Search

Background: Non-directed donors (NDDs), individuals who donate their organs with no intended recipient, in the United States increased 90-fold from 1999 to 2019. There is a paucity of studies investigating the motivations of NDDs. The objective of our study is to identify actionable items to increase NDDs., Methods: A survey of kidney NDDs at CUIMC from 2009 to 2021 was conducted. The survey was conducted via Qualtrics., Results: Seventy individuals met the study criteria. Forty-seven (67.1%) individuals completed the survey. A total of 98% of respondents reported participating in other altruistic activities prior to donation. A total of 70% donors identified as religious, and 57% reported religion/spirituality positively affected the decision to donate. The three most common factors that got respondents interested in NDD included: (1) hearing about an individual in need of a transplant, (2) knowing someone who had donated an organ, and (3) as a next step in altruistic behavior. A total of 85% said that donating a kidney met or exceeded expectations. A total of 44% and 31% of NDDs were interested in being either liver or uterus NDDs, respectively., Conclusions: We identified six potential action items: (1) Identify pools of receptive individuals who participated in other altruistic behaviors and/or identify as religious. (2) Outreach to individuals who came forward as directed donors, but whose intended recipient was successfully transplanted with a kidney from another donor. (3) Promote stories of those who need organ transplants or whose lives have been changed by transplantation. (4) Promote NDDs as resources for potential NDDs. (5) Educate interested kidney NDDs about liver and uterus transplant programs. (6) Decrease financial barriers to donation., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Preemptive kidney transplantation (PEKT) has better outcomes when compared with transplantation after dialysis. We aimed to examine trends in PEKT between 2000 and 2019 in Europe and to provide an overview of associated policies, barriers and initiatives., Methods: Adult patients from 12 European countries who received a preemptive kidney transplant were included. The representatives of the registries providing these data were questioned on the policies, barriers and initiatives around PEKT., Results: Between 2000 and 2019, 20 251 adults underwent PEKT [11 169 from living donors (LDs), 8937 from deceased donors (DDs)]. The proportion of first kidney transplantations that were preemptive more than doubled from 7% in 2000 to 18% in 2019, reflecting a similar relative increase for LD kidney recipients (from 21% to 43%) and DD kidney recipients (from 4% to 11%). Large international differences were found. The increase in PEKT was observed across all age, sex and primary renal disease groups. Countries had similar criteria for preemptive waitlisting. Barriers mentioned included donor shortage, late referral to the transplant center and long donoror recipient work-up. Suggested initiatives included raising awareness on the possibility of PEKT, earlier start and shorter work-up time for recipient and LD., Conclusions: Over the last two decades the proportion of patients receiving a first kidney transplant preemptively has more than doubled, reflecting a similar relative increase for living and DD kidney recipients., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the ERA.)

Organ transplantation is the best therapeutic option for children with end-stage organ failure. Pediatric transplantation centers and prioritization of organs for children are being established around the world. However, there is an important discrepancy observed when comparing high-income countries versus low-income and middle-income countries, as programs are active in some, but not in many others. Deceased organ donation is low in many places, which has led to an increase of organ shortage; consequently, there is a need to rely on the use of living donor organs. This is frequently the case for pediatric transplantation. To gather information about the possible reasons underlying these challenges and to propose possible solutions, a brainstorming session took place during the International Symposium on Pediatric Organ Donation and Transplantation in Ankara, Turkey. A description on different topics that were discussed is presented herein.

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

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

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

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

Establishing transparency and oversight of organ transplantation by regulatory agencies is of paramount importance to assure ethical, legal, and clinically robust transplantation practices. Registries reporting activity and outcome data of the donor and recipient, including donor source (living or deceased), must be developed for each transplant and should be a mandatory requirement to achieve accreditation to perform transplant surgeries. Collected data for the living organ donor must include the nationality, the nature of their relationship with the recipient, and the complications encountered by living donors that result in prolonged morbidity or mortality. Long-term patient and graft survival must be reported for the recipient with the underlying reasons for mortality or graft loss. To retain the authorization to perform organ transplantation, a facility must ensure that it reports this required information regarding every organ transplant., Competing Interests: The authors declare no funding or conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

A strategic vision toward global convergence in transplantation must encourage and remove barriers to living organ donation and transplantation. Here, we discuss deliberations of a working group of the 2023 Santander Summit charged with formulating recommendations for the safe expansion of living donor kidney transplantation and living donor liver transplantation worldwide. Living donor kidney transplantation has grown to be the preferred treatment for advanced kidney failure. Living donor liver transplantation emerged more recently as a strategy to reduce waitlist mortality, with adoption influenced by cultural factors, regional policies, clinical team experience, and the maturity of regional deceased donor transplant systems. Barriers to living donor transplantation span domains of education, infrastructure, risk assessment/risk communication, and financial burden to donors. Paired donor exchange is a growing option for overcoming incompatibilities to transplantation but is variably used across and within countries. Effectively expanding access to living donor transplantation requires multifaceted strategies, including improved education and outreach, and measures to enhance efficiency, transparency, and shared decision making in donor candidate evaluation. Efforts toward global dissemination and vigilant oversight of best practices and international standards for the assessment, informed consent, approval, and monitoring of living donors are needed. Fostering greater participation in paired exchange requires eliminating disincentives and logistical obstacles for transplant programs and patients, and establishing an ethical and legal framework grounded in World Health Organization Guiding Principles. Sharing of best practices from successful countries and programs to jurisdictions with emerging practices is vital to safely expand the practice of living donation worldwide and bring the field together globally., Competing Interests: Authors are volunteer members of the Organización Nacional de Trasplantes Santander Summit Living Donation Workgroup. K.L.L. is the scientific director of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) Living Donor Collective, chair of the American Society of Transplantation Living Donor Community of Practice, and a member of the American Society of Nephrology Policy and Advocacy Committee, the National Kidney Foundation Transplant Advisory Committee, and the National Living Donor Assistance Center (NLDAC) Advisory Group. K.L.L. receives funding for research related to organ donation and transplantation from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive Diseases (NIDDK; R01-DK120551) and the Mid-America Transplant Foundation. A.D.W. is deputy director of the SRTR Living Donor Collective and a member of the NLDAC Advisory Group. A.D.W. receives funding for research related to organ donation and transplantation from the NIDDK, the National Institute of Health, and the Agency for Research and Quality. S.N. is co-chair of the Declaration of Istanbul Custodian Group. Unrelated to this work, K.L.L. receives consulting fees from CareDx and speaker honoraria from Sanofi. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, 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 Republic of Uzbekistan, the history of liver transplantation began in 2018, but this type of medical care was introduced regularly only in 2021. The selection, preparation, and perioperative management of living liver donors can be complicated and have importance in the type of responsible medical care, which requires maximum doctor involvement at all stages. This review has detailed the donor selection algorithm in the Republic of Uzbekistan, donor preparation for liver resection, and basic principles of liver resection surgery in living donors. Algorithms for postoperative donor management and rehabilitation have also been described in detail.

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

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

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

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

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

Disparities exist in the access to living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in the United States. However, the association of neighborhood-level social determinants of health (SDoH) on the receipt of LDLT is not well-established. This was a retrospective cohort study of adult liver transplant recipients between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2021 at centers performing LDLT using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, which was linked through patients' ZIP code to a set of 24 neighborhood-level SDoH measures from different data sources. Temporal trends and center differences in neighborhood Social Deprivation Index (SDI), a validated scale of socioeconomic deprivation ranging from 0 to 100 (0=least disadvantaged), were assessed by transplant type. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the association of increasing SDI on receipt of LDLT [vs. deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT)]. There were 51,721 DDLT and 4026 LDLT recipients at 59 LDLT-performing centers during the study period. Of the 24 neighborhood-level SDoH measures studied, the SDI was most different between the 2 transplant types, with LDLT recipients having lower SDI (ie, less socioeconomic disadvantage) than DDLT recipients (median SDI 37 vs. 47; p < 0.001). The median difference in SDI between the LDLT and DDLT groups significantly decreased from 13 in 2005 to 3 in 2021 ( p = 0.003). In the final model, the SDI quintile was independently associated with transplant type ( p < 0.001) with a threshold SDI of ~40, above which increasing SDI was significantly associated with reduced odds of LDLT (vs. reference SDI 1-20). As a neighborhood-level SDoH measure, SDI is useful for evaluating disparities in the context of LDLT. Center outreach efforts that aim to reduce disparities in LDLT could preferentially target US ZIP codes with SDI > 40., (Copyright © 2023 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Objective: Longer end-stage renal disease time has been associated with inferior kidney transplant outcomes. However, the contribution of transplant evaluation is uncertain. We explored the relationship between time from evaluation to listing (ELT) and transplant outcomes., Methods: This retrospective study included 2535 adult kidney transplants from 2000 to 2015. Kaplan-Meier survival curves, log-rank tests, and Cox regression models were used to compare transplant outcomes., Results: Patient survival for both deceased donor (DD) recipients (p < .001) and living donor (LD) recipients (p < .0001) was significantly higher when ELT was less than 3 months. The risks of ELT appeared to be mediated by other risks in DD recipients, as adjusted models showed no associated risk of graft loss or death in DD recipients. For LD recipients, ELT remained a risk factor for patient death after covariate adjustment. Each month of ELT was associated with an increased risk of death (HR = 1.021, p = .04) but not graft loss in LD recipients in adjusted models., Conclusions: Kidney transplant recipients with longer ELT times had higher rates of death after transplant, and ELT was independently associated with an increased risk of death for LD recipients. Investigations on the impact of pretransplant evaluation on post-transplant outcomes can inform transplant policy and practice., (Clinical Transplantation© 2024 The Authors. Clinical Transplantation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Kidney transplantation is the most successful kidney replacement therapy available, resulting in improved recipient survival and societal cost savings. Yet, nearly 70 years after the first successful kidney transplant, there are still numerous barriers and untapped opportunities that constrain the access to transplant. The literature describing these barriers is extensive, but the practices and processes to solve them are less clear. Solutions must be multidisciplinary and be the product of strong partnerships among patients, their networks, health care providers, and transplant programs. Transparency in the referral, evaluation, and listing process as well as organ selection are paramount to build such partnerships. Providing early culturally congruent and patient-centered education as well as maximizing the use of local resources to facilitate the transplant work up should be prioritized. Every opportunity to facilitate pre-emptive kidney transplantation and living donation must be taken. Promoting the use of telemedicine and kidney paired donation as standards of care can positively impact the work up completion and maximize the chances of a living donor kidney transplant., (© 2024 The Authors. Clinical Transplantation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Solid-organ transplantation remains the optimal therapeutic option for end-stage organ disease. Altruistic donation represents the ultimate sign of generosity and the most important gift of life. Currently, <10% of the global needs for transplant are fulfilled. Organ shortages result from an inability to provide an adequate organ supply to match demands. The recently observed stagnation in living kidney donations in the United States is related to a drop in all types of organ donations from living related donors, which has been paralleled with a steady and continuous increase in all living unrelated donations. Some forms of living unrelated donation represent a financially driven survival system within which wealthy recipients exploit poor donors. Low rates of altruistic donation are related to cultural barriers, religious obstacles, fear, and consequent distrust in the system. The low rate indicates a state of lack of societal solidarity, a consequence of the state of subconsciousness at the individual and collective levels that humanity is living in. Human domestication, the conditioning process that humans go through since birth and the primary facilitator of this subconscious state, is guarded through familial, social, cultural, religious, political, and mass media organizations, which are all under the influence of the monetary establishment. Acquired beliefs, mainly during the domestication process, influence our perception of the environment, our values, and ultimately our way of life. Unfortunately, this conditioning process is negatively enforced, leading to a stressful state. The powerful subconscious mind places humans in a permanent survival mode, resulting in loss of intelligence, indispensable for well-being and happiness. Altruistic donation requires a close cooperation between all parties involved in the donation process and necessitates a positive reprograming of our subconscious based on sharing, generosity, satisfaction, gratitude, trust, inner peace, and ultimately happiness, well-known constituents of unconditional love, which represents the peak of consciousness.

The first living donor kidney transplant in Syria was performed 44 years ago; by the end of 2022, 6265 renal transplants had been performed in Syria. Kidney, bone marrow, cornea, and stem cells are the only organs or tissues that can be transplanted in Syria. Although 3 heart transplants from deceased donors were performed in the late 1980s, cardiac transplant activities have since discontinued. In 2003, national Syrian legislation was enacted authorizing the use of organs from living unrelated and deceased donors. This important law was preceded by another big stride: the acceptance by the higher Islamic religious authorities in Syria in 2001 of the principle of procurement of organs from deceased donors, provided that consent is given by a first- or second-degree relative. After the law was enacted, kidney transplant rates increased from 7 per million population in 2002 to 17 per million population in 2007. Kidney transplants performed abroad for Syrian patients declined from 25% in 2002 to <2% in 2007. Rates plateaued through 2010, before the political crisis started in 2011. Forty-four years after the first successful kidney transplant in Syria, patients needing an organ transplant rely on living donors only. Moreover, 20 years after the law authorizing use of organs from deceased donors, a program is still not in place in Syria. The war, limited resources, and lack of public awareness about the importance of organ donation and transplant appear to be factors inhibiting initiation of a deceased donor program in Syria. A concerted and ongoing education campaign is needed to increase awareness of organ donation, change negative public attitudes, and gain societal acceptance. Every effort must be made to initiate a deceased donor program to lessen the burden on living donors and to enable national self-sufficiency in organs for transplant.

Background: Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) continues to be the primary modality of liver transplantation in Asia, but it accounts for about 5% of all liver transplantations in the US. ABO incompatibility is the primary reason motivated donors are declined. Although kidney paired exchanges are common, liver paired exchange (LPE) is still evolving in the US., Study Design: This is a retrospective review (between January 1, 2019, and July 31, 2021) of our initial experience with LPE., Results: A total of 10 LPEs (20 LDLTs) were performed during the study period. Seven LPEs were initiated by a nondirected O donor. The other 3 pair sets involved 1 ABO compatible and 1 ABO incompatible pair. Transplantations in a pair set were completed within a mean of 4.8 (range 1-14) days of each other. All 20 donors are doing well with no major complications at 12.7 (range 1-20) months. Seventeen of 20 recipients are alive and have good allograft function. One recipient died in the early postoperative period. Two late deaths of patients with functioning allografts were due to COVID-19 (at 8 months) and peritoneal carcinomatosis and gram-negative sepsis (at 9 months)., Conclusions: LPE is feasible in a high-volume LDLT center and is a useful option to increase LDLT by overcoming ABO incompatibility. Nondirected donors can be utilized to initiate an LPE., (Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Surgeons. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

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

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

The purpose of this study is to highlight the need and the obligation to combine living donation with deceased one, this later is an incomparable source of organ donation, a plea with a triple objective: 1) analyzing the contribution of living donations in terms of numbers, through two elements: the degree of involvement of our medico-surgical competencies and our regulations governing organ donations. 2) Showing that, even though optimized, living donations will always fall short of the needs of our patients and are only part of the solution. 3) The other part is deceased donors: a source of donation which can not be substituted by that of the living donors, and which concerns patients awaiting a vital organ with no possibility of another substitute treatment. Patients are sentenced to death if not transplanted in a few weeks. In this respect, only professionalism and full staff availability can rid us of prejudices which unjustly and systematically overwhelm our society with regard to this type of life-saving donations. In countries promoting and performing this source of donation, a national priority planning network has been developed. This program ensures reliable results, based on universal standards for ethics, recruitment, training and organization. For health authorities of these same countries, the sharing of these organs with others countries is irrational and unreasonable. As long as these organs remain the only life-saving for this type of seriously ill patients, and this source of grafts will be insufficient to meet the needs of all their patients., Competing Interests: L´auteur ne déclare aucun conflit d´intérêts., (Copyright: Yassin Rekhif et al.)

Background: Living-donor lobar lung transplantation (LDLLT) is viable for critically ill patients in situations of donor shortage. Because it is sometimes difficult to find 2 ideal living donors with suitable graft sizes, we developed native lung-sparing procedures, including single LDLLT and native upper lobe-sparing LDLLT. This study aimed to investigate native lung complications (NLCs) in native lung-sparing LDLLT., Methods: Between April 2002 and March 2019, 92 LDLLTs and 124 cadaveric lung transplantations (CLTs) were performed at the Kyoto University Hospital. Our prospectively maintained database and clinical records were reviewed to compare NLCs among recipients who underwent native lung-sparing LDLLT (n = 21) with those among recipients who underwent single CLT (n = 61)., Results: Among 21 recipients who underwent native lung-sparing LDLLT, 11 NLCs occurred in 8 recipients. No fatal NLC was noted; however, 2 required surgical intervention. Post-transplant survival was not significantly different between native lung-sparing LDLLT recipients with NLCs and those without NLCs. The incidence of NLCs was comparable between native lung-sparing LDLLT recipients and single CLT recipients (8/21 vs 26/61, p = 0.80); however, NLCs occurred significantly later in LDLLT recipients than in CLT recipients (median: 665 vs 181.5 days after transplantation, p = 0.014)., Conclusions: NLCs after native lung-sparing LDLLT had favorable outcomes. Therefore, native lung-sparing LDLLT is a useful treatment option for severely ill patients who cannot wait for CLT. However, it is important to recognize that NLCs may occur later in LDLLT than in CLT., (Copyright © 2021 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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

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.)

Aims: To investigate access to paediatric renal transplantation and examine potential barriers within the process., Methods: Cross-sectional, multicentre, observational study where paediatric nephrology centres in the UK were requested to provide data on transplantation plans for all children (<18 years) with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD)., Results: 308 children with ESKD were included in this study from 12 out of 13 UK paediatric nephrology centres. 139 (45%) were being prepared for living donor transplantation and 82 (27%) were listed for deceased donor transplantation. The most common cited factors delaying transplantation from occurring in children were disease factors (36%), donor availability (27%) and size of the child (20%). Psychosocial factors were listed as a barrier in 19% of children., Conclusions: In this study we have documented the main barriers to renal transplantation in children. Some identified factors may be modifiable through local or national intervention, including donor availability and patient psychosocial factors., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Long-term studies have demonstrated a slight increased risk for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) for living kidney donors (LKD). In France, living kidney donation doubled within the past 10 years. We investigated the change in characteristics of LKD between 2007 and 2017 and the adequacy of follow-up., Methods: Data were obtained from the national registry for LKD. We compared characteristics of LKD between two study periods: 2007-11 and 2012-17, and stratified donors by age and relation to recipient. We aggregated four characteristics associated with higher ESRD risk [young age, first-degree relation to recipient, obesity, low glomerular filtration rate (GFR) for age] in a single risk indicator ranging from 0 to 4., Results: We included 3483 donors. The proportion of unrelated donors >56 years of age increased significantly. The proportion of related donors <56 years of age decreased significantly. The body mass index and proportion of obese donors did not change significantly. The proportion of donors with low estimated GFR for age decreased significantly from 5% to 2.2% (P < 0.001). The proportion of donors with adequate follow-up after donation increased from 19.6% to 42.5% (P < 0.001). No donor had a risk indicator equal to 4, and the proportion of donors with a risk indicator equal to 0 increased significantly from 19.2% to 24.9% (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: An increase in living kidney donation in France does not seem to be associated with the selection of donors at higher risk of ESRD and the proportion of donors with adequate annual follow-up significantly increased., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To report the results of the robot-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) experience performed in 10 European centres by members of the European Robotic Urology Section (ERUS)-RAKT group., Patients and Methods: This is a multicentre prospective observational study of RAKT. Descriptive analysis of recipients and donor characteristics, surgical data, intraoperative outcomes, complications rate and functional results were collected and analysed., Results: Between July 2015 and September 2019, 291 living-donor RAKTs were performed. Recipients were mostly male (189 [65%]), the mean Standard deviation (sd) age was 45.2 (13.35) years, the mean (sd) body mass index was 27.13 (19.28) kg/m 2 , and RAKT was pre-emptive in 155 (53.8%) cases. Right and multiple arteries kidneys were used in 15.4%. The mean (sd) total surgical and re-warming time was 244 (70.5) min and 53.16 (15.27) min, respectively. In all, 17 patients presented with postoperative bleeding (5.7%). Five kidneys had delayed graft function; five (2%) were lost due to thrombosis and one due to acute rejection. Two patients had arterial stenosis, three had incisional hernias, six had ureteric stenosis, and nine had lymphoceles. Neither surgical nor re-warming times were correlated with postoperative serum creatinine levels (P > 0.05). Comparison of surgical data between the first 120 cases and the following 171 cases showed a significantly shorter total surgical time in the second group (265 vs 230 min, P = 0.005)., Conclusions: This is the largest European multicentre study of RAKT with good surgical and functional results competitive with open kidney transplant series, with a relatively short learning curve when performed in centres with a wide experience in open kidney transplantation and robotic surgery., (© 2020 The Authors BJU International © 2020 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major cause of death in kidney transplant (KT) recipients. To improve their long-term survival, it is clinically important to estimate the risk of CVD after living donor KT via adequate pre-transplant CVD screening., Methods: A derivation cohort containing 331 KT recipients underwent living donor KT at Kyushu University Hospital from January 2006 to December 2012. A prediction model was retrospectively developed and risk scores were investigated via a Cox proportional hazards regression model. The discrimination and calibration capacities of the prediction model were estimated via the c-statistic and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test. External validation was estimated via the same statistical methods by applying the model to a validation cohort of 300 KT recipients who underwent living donor KT at Tokyo Women's Medical University Hospital., Results: In the derivation cohort, 28 patients (8.5%) had CVD events during the observation period. Recipient age, CVD history, diabetic nephropathy, dialysis vintage, serum albumin and proteinuria at 12 months after KT were significant predictors of CVD. A prediction model consisting of integer risk scores demonstrated good discrimination (c-statistic 0.88) and goodness of fit (Hosmer-Lemeshow test P = 0.18). In a validation cohort, the model demonstrated moderate discrimination (c-statistic 0.77) and goodness of fit (Hosmer-Lemeshow test P = 0.15), suggesting external validity., Conclusions: The above-described simple model for predicting CVD after living donor KT was accurate and useful in clinical situations., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Incidence of vascular anomalies in donor kidneys varies from 18% to 30% and presents a challenge for a transplant surgeon in kidney transplant. Here we present our personal experience for man - agement of the complicated and unexpected cases., Materials and Methods: A total of 250 kidney transplants (226 living, 24 deceased) were performed in a period of 24 years; mean donor age was 55 years (range, 25-86 years), and mean recipient age was 38.6 years (range, 14-66 years). We analyzed the surgical techniques, complications and outcomes, rejection episodes, kidney function, and graft and patient survival rates., Results: Of 250 nephrectomies, 209 had a single artery (83.6%), 34 had 2 arteries (13.6%), and 7 had 3 arteries (2.8%). Of 34 double arteries, 14 had 2 main arteries, 15 had a main and a polar artery, and 5 had an aortic Carrel patch after deceased donation. According to the size, type, and position, the anastomoses were performed with branches of hypogastric, epigastric inferior, iliac external, and main renal artery, intracorporeally or in bench surgery. Regarding veins, 1 double inferior vena cava, 1 left-side inferior vena cava, 4 retroaortic, 2 circumaortic, 10 large lumbar veins draining into the left renal veins, and 8 cases with 2 or more different size renal veins were managed. In 9 cases with short right renal vein, an extension with vena cava (a "Barry cavoplasty") was performed in deceased donor organs. No serious surgical complications related to vascular anomalies were observed. There were no statistical differences in 1-, 6-, and 12-month graft survival rates between the groups with or without vascular anomalies., Conclusions: Vascular anomalies should no longer be considered a contraindication for transplant, if careful anastomosis is performed in every case to avoid ischemia and further complications. Therefore, management of vascular anomalies could be a graftsaving procedure.

Background and Objectives: There is a significant shortage of kidneys available for donation. Family members of hemodialysis (HD) patients are experiencing the suffering of their close relatives, which can be a factor toward better acceptance to kidney donation. Knowledge is also an important factor that might affect willingness. In this study, we aimed to estimate the rate of willingness to donate kidneys as live donors (LD) and identify related potential barriers among family members of HD patients., Methods: This was a cross-sectional observational study involving family members of adult HD patients from King Abdulaziz Medical City and the King Abdullah International Foundation dialysis project in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Participants were interviewed through phone calls using a pretested questionnaire. Calculated sample size was 385., Results: A total of 370 family members of HD patients were included. Median age was 37 (interquartile range: 33-44) years and 64% were male. All participants were first-degree relatives to HD Patients. The majority reported willingness to donate kidneys as LD (n = 300, 81%), a proportion 0.81% with 95% confidence interval (CI; 0.77-0.85). Only 42 (11%) graded their knowledge about kidney transplantation as high or very high. On multivariable analysis, less willingness was shown with age >40 years (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.459; 95% CI 0.266-0.792; P = .005), and female gender (AOR 0.496; 95% CI 0.287-0.856; P = .012)., Conclusion: The majority of family members of HD patients were willing to donate kidneys. The willingness rate was lower among participants 40 years of age and older, as well as among women. The majority of patients graded their knowledge about kidney transplantation as average or lower. Therefore, education targeting of relatives of HD patients may help optimize knowledge and hence improve acceptance of kidney donation., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Recent series have demonstrated advantages of living donor over deceased donor liver transplantation, with particular benefit for those with low model for end-stage liver disease score. The logic underlying the transplantation of patients before they become too sick is intuitive. It reduces mortality and drop outs from the waiting list and makes transplant surgery less demanding. Those principles have to be balanced with donor safety and transplant benefit for the recipient avoiding early, futile transplantation. The authors report a case of adult to adult right lobe living donor liver transplantation performed for a recipient affected by primary biliary cirrhosis with MELD score of 15, in a transplant center located in an area of Europe characterized by chronic organ shortage.

Background: A kidney transplant candidate's social network serves as a pool of potential living donors. Sex and racial differences in network size, network strength, and living donor requests may contribute to disparities in living donor kidney transplantation., Methods: In this multicenter cross-sectional study, we performed an egocentric network analysis via a telephone survey of 132 waitlisted candidates (53% female and 69% Black) to identify demographic and network factors associated with requesting living kidney donations., Results: Female participants made requests to more network members than male participants: incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.24-3.06], P < 0.01. Black participants tended to make more requests than whites (IRR 1.65, 95% CI [0.99-2.73], P = 0.05). The number of requests increased with the size of the network (IRR 1.09, 95% CI [1.02-1.16], P = 0.01); however, network size did not differ by sex or race. Network members who provided greater instrumental support to the candidates were most likely to receive a request: odds ratio 1.39, 95% CI [1.08-1.78], P = 0.01., Conclusions: Transplant candidates' networks vary in size and in the number of requests made to the members. Previously observed racial and sex disparities in living donor kidney transplantation do not appear to be related to network size or to living donation requests, but rather to the network members themselves. Future living donor interventions should focus on the network members and be tailored to their relationship with the candidate.

Long-term safety of living kidney donation (LKD), especially for young donors, has become a real matter of concern in the transplant community and may contribute to creating resistance to LKD. In this context, the criteria that govern living donor donations must live up to very demanding standards as well as adjust to this novel reality. In the first part, we review the existing guidelines published after 2010 and critically examine their recommendations to see how they do not necessarily lead to consistent and universal practices in the choice of specific thresholds for a parameter used to accept or reject a living donor candidate. In the second part, we present the emergence of a new paradigm for LKD developed in the 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes guidelines with the introduction of an integrative risk-based approach. Finally, we focus on predonation renal function evaluation, a criteria that remain central in the selection process, and discuss several issues surrounding the donor candidate's glomerular filtration rate assessment.

Background: In Europe, transplantation centres use different nephrectomy techniques: open surgery, and standard, hand-assisted and robot-assisted laparoscopies. Few studies have analysed the disparity in costs and clinical outcomes between techniques. Since donors are healthy patients expecting minimum pain and fast recovery, this study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of four nephrectomy techniques focusing on early surgical outcomes, an essential in the donation act., Methods: A micro-costing approach was used to estimate the cost of implementation from a hospital perspective. Estimates took into account sterilization costs for multiple-use equipment, costs for purchasing single-use equipment, staff and analgesics. The study recruited donors in 20 centres in France. Quality of life by EuroQol-5D was assessed preoperatively, and 4 and 90 days post-operatively. Two effectiveness indicators were built: quality-of-life recovery and post-operative pain days averted (PPDA). The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02830568, on 10 June 2010., Results: A total of 264 donors were included; they underwent open surgery (n = 65), and standard (n = 65), hand-assisted (n = 65) and robot-assisted laparoscopies (n = 69). Use of the nephrectomy techniques differed greatly in cost of implementation and immediate post-operative outcomes but not in clinical outcomes at 90 days. At 4 days, hand-assisted laparoscopy provided the lowest cost per quality-of-life recovery unit of effectiveness (%) and PPDA (days) (€2056/40.1%/2.3 days, respectively). Robot-assisted laparoscopy was associated with the best post-operative outcomes but with the highest cost (€3430/59.1%/2.6 days)., Conclusion: Hand-assisted, standard and robot-assisted laparoscopies are cost-effective techniques compared with open surgery. Hand-assisted surgery is the most cost-effective procedure. Robot-assisted surgery requires more healthcare resource use but enables the best clinical outcome., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. 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.)

Background: Consider a theoretical situation in which 2 patients with similar baseline characteristics receive a kidney transplant on the same day: 1 from a standard criteria deceased donor, the other from a living donor. Which kidney transplant will last longer?, Methods: We conducted a population-based cohort study using linked administrative healthcare databases from Ontario, Canada, from January 1, 2005, to March 31, 2014, to evaluate several posttransplant outcomes in individuals who received a kidney transplant from a standard criteria deceased donor (n = 1523) or from a living donor (n = 1373). We used PS weighting using overlap weights, a novel weighting method that emphasizes the population of recipients with the most overlap in baseline characteristics., Results: Compared with recipients of a living donor, the rate of all-cause graft failure was not statistically higher for recipients of a standard criteria deceased donor (hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-1.6). Recipients of a standard criteria deceased donor, compared with recipients of a living donor had a higher rate of delayed graft function (23.6% versus 18.7%; odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.6) and a longer length of stay for the kidney transplant surgery (mean difference, 1.7 d; 95% CI, 0.5-3.0)., Conclusions: After accounting for many important donor and recipient factors, we failed to observe a large difference in the risk of all-cause graft failure for recipients of a standard criteria deceased versus living donor. Some estimates were imprecise, which meant we could not rule out the presence of smaller clinically important effects.

A human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection is no longer an absolute contraindication for solid organ transplantation, yet such a setting is still challenging and little explored because of general reservations and medical difficulties. We describe a 51-year-old man with end-stage renal failure due to polycystic kidney disease who underwent an ABO-incompatible kidney transplantation from his 49-year-old male partner. Early postoperative course revealed an episode of suspected acute rejection, which was successfully managed with a steroid pulse. Both donor and recipient continued to have an undetectable viral load after adjusting antiretroviral medication to renal function. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of a successful ABO-incompatible living donor kidney transplantation from an HIV-positive donor in an HIV-positive recipient, and this case seems to be a valuable approach with favorable results., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The shortage of deceased donor organs is a limiting factor in transplant. The growing discrepancy between the wait list demand versus the supply of deceased donor organs has created an incentive for consideration of living donor liver transplant as an alternative. Here, we describe our evaluation process and donor complications., Materials and Methods: Since 1988, we have performed 659 (449 living donor and 210 deceased donor) liver transplants. The most important evaluation criteria is the relationship between donor and recipient, and we require thatthe donor must be related to the recipient. The evaluation protocol has 5 stages. Donor complications were defined as simple, moderate, and severe., Results: We retrospectively investigated data for 1387 candidates, and 938 (67.7%) were rejected; subsequently, 449 living donor liver transplants were performed. There were no complications in 398 of the donors (88.7%). Total complication rate was 11.3%. Simple complications were seen in 31 patients (6.9%). Moderate complications were seen in 19 patients (4.2%). We had only 1 severe complication, ie, organ failure from unspecified liver necrosis, which resulted in death., Conclusions: The relationship between donor and recipient and donor safety should be the primary focus for living donor liver transplant. Donor selection should be made carefully to minimize complications and provide adequately functional grafts.

Objectives: Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Maharashtra, Kerala, Chandigarh, and Karnataka are states in India with active programs for deceased donor kidney transplant. We report our experience of 2 decades of deceased donor kidney transplant at the Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr. H. L. Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India., Materials and Methods: This single-center retrospective study comprised data from 831 deceased donor kidney transplant recipients between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2018. Mean recipient age was 38 ± 14 years; 564 were male, and 267 were female. Mean donor age was 45.3 ± 17.13 years; 565 were men, and 266 were women., Results: Between January 1, 1997 and March 15, 2020, 5838 kidney transplants were completed, including 4895 living donor kidney transplants, 943 deceased donor kidney transplants, and 440 kidney paired donation transplants. Over the mean follow-up time of 8 ± 5.4 years, patient survival rate was 70% (n = 581) and death-censored graft survival rate was 84% (n = 698). Delayed graft function was shown in 210 patients (25%) and biopsy-proven acute rejection rate in 180 patients (21%). Our experience of favorable outcomes with deceased donor kidney transplants has expanded the donor pool in many ways, including transplant from expanded criteria donors to younger recipients; transplant from older donors to older recipients; donation after cardiac death; successful intercity organ procurement; dual-kidney transplant; en bloc transplant from a pediatric deceased donor; and transplant from brain death deceased donors who died from neurotoxic snakebite, recurrent primary brain tumor, bacterial meningitis, or head injury, or with disseminated intravascular coagulation and deranged renal functions. The pathway to increase organ donation was investigated., Conclusions: Deceased donor kidney transplant can achieve acceptable graft function with patient/graft survival, which may encourage the use of this approach to increase the number of available organs.

Summary: "Never let a good crisis go to waste." - Sir Winston Churchill., The value of Canada's Kidney Paired Donation program to the population cannot be overstated. Its greatest challenge as a national program, however, is the geographic separation of recipient and matched donor. Representatives from every transplant program in the country have been working toward increased use of kidney shipping in order to diminish the disincentive of donor travel. With transplantation program and travel restrictions in place to minimize the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the time to make a full transition from donor travel to the shipment of donor kidneys has clearly arrived.