defined costs rather than charges. We believe that this model complies with current federal regulations and effectively captures costs of the donor and recipient services. It could be considered as a financial paradigm for the United Network for Organ Sharing managed donor exchange program.

Background We sought to identify donor characteristics influencing long-term graft survival, expressed by a novel measure, kidney life years (KLYs), in living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). Methods Cox and multiple regression analyses were applied to data from the Scientific Registry for Transplant Research from 1987 to 2015. Dependent variable was KLYs. Results Living donor kidney transplantation (129 273) were performed from 1987 to 2013 in the United States. To allow sufficient time to assess long-term results, outcomes of LDKTs between 1987 and 2001 were analyzed. After excluding cases where a patient died with a functioning graft (8301) or those missing HLA data (9), 40 371 cases were analyzed. Of 18 independent variables, the focus became the 4 variables that were the most statistically and clinically significant in that they are potentially modifiable in donor selection (P

We report the results of a large series of chain transplantations that were facilitated by a multicenter US database in which 57 centers pooled incompatible donor/recipient pairs. Chains, initiated by nondirected donors, were identified using a computer algorithm incorporating virtual cross-matches and potential to extend chains. The first 54 chains facilitated 272 kidney transplants (mean chain length = 5.0). Seven chains ended because potential donors became unavailable to donate after their recipient received a kidney; however, every recipient whose intended donor donated was transplanted. The remaining 47 chains were eventually closed by having the last donor donate to the waiting list. Of the 272 chain recipients 46% were ethnic minorities and 63% of grafts were shipped from other centers. The number of blood type O-patients receiving a transplant (n = 90) was greater than the number of blood type O-non-directed donors (n = 32) initiating chains. We have 1-year follow up on the first 100 transplants. The mean 1-year creatinine of the first 100 transplants from this series was 1.3 mg/dL. Chain transplantation enables many recipients with immunologically incompatible donors to be transplanted with high quality grafts.

Since organizing its first swap in 2008, the National Kidney Registry had facilitated 389 kidney transplants by the end of 2011 across 45 U.S. transplant centers. Rapid innovations, advanced computer technologies, and an evolving understanding of the processes at participating transplant centers and histocompatibility laboratories are among the factors driving the success of the NKR. Virtual cross match accuracy has improved from 43% to 94% as a result of improvements in the HLA typing process for donor antigens and enhanced mechanisms to list unacceptable HLA antigens for sensitized patients. By the end of 2011, the NKR had transplanted 66% of the patients enrolled since 2008. The 2011 wait time (from enrollment to transplant) for the 175 patients transplanted that year averaged 5 months.

Since its establishment in 2008, the National Kidney Registry has facilitated 213 kidney transplants between unrelated living donors and recipients at 28 transplant centers. Rapid innovations in matching strategies, advanced computer technologies, good communication and an evolving understanding of the processes at participating transplant centers and histocompatibility laboratories are among the factors driving the success of the NKR. Virtual cross match accuracy has improved from 43% to 91% as a result of changes to the HLA typing requirements for potential donors and improved mechanisms to list unacceptable HLA antigens for sensitized patients. A uniform financial agreement among participating centers eliminated a major roadblock to facilitate unbalanced donor kidney exchanges among centers. The NKR transplanted 64% of the patients registered since 2008 and the average waiting time for those transplanted in 2010 was 11 months.

The National Kidney Registry (NKR) has facilitated more than 100 transplants at 24 centers in the past 2 years and the numbers are rapidly increasing. The NKR has inherent capability for rapid change as innovations are developed and incorporated in the approach to matching donors and recipients in transplant chains. Kidneys are shipped with geotracking devices utilizing existing OPO procedures whenever patients are willing to accept them. This reduces the need for donor travel and increases the geographic area where matches can be made. Out-of-sequence transplants can be performed to improve logistics. Matching software is designed to facilitate chain transplantation and incorporates metrics that help transplant centers develop strategies to improve the chances that their patients can be transplanted. Daily match runs and close attention to repairing broken chains have been critical to growing the number of transplants that can be facilitated. A number of new innovations are expected to increase the opportunities for patients and their potential living donors.

The organ donor shortage has been the most important hindrance in getting listed patients transplanted. Living kidney donors who are incompatible with their intended recipients are an untapped resource for expanding the donor pool through participation in transplant exchanges. Chain transplantation takes this concept further, with the potential to benefit even more recipients. We describe the first asynchronous, out of sequence transplant chain that was initiated by transcontinental shipment of an altruistic donor kidney 1 week after that recipient's incompatible donor had already donated his kidney to the next recipient in the chain. The altruistic donor kidney was transported from New York to Los Angeles and functioned immediately after transplantation. Our modified-sequence asynchronous transplant chain (MATCH) enabled eight recipients, at four different institutions, to benefit from the generosity of one altruistic donor and warrants further exploration as a promising step toward addressing the organ donor shortage.

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.