Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Living Kidney Donation: A Single Center Experience

Changes in Decisional Conflict and Decisional Regret Among Living Kidney Donors From Pre-Donation to 1-Year Post-Donation

Previous research indicates that most living kidney donors (LKDs) are content with their decision to donate and seldom experience regret. Nevertheless, a small percentage of donors report adverse experiences, such as psychological distress and reduced vitality. Therefore, it is essential to explore the experiences of LKDs, particularly within the context of their decision-making process both before and following kidney donation. This study aimed to examine the decisional conflict and decisional regret experienced by LKDs from the evaluation stage to 12 months post-donation and to identify the associated factors. A longitudinal study design was implemented, and the initial data collection took place when potential LKDs visited the hospital for evaluation (n = 50). Subsequent data collection was conducted at 3 (n = 49), 6, and 12 (n = 46) months post-donation. Variables, including basic demographics, decisional conflict, decisional regret, perceived control, psychological distress, and healthcare orientation, were collected. Generalized estimating equations were used to obtain inferential statistics. Results showed that perceived control characterized by personal control orientation, lower psychological distress, and better healthcare orientation were associated with reduced decisional conflict among LKDs. Meanwhile, lower decisional regret was associated with better self-perceived health status, perceived control inclined toward interpersonal control, and less psychological distress among LKDs. Nurses should assess the decisional conflict and mental health of potential LKDs, and provide clear information to support their decision regarding kidney donation. They should also offer self-care information and stress-coping strategies related to living donor nephrectomy to aid in reducing decisional conflict and regret.

Beyond the gift: exploring mental health and quality of life after kidney donation in a resource limited country

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplant is a life changing treatment. It improves the quality of life and ideally restores the kidney function of recipients. However, it also poses challenges, especially for the donors. Pakistan is a resource-limited country and donors have to face some specific social and cultural challenges. Knowledge about the donor's mental health and quality of life after donation is limited. This study aims to explore the mental health and quality of life after kidney donation.

METHODS

The study was retrospective and cross-sectional, carried out between August and December 2023. One hundred donors from a single center were selected through convenience sampling. Two questionnaires, namely the Beck Depression Inventory and Satisfaction with life scale were employed during an interview with donors. Data were analyzed using SPSS- 27.

RESULTS

Overall, 70 females and 30 males participated. Only 9 donors (9%), reported significant disturbance in their mental health, amongst which 2 were males and 7 were females. Of note, two recipients of their donation passed away, while another experienced graft failure. Insomnia and tiredness were significant contributors to the donors' inability to work, with a reported percentage of 25%. In addition, dissatisfaction with life was reported by 8 donors only. There was no significant association between depression and satisfaction with life and age, marital and education status and time since transplant. Only status of the graft in the recipient was associated with an impact on the donor's mental health. Thirteen donors exhibited depression post-nephrectomy, with 4% experiencing mild disturbance and 9% showing major mood disturbances including borderline clinical depression and moderate depression. Notably, none of the donors had test scores indicating extreme depression.

CONCLUSION

Kidney donation has no severe impact in terms of mental health and quality of life in donors. Apart from the status of the graft, none of the demographic characteristics had a significant impact on the mental health of donors.

Living Kidney Donation: A Narrative Review of Mid- and Long-term Psychosocial Outcomes

Living kidney donors make a significant contribution to alleviating the organ shortage. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of mid- and long-term (≥12 mo) living donor psychosocial outcomes and highlight areas that have been understudied and should be immediately addressed in both research and clinical practice. We conducted a narrative review by searching 3 databases. A total of 206 articles were included. Living donors can be divided into those who donate to an emotionally or genetically related person, the so-called directed donors, or to an emotionally or genetically unrelated recipient, the so-called nondirected donors. The most commonly investigated (bio)psychosocial outcome after living donation was health-related quality of life. Other generic (bio)psychological outcomes include specific aspects of mental health such as depression, and fatigue and pain. Social outcomes include financial and employment burdens and problems with insurance. Donation-specific psychosocial outcomes include regret, satisfaction, feelings of abandonment and unmet needs, and benefits of living kidney donation. The experience of living donation is complex and multifaceted, reflected in the co-occurrence of both benefits and burden after donation. Noticeably, no interventions have been developed to improve mid- or long-term psychosocial outcomes among living donors. We highlight areas for methodological improvement and identified 3 areas requiring immediate attention from the transplant community in both research and clinical care: (1) recognizing and providing care for the minority of donors who have poorer long-term psychosocial outcomes after donation, (2) minimizing donation-related financial burden, and (3) studying interventions to minimize long-term psychosocial problems.

Post-Donation Evaluation: Emotional Needs for Social Connection and Social Support among Living Kidney Donors-A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Evaluation of post-nephrectomy social health in living kidney donors is essential. This systematic review examines their emotional need for social relatedness post-donation.

METHODS

Following the PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycINFO.

RESULTS

Among the screened records, 32 quantitative and 16 qualitative papers met the inclusion criteria. Quantitative research predominantly utilized questionnaires featuring generic items on social functioning. However, a minority delved into emotional and social dimensions, aligning with qualitative studies emphasizing the importance of social connection and perceived social support post-donation. Specifically, post-donation changes in connecting with others encompass a sense of belongingness, heightened autonomy, shifts in concern for the recipient's health, and continued care by shielding the recipient from personal health issues. Social acknowledgment and social support from both close and extended networks are reported as relevant for recovery after nephrectomy.

DISCUSSION

These findings underscore the necessity for targeted measures of emotional needs and social functioning to effectively assess post-donation adjustment. They also inform the identification of key health themes for kidney donor Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) questions.

Kidney Donor Perspectives on Acute Postoperative Pain Management

This study employed a qualitative descriptive approach to examine living kidney donor's experience of postoperative pain. Thirteen living kidney donors aged 46.5 (±14.4) years participated in this study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and transcribed. Transcripts were inductively coded and reviewed for trends, patterns, and insights into donor's experience of postoperative pain. Donors experienced postoperative pain from a variety of sources that hindered recovery and created anxiety and fear in some. Donors managed pain with opioid and non-opioid medications, social support, and ambulation. Donor's past experiences with and expectations about pain, relationships with intended recipients, social support, as well as motivations for and meaning of donation informed their experience of postoperative pain. Prompt pharmacologic intervention for pain, as well as further coaching and education about pain management should be emphasized for nurses caring for living kidney donors. Further study of how donor's motivation might mediate their pain experience is needed.

Patient information about living donor kidney transplantation across UK renal units: A critical review

BACKGROUND

Patient information about living donor kidney transplantation is used to supplement conversations between health professionals, people with advanced kidney disease and potential kidney donors. It is not known if the information is designed to support decision-making about renal replacement options and if it helps people discuss living kidney donation with family and friends.

OBJECTIVE

Critical review of resources used in outpatient kidney consultations to support patients' decision-making about living kidney donor transplantation.

DESIGN

Mixed methods including an audit questionnaire and critical analysis of patient information leaflets.

PARTICIPANTS AND MEASUREMENTS

All kidney transplant centres and renal units in United Kingdom received a questionnaire to elicit by whom, how, and when information about living kidney donation is delivered. Copies of leaflets were requested. A coding frame was utilised to produce a quality score for each leaflet.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine (54%) units participated. Patients discussed living donor kidney transplantation with nephrologists (100%), living donor nurse (94%), transplant co-ordinator (94%), and predialysis nurse (86%). Twenty-three leaflets were provided and reviewed, mean quality scores for inclusion of information known to support shared decision-making was m = 2.82 out of 10 (range = 0-6, SD = 1.53). Readability scores indicated they were 'fairly difficult to read' (M = 56.3, range = 0-100, SD = 9.4). Few included cultural and faith information. Two leaflets were designed to facilitate conversations with others about donation.

CONCLUSIONS

Leaflets are unlikely to adequately support decision-making between options and discussions about donation. Services writing and updating patient leaflets may benefit from our six principles to guide their development.

Moving towards patient-reported outcomes in routine clinical practice: implementation lessons from the BREAST-Q

PURPOSE

Longitudinal, routine utilization of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical care has been challenging. The purpose of this study is to describe a quality improvement initiative to improve patient engagement with the BREAST-Q, a gold-standard PROM for breast reconstruction.

METHODS

In 2011, we implemented the BREAST-Q as part of routine care. In 2018, we began a quality improvement initiative to increase BREAST-Q patient participation. The BREAST-Q was administered at every clinic visit via an institutional patient portal or an in-clinic tablet; digital dashboard technologies were used to improve workflow integration, real-time accountability, and immediate data availability at clinic visits. High clinical staff engagement was encouraged by assigning "BREAST-Q Champions." BREAST-Q completion data and patient characteristics were examined to understand non-response to the assessment.

RESULTS

Following quality improvement, the average annual BREAST-Q completion rate increased from 42.8% in 2011-2017 to 87.6% in 2019, the last full year of our study period. High completion rates were maintained January-July 2020; however, a significantly larger proportion of BREAST-Qs were completed at home in 2020 versus the same period in 2019 (49.7 vs. 38.8%, p < 0.001), potentially due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared with non-responders, responders were younger (49.7 vs. 52.2 years, p < 0.001), more likely to be white (76.9 vs. 73.6%, p < 0.001), and had private insurance (79.4 vs. 69.8%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our quality improvement initiative successfully increased routine completion of the BREAST-Q. Similar implementation techniques may prove beneficial at other institutions interested in incorporating PROMs into routine care.

Living Kidney Donors' Financial Expenses and Mental Health

BACKGROUND

Living kidney donors incur donation-related expenses, but how these expenses impact postdonation mental health is unknown.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, the association between mental health and donor-incurred expenses (both out-of-pocket costs and lost wages) was examined in 821 people who donated a kidney at one of the 12 transplant centers in Canada between 2009 and 2014. Mental health was measured by the RAND Short Form-36 Health Survey along with Beck Anxiety Inventory and Beck Depression Inventory.

RESULTS

A total of 209 donors (25%) reported expenses of >5500 Canadian dollars. Compared with donors who incurred lower expenses, those who incurred higher expenses demonstrated significantly worse mental health-related quality of life 3 months after donation, with a trend towards worse anxiety and depression, after controlling for predonation mental health-related quality of life and other risk factors for psychological distress. Between-group differences for donors with lower and higher expenses on these measures were no longer significant 12 months after donation.

CONCLUSIONS

Living kidney donor transplant programs should ensure that adequate psychosocial support is available to all donors who need it, based on known and unknown risk factors. Efforts to minimize donor-incurred expenses and to better support the mental well-being of donors need to continue. Further research is needed to investigate the effect of donor reimbursement programs, which mitigate donor expenses, on postdonation mental health.

Economic Consequences of Adult Living Kidney Donation: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Current guidelines mandate organ donation to be financially neutral such that it neither rewards nor exploits donors. This systematic review was conducted to assess the magnitude and type of costs incurred by adult living kidney donors and to identify those at risk of financial hardship.

METHODS

We searched English-language journal articles and working papers assessing direct and indirect costs incurred by donors on PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, the National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database, Research Papers in Economics, and EconLit in 2005 and thereafter. Estimates of total costs, types of costs, and characteristics of donors who incurred the financial burden were extracted.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were identified involving 6158 donors. Average donor-borne costs ranged from US$900 to US$19 900 (2019 values) over the period from predonation evaluation to the end of the first postoperative year. Less than half of donors sought financial assistance and 80% had financial loss. Out-of-pocket payments for travel and health services were the most reported items where lost income accounted for the largest proportion (23.2%-83.7%) of total costs. New indirect cost items were identified to be insurance difficulty, exercise impairment, and caregiver income loss. Donors from lower-income households and those who traveled long distances reported the greatest financial hardship.

CONCLUSIONS

Most kidney donors are undercompensated. Our findings highlight gaps in donor compensation for predonation evaluation, long-distance donations, and lifetime insurance protection. Additional studies outside of North America are needed to gain a global prospective on how to provide for financial neutrality for kidney donors.

The Spanish Version of the Fear of Kidney Failure Questionnaire: Validity, Reliability, and Characterization of Living Donors With the Highest Fear of Kidney Failure

Background.

Measures of fear of progression or recurrence of illnesses have been criticized for neglecting cross-cultural validity. Therefore, we assessed the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Fear of Kidney Failure Questionnaire (FKFQ), to determine whether postdonation fear of kidney failure (FKF) influenced the donors’ psychosocial status, and define variables that characterized donors with high FKFQ scores.

Methods.

We included 492 participants (211 donors) in a multicenter, 11-year, retrospective, cross-sectional study. Donors were classified with a Latent Class Analysis of the FKFQ-item scores and characterized with a multivariable logistic regression analysis. We calculated the risk ratio based on predicted marginal probabilities.

Results.

The Spanish version of the FKFQ showed acceptable psychometric properties. FKF was uncommon among donors, but we detected a small subgroup (n = 21, 9.9%) with high FKF (mean FKFQ score = 14.5, 3.1 SD). Compared with other donors, these donors reported higher anxiety and depression (38% and 29% of potential anxiety and depressive disorders), worse quality of life, and less satisfaction with the donation. Donors with high FKFQ scores were characterized by higher neuroticism combined with postdonation physical symptoms that interfered with daily activities.

Conclusions.

The FKFQ was cross-culturally valid, and thus, it may be used to assess the FKF in Spanish-speaking donors. New interventions that promote positive affectivity and evidence-based treatments for worry could be adapted for treating FKF.

Psychosocial risk factors for impaired health-related quality of life in living kidney donors: results from the ELIPSY prospective study

Living kidney donors' follow-up is usually focused on the assessment of the surgical and medical outcomes. Whilst the psychosocial follow-up is advocated in literature. It is still not entirely clear which exact psychosocial factors are related to a poor psychosocial outcome of donors. The aim of our study is to prospectively assess the donors' psychosocial risks factors to impaired health-related quality of life at 1-year post-donation and link their psychosocial profile before donation with their respective outcomes. The influence of the recipient's medical outcomes on their donor's psychosocial outcome was also examined. Sixty donors completed a battery of standardized psychometric instruments (quality of life, mental health, coping strategies, personality, socio-economic status), and ad hoc items regarding the donation process (e.g., motivations for donation, decision-making, risk assessment, and donor-recipient relationship). Donors' 1-year psychosocial follow-up was favorable and comparable with the general population. So far, cluster-analysis identified a subgroup of donors (28%) with a post-donation reduction of their health-related quality of life. This subgroup expressed comparatively to the rest, the need for more pre-donation information regarding surgery risks, and elevated fear of losing the recipient and commitment to stop their suffering.

Exploring the motives of Israeli Jews who were living kidney donors to strangers

Non-directed living donors are individuals who donate a kidney to a recipient with whom they have neither a genetic nor emotional relationship. Israel legalized this type of donation in 2008. After this law was implemented, living donations significantly expanded. The aim of this article was to determine the motivations, characteristics, and perioperative experiences of non-directed living donors in Israel. Three online questionnaires (own questionnaire, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES), Rushton Self-Report Altruism Scale) were distributed to 180 Jewish kidney donors with the help of Matnat Chaim organization. One hundred and fifteen responses were received (69.3% response rate). The motivation for most donors (60%) was a strong willingness to help and a desire to do good. The majority of donors (78.3%) reported their health status as unchanged after donation; however, 16.5% experienced clinical problems (eg, wound infection, more pain than expected), and 5.2% experienced psychological complications. About 18% reported their health to improve after donation. Most (80%) inspired someone else to also become a kidney donor. This study breaks the myth that Jews do not support organ donation. In fact, their high level of altruism and their positive experience with donation has propelled the practice of non-directed donation in Israel.

Kidney Donation Withdrawal and Related Factors Among the Potential Donors of Living Kidney Transplant

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to discuss the reasons for kidney donation withdrawal and related factors among the potential donors of living kidney transplant.

METHODS

This study was conducted in outpatient departments with purposive sampling. Potential donors received relevant examinations and completed questionnaires when they would donate their kidneys for living related kidney transplant. Researchers tracked the final decision of potential donors. The structured questionnaire included basic data, psychosocial adjustment to illness scale, and decisional conflict scale.

RESULTS

A total of 53 potential donors participated in this study, 46 of whom completed the kidney donation surgery (86.6%). The factors related to the final decision of kidney donation or kidney donation withdrawal included self-ranking health condition, value clarity, feeling supported in decision making, and overall decisional conflict.

CONCLUSION

Organ transplant teams should conduct a complete physical and psychological assessment of potential donors, provide information and support, and assist potential donors to clarify their true values and willingness to undergo kidney donation. Thus, each potential donor can decide to donate in true accordance with their willingness.

Risks of Living Kidney Donation: Current State of Knowledge on Outcomes Important to Donors

In the past decade, there have been increasing efforts to better define and quantify the short- and long-term risks of living kidney donation. Recent studies have expanded upon the previous literature by focusing on outcomes that are important to potential and previous donors, applying unique databases and/or registries to follow large cohorts of donors for longer periods of time, and comparing outcomes with healthy nondonor controls to estimate attributable risks of donation. Leading outcomes important to living kidney donors include kidney health, surgical risks, and psychosocial effects of donation. Recent data support that living donors may experience a small increased risk of severe CKD and ESKD compared with healthy nondonors. For most donors, the 15-year risk of kidney failure is <1%, but for certain populations, such as young, black men, this risk may be higher. New risk prediction tools that combine the effects of demographic and health factors, and innovations in genetic risk markers are improving kidney risk stratification. Minor perioperative complications occur in 10%-20% of donor nephrectomy cases, but major complications occur in <3%, and the risk of perioperative death is <0.03%. Generally, living kidney donors have similar or improved psychosocial outcomes, such as quality of life, after donation compared with before donation and compared with nondonors. Although the donation process should be financially neutral, living kidney donors may experience out-of-pocket expenses and lost wages that may or may not be completely covered through regional or national reimbursement programs, and may face difficulties arranging subsequent life and health insurance. Living kidney donors should be fully informed of the perioperative and long-term risks before making their decision to donate. Follow-up care allows for preventative care measures to mitigate risk and ongoing surveillance and reporting of donor outcomes to inform prior and future living kidney donors.

Effective Decision-Making and Decisional Regret in Living Kidney Donors of Taiwan

BACKGROUND

While most living kidney donors are satisfied with their decision and do not regret donating, few studies have been conducted on the determinants related to the effectiveness and regret of the decision. This study aims to explore the relationship between basic attributes, quality of life, positive affect, negative affect, effectiveness of decision-making, and regret in living kidney donors.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, living kidney donors were recruited from urology and kidney transplant outpatient services. The structured questionnaire used to collect the data included the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey, Decision Conflict Scale, and Decision Regret Scale.

RESULTS

The findings indicate that living donors with better health status, 24-hour creatinine clearance, physical health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and positive affect experienced greater feelings of effective decision-making. Moreover, women and donors with better physical HRQOL, positive affect, and decision effectiveness were less regretful about the decision of kidney donation.

CONCLUSION

Health status, physical HRQOL, and positive affect are related to decision validity and regret of living donors. Therefore, clinical care providers should regularly assess the mood and health of living kidney donors. Furthermore, activities promoting their health should be encouraged, especially for men.

Identifying Outcomes that Are Important to Living Kidney Donors: A Nominal Group Technique Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Living kidney donor candidates accept a range of risks and benefits when they decide to proceed with nephrectomy. Informed consent around this decision assumes they receive reliable data about outcomes they regard as critical to their decision making. We identified the outcomes most important to living kidney donors and described the reasons for their choices.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Previous donors were purposively sampled from three transplant units in Australia (Sydney and Melbourne) and Canada (Vancouver). In focus groups using the nominal group technique, participants identified outcomes of donation, ranked them in order of importance, and discussed the reasons for their preferences. An importance score was calculated for each outcome. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Across 14 groups, 123 donors aged 27-78 years identified 35 outcomes. Across all participants, the ten highest ranked outcomes were kidney function (importance=0.40, scale 0-1), time to recovery (0.27), surgical complications (0.24), effect on family (0.22), donor-recipient relationship (0.21), life satisfaction (0.18), lifestyle restrictions (0.18), kidney failure (0.14), mortality (0.13), and acute pain/discomfort (0.12). Kidney function and kidney failure were more important to Canadian participants, compared with Australian donors. The themes identified included worthwhile sacrifice, insignificance of risks and harms, confidence and empowerment, unfulfilled expectations, and heightened susceptibility.

CONCLUSIONS

Living kidney donors prioritized a range of outcomes, with the most important being kidney health and the surgical, lifestyle, functional, and psychosocial effects of donation. Donors also valued improvements to their family life and donor-recipient relationship. There were clear regional differences in the rankings.

Experiences of living kidney donors during the donation process

BACKGROUND

The shortage of organs from deceased donors has led to more living donation. Furthermore, immunological developments have made it possible to perform kidney transplantation despite preformed antibodies against the donor organ. This has led to a broader recruitment base of living donors.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to investigate experiences and considerations on becoming, and during the process of being, a living kidney donor.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Interviews and participant observation were conducted before, during and after the donation. Data were analysed in accordance with Ricoeur's theory of interpretation on three levels: naïve reading, structural analysis and critical interpretation and discussion. Eighteen potential donors over the age of 18 were included.

RESULTS

Potential donors' decision to donate was based on a desire to help the recipient. At all stages of the process, donors experienced joy, dilemmas, vulnerability and hope. Rejected donors experienced frustration and disappointment. The accepted donors experienced both joy and vulnerability. Interaction between the donor and the recipient and the relatives played a significant role. The transition from being a healthy individual to being a surgical patient was an overwhelming experience.

CONCLUSION

The process of donating a kidney and the return to everyday life involved significant experiences of joy, dilemmas, vulnerability and hope that influenced donors' lives on physical, psychological and social levels. Support and clear communication from the health professionals was essential.

Financial Burden Borne by Laparoscopic Living Kidney Donors

BACKGROUND

Living kidney donors have donation-related out-of-pocket costs (direct costs) and/or ongoing daily expenses while losing income (indirect costs). Yet there is little information about how much of a subjective burden these constitute for the donors.

METHODS

From December 2003 through December 2014, we surveyed donors 6 months postdonation to determine their financial burden related to donation (on a scale of 1 to 10) and what resources were used to cover expenses.

RESULTS

Of 1136 surveyed, 796 (70%) responded. Among respondents, mean age at donation was 43.6 ± 10.6 years, 64% were women, 96% were white, and 53% were related by blood to their recipient. Overall, 26% scored their financial burden as 5 or higher; 8% scored it as 8 or higher. Increased expenses were associated with a higher reported burden; however, significant burden was reported by some with no out-of-pocket expenses (presumably due to lost wages and continuing expenses). The burden was scored as 5 or higher by 27% of those employed outside the home (n = 660), 15% homemakers, 13% retirees, 40% students; 28% unemployed; and 26% whose occupation was unknown. Over half (51%) of those receiving a local or (means-tested) national grant still reported moderate to severe burden. Besides grants, donors used a variety of sources to help offset expenses: dipped into savings, borrowed from friends or family, took out a loan, and/or had a fundraiser. Those with the highest burden reported using the most additional sources.

CONCLUSIONS

Donors should not have to incur costs or a financial burden to donate; the transplant community should strive to make donation financially neutral.

KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

The 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors is intended to assist medical professionals who evaluate living kidney donor candidates and provide care before, during and after donation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies that included critical appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations. However, many recommendations, for which there was no evidence or no systematic search for evidence was undertaken by the Evidence Review Team, were issued as ungraded expert opinion recommendations. The guideline work group concluded that a comprehensive approach to risk assessment should replace decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation. Original data analyses were undertaken to produce a "proof-in-concept" risk-prediction model for kidney failure to support a framework for quantitative risk assessment in the donor candidate evaluation and defensible shared decision making. This framework is grounded in the simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics. The processes and framework for the donor candidate evaluation are presented, along with recommendations for optimal care before, during, and after donation. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, especially regarding the lack of definitive prospective studies and clinical outcome trials. Suggestions for future research, including the need for continued refinement of long-term risk prediction and novel approaches to estimating donation-attributable risks, are also provided.In citing this document, the following format should be used: Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Living Kidney Donor Work Group. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors. Transplantation. 2017;101(Suppl 8S):S1-S109.

Death of recipients after kidney living donation triples donors' risk of dropping out from follow-up: a retrospective study

Although kidney transplantation from the donation of a living donor is a safe treatment for end-stage renal disease, inferences about safety of living kidney donors might be biased by an informative censoring caused by the noninclusion of a substantial percentage of donors lost to follow-up. With the aim of assessing the presence of a potential informative censoring in living kidney donation outcomes of Catalan donors for a period of 12 years, 573 donors followed and lost to follow-up were compared. Losses of follow-up over time were also assessed by univariate and multivariate survival analysis, along with Cox regression. Younger and older ages, and the death of their recipient differentiated those donors who were lost to follow-up over time. The risk of dropping out from follow-up was more than twofold for the youngest and oldest donors, and almost threefold for those donors whose recipient died. Results of studies on postdonation outcomes of Catalan living kidney donors might have overlooked older and younger cases, and, remarkably, a percentage of donors whose recipient died. If these donors showed a higher incidence of psychological problems, conclusions about living donors' safety might be compromised thus emphasizing the necessity of sustained surveillance of donors and prompt identification of these cases.

Return to normal activities and work after living donor laparoscopic nephrectomy

Transplant programs inform potential donors that they should be able to return to normal activities within ~2 weeks and to work by 6 weeks after laparoscopic nephrectomy. We studied actual time. Between 10/2004 and 9/2014, 911 donors having laparoscopic nephrectomy were surveyed 6 months post-donation. Surveys asked questions specific to their recovery experience, including time to return to normal activities and work and a description of their recovery time relative to pre-donation expectations. Of the 911, 646 (71%) responded: mean age at donation was 43.5±10.6 years; 65% were female, 95% were white, 51% were biologically related to their recipient, and 83% reported education beyond high school. Of the 646 respondents, a total of 35% returned to normal activities by 2 weeks post-donation; 79% by 4 weeks post-donation; 94% by 5-6 weeks; however, 6% took >6 weeks. Of the 646, 551 (85%) were working for pay; of these, mean time to return to work was 5.3±2.8 weeks; median, 5 weeks. Of the 551, a total of 14% returned to work in 1-2 weeks, 46% by 3-4 weeks, and 76% by 5-6 weeks. Importantly, 24% required >6 weeks before returning to work with the highest rates for donors in manual labor or a skilled trade. Significantly longer return to work was reported by females (vs males; P=.01), those without (vs those with) post-high school education (P=.010, those with longer hospital stay (P=.01), and those with a postoperative complication (P=.02). Of respondents, 37% described their recovery time as longer than expected. During the donor informed consent process, additional emphasis on realistic expectations around recovery to baseline activities and return to work is warranted.

Health Insurance Trends in United States Living Kidney Donors (2004 to 2015)

Some transplant programs consider the lack of health insurance as a contraindication to living kidney donation. Still, prior studies have shown that many adults are uninsured at time of donation. We extend the study of donor health insurance status over a longer time period and examine associations between insurance status and relevant sociodemographic and health characteristics. We queried the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network registry for all living kidney donors (LKDs) between July 2004 and July 2015. Of the 53 724 LKDs with known health insurance status, 8306 (16%) were uninsured at the time of donation. Younger (18 to 34 years old), male, minority, unemployed, less educated, unmarried LKDs and those who were smokers and normotensive were more likely to not have health insurance at the time of donation. Compared to those with no health risk factors (i.e. obesity, smoking, hypertension, estimated glomerular filtration rate <60, proteinuria) (14%), LKDs with 1 (18%) or ≥2 (21%) health risk factors at the time of donation were more likely to be uninsured (p < 0.0001). Among those with ≥2 health risk factors, blacks (28%) and Hispanics (27%) had higher likelihood of being uninsured compared to whites (19%; p < 0.001). Study findings underscore the importance of providing health insurance benefits to all previous and future LKDs.

Living Kidney Donors Who Develop Kidney Failure: Excerpts of Their Thoughts

BACKGROUND

Psychosocial data about living kidney donors have been collected for almost 5 decades now. To date, however, no study has provided any psychosocial follow-up of donors who developed a serious health problem such as end-stage renal disease (ESRD).

METHODS

Donors who developed ESRD were invited to participate in a qualitative interview if they met one or both of the inclusion criteria: (1) developed ESRD within 10 years of donating and/or (2) lacked health insurance at the time of donation. We contacted 38 individuals who met these criteria, and 22 participated (58%). Two were subsequently excluded from analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty qualitative interviews were analyzed. Five findings are described: (1) donors describe the decision-making process as spontaneous and fast; (2) donors describe lack of appreciation for the need for post-donation self-care; (3) donors do not regret donating despite the adverse outcome; (4) donors advise future donors to have in place emotional and physical support post donation; and (5) donors appreciate the opportunity to tell their story from being a living donor to living with ESRD, which virtually all perceive as 2 separate unrelated events.

CONCLUSIONS

Most donors are positive about their donation decision and experience and would donate again, despite developing ESRD themselves. They propose some important changes to the decision-making and informed-consent processes. Our data are reassuring regarding lack of donor regret, but highlight the need for living donor transplant programs to ensure that living donors understand their long-term risks and receive appropriate life-long follow-up care to minimize these risks.