Practices and barriers in long-term living kidney donor follow-up: a survey of U.S. transplant centers

"They Know You Better Than the Transplant Team": An Interpretive Description Study Exploring the Perspectives of Living Kidney Donors About Care Received From Family Physicians

Background

Given the significant benefits of living donor kidney transplantation, the nephrology and transplant communities are augmenting efforts to increase living kidney donation. However, prior living kidney donors (LKDs) report suboptimal experiences and unmet care needs. The LKDs are healthy, and the vast majority have good outcomes post-donation. Thus, in clinical practice, their care is primarily assumed by practitioners, such as family physicians (FPs).

Objective

This study aimed to better understand the integration of primary care in LKDs' donation trajectory from the point of view of the latter. Our specific research questions were: (1) How do LKDs perceive the role of FPs currently integrated into the donation trajectory? (2) What are their needs and expectations from their FPs?

Design

An interpretive description methodology.

Setting and Participants

Canadian LKDs who donated a kidney prior to 2020.

Methods

Qualitative interviews and inductive thematic analysis.

Results

In our sample of 49 LKDs who donated between 2007 and 2020, 61.2% were women and 87.8% were white. Also, 87.8% and 83.7% were attached to an FP pre- and post-donation (1 by a nurse practitioner) with 16.3% reporting no regular FP post-donation. Although participants provided varying accounts, an overwhelming majority described challenges with timely access to needed care; lack of cohesive continuity of care; variability in the services offered by FPs; and challenges with coordination of care between providers. Many reported poor coordination and communication between FPs and donor teams. Most articulated the desire to see an expanded role for FPs. This included improvements in knowledge regarding living donor care, information and care brokerage, continuous integrative care, and mental and emotional support.

Limitations

Limited transferability of our findings to other countries with variable payment structures.

Conclusions

Our work suggests that improving LKD care requires developing care pathways that facilitate donor transition and care coordination between donor teams and primary care practitioners. Given the challenges being faced by primary care in Canada, we believe that pragmatic strategies to better support primary care practitioners and a stronger integration of primary care with the living kidney donation process are essential. In addition, strategies to better support the mental health of LKDs are also needed. The LKDs provide a valuable gift to our health systems and to patients with kidney failure. It is our responsibility to optimize their experiences and improve their care.

Perspectives on Long-Term Follow-Up among Living Kidney Donors

Key Points

In a survey of 685 previous living kidney donors, donors wanted lifelong annual follow-up with a primary care provider. Living donors wanted information on clinical and laboratory assessment and health reassurance. Donors also wanted access to specialized care in the event of hospitalization or change in health.

Background

The long-term follow-up of living kidney donors is highly variable in Canada.

Methods

We surveyed perspectives on postdonation follow-up among 685 living donors in the two largest transplant programs in Canada (43% survey response rate). The anonymous survey was informed by semistructured interviews with 12 living kidney donors. The survey was developed on the basis of themes identified in the semistructured interviews, guidance from the research and clinical teams, and feedback from pilot testing with six previous donors.

Results

Most (73%) of the respondents received follow-up after the first donation year from a primary care provider, and 70% reported annual follow-up visits, including blood and urine tests. Most (71%) received a follow-up reminder from their transplant center, and follow-up was higher (86% versus 68%) among those receiving reminders. Donors wanted specialist involvement if new health or kidney-related events occurred. Most (70%) were satisfied with their follow-up, and 66% endorsed annual lifelong follow-up. Donors wanted more information about lifestyle and living donor outcomes and wanted to contribute to research to increase understanding of long-term donor health outcomes.

Conclusions

Donors wanted annual lifelong follow-up, including clinical assessment and laboratory tests, and more information about their postdonation health. A transplant center–led, primary care provider–administered model of long-term follow-up may best meet the care and information needs of most donors.

Reclassification of CKD in living kidney donors with the refitted race-free eGFR formula

BACKGROUND

Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) Epidemiology Collaboration eGFR 2021 formula removed Black race from the 2009 equation. Unintended consequences may lead to reclassifying Black living kidney donors as having more advanced CKD, exacerbating racial disparities in living donation.

METHODS

We used national data to quantify CKD stage reclassification based on eGFR for Black living donors both pre- and post-donation.

RESULTS

Among 6365 Black living donors, 17.7% were reclassified as having a higher CKD stage pre-donation with the 2021 formula. Among 4149 Black living donors with at least 2 creatinine measurements post-donation, 25.5% were reclassified as having a higher CKD stage post-donation with the 2021 formula.

CONCLUSION

Eliminating race in the formula may inappropriately label Black potential donors with CKD. These data highlight the need for a validated eGFR formula for donors, use of measured and not eGFR, and education of non-transplant providers regarding interpretation of CKD staging in living donation.

Long-Term Outcomes for Living Kidney Donors With Early Guideline-Concordant Follow-up Care: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

Current guidelines recommend that living kidney donors receive lifelong annual follow-up care to monitor kidney health. In the United States, the reporting of complete clinical and laboratory data for kidney donors has been mandated for the first 2 years post-donation; however, the long-term impact of early guideline-concordant care remains unclear.

Objective

The primary objective of this study was to compare long-term post-donation follow-up care and clinical outcomes of living kidney donors with and without early guideline-concordant follow-up care.

Design

Retrospective, population-based cohort study.

Setting

Linked health care databases were used to identify kidney donors in Alberta, Canada.

Patients

Four hundred sixty living kidney donors who underwent nephrectomy between 2002 and 2013.

Measurements

The primary outcome was continued annual follow-up at 5 and 10 years (adjusted odds ratio with 95% confidence interval, _LCLaOR_UCL). Secondary outcomes included mean change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over time and rates of all-cause hospitalization.

Methods

We compared long-term follow-up and clinical outcomes for donors with and without early guideline-concordant care, defined as annual physician visit and serum creatinine and albuminuria measurement for the first 2 years post-donation.

Results

Of the 460 donors included in this study, 187 (41%) had clinical and laboratory evidence of guideline-concordant follow-up care throughout the first 2 years post-donation. The odds of receiving annual follow-up for donors without early guideline-concordant care were 76% lower at 5 years (aOR _0.180.24_0.32) and 68% lower at 10 years (aOR _0.230.32_0.46) compared with donors with early care. The odds of continuing follow-up remained stable over time for both groups. Early guideline-concordant follow-up care did not appear to substantially influence eGFR or hospitalization rates over the longer term.

Limitations

We were unable to confirm whether the lack of physician visits or laboratory data in certain donors was due to physician or patient decisions.

Conclusions

Although policies directed toward improving early donor follow-up may encourage continued follow-up, additional strategies may be necessary to mitigate long-term donor risks.

Managing the Costs of Routine Follow-up Care After Living Kidney Donation: a Review and Survey of Contemporary Experience, Practices, and Challenges

Purpose of Review

While living organ donor follow-up is mandated for 2 years in the USA, formal guidance on recovering associated costs of follow-up care is lacking. In this review, we discuss current billing practices of transplant programs for living kidney donor follow-up, and propose future directions for managing follow-up costs and supporting cost neutrality in donor care.

Recent Findings

Living donors may incur costs and financial risks in the donation process, including travel, lost time from work, and dependent care. In addition, adherence to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) mandate for US transplant programs to submit 6-, 12-, and 24-month postdonation follow-up data to the national registry may incur out-of-pocket medical costs for donors. Notably, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has explicitly disallowed transplant programs to bill routine, mandated follow-up costs to the organ acquisition cost center or to the recipient’s Medicare insurance. We conducted a survey of transplant staff in the USA (distributed October 22, 2020–March 15, 2021), which identified that the mechanisms for recovering or covering the costs of mandated routine postdonation follow-up at responding programs commonly include billing recipients’ private insurance (40%), while 41% bill recipients’ Medicare insurance. Many programs reported utilizing institutional allowancing (up to 50%), and some programs billed the organ acquisition cost center (25%). A small percentage (11%) reported billing donors or donors’ insurance.

Summary

To maintain a high level of adherence to living donor follow-up without financially burdening donors, up-to-date resources are needed on handling routine donor follow-up costs in ways that are policy-compliant and effective for donors and programs. Development of a government-supported national living donor follow-up registry like the Living Donor Collective may provide solutions for aspects of postdonation follow-up, but requires transplant program commitment to register donors and donor candidates as well as donor engagement with follow-up outreach contacts after donation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40472-022-00379-w.

Living kidney donation in a developing country

BACKGROUND

Living kidney donation has been advocated as a means to ameliorate the chronic shortage of organs for transplantation. Significant rates of comorbidity and familial risk for kidney disease may limit this approach in the local context; there is currently limited data describing living donation in Africa.

METHODS

We assessed reasons for non-donation and outcomes following donation in a cohort of 1208 ethnically diverse potential living donors evaluated over a 32-year period at a single transplant centre in South Africa.

RESULTS

Medical contraindications were the commonest reason for donor exclusion. Black donors were more frequently excluded (52.1% vs. 39.3%; p<0.001), particularly for medical contraindications (44% vs. 35%; p<0.001); 298 donors proceeded to donor nephrectomy (24.7%). Although no donor required kidney replacement therapy, an estimated glomerular filtration rate below 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 was recorded in 27% of donors at a median follow-up of 3.7 years, new onset albuminuria >300 mg/day was observed in 4%, and 12.8% developed new-onset hypertension. Black ethnicity was not associated with an increased risk of adverse post-donation outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the difficulties of pursuing live donation in a population with significant medical comorbidity, but provides reassurance of the safety of the procedure in carefully selected donors in the developing world.

Donor-reported barriers to living kidney donor follow-up

BACKGROUND

Despite regulations mandating follow-up laboratory testing for living kidney donors, less than half of transplant centers are in compliance. We sought to understand barriers to follow-up testing from the donors' perspective.

METHODS

We surveyed our center's living kidney donors. Binary logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with follow-up testing completion.

RESULTS

Of 185 living kidney donors, 110 (59.4%) participated. Among them, 82 (74.5%) completed 6-month laboratory testing, 76 (69.1%) completed 12-month testing, 68 (61.8%) completed both, and 21 (19.0%) completed neither. Six-month testing completion was strongly associated with 12-month testing completion (OR 9.74, 95%CI: 2.23-42.50; p = .002). Those who disagreed with the statements, "Getting labs checked wasn't a priority for me," (OR for completing 6-month testing: 15.05, 95%CI: 3.70-61.18; p < .001; OR for completing 12-month testing: 5.85, 95%CI: 1.94-17.63; p = .002); and, "I forgot to get labs drawn [until I was reminded]" (OR for completing 6-month testing: 6.93, 95%CI: 1.59-30.08; p = .01; OR for completing 12-month testing: 6.55, 95%CI: 1.98-21.63; p = .002) were more likely to complete testing.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the only study providing perspective on donor insights regarding the need for follow-up testing post donation. Interventions to influence living donor attitudes toward follow-up testing may improve follow-up.

Transplant Clinician Opinions on Use of Race in the Estimation of Glomerular Filtration Rate

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Current race-based eGFR calculators assign a higher eGFR value to Black patients, which could affect the care of kidney transplant candidates and potential living donors.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We conducted a survey of staff at adult kidney transplant centers in the United States (December 17, 2020 to February 28, 2021) to assess opinions on use of race-based eGFR equations for waitlisting and living donor candidate evaluation, availability of serum cystatin C testing and measured GFR, and related practices.

RESULTS

Respondents represented 57% (124 of 218) of adult kidney transplant programs, and the responding centers conducted 70% of recent kidney transplant volume. Most (93%) programs use serum creatinine-based eGFR for listing candidates. However, only 6% of respondents felt that current race-based eGFR calculators are appropriate, with desire for change grounded in concerns for promotion of health care disparities by current equations and inaccuracies in reporting of race. Most respondents (70%) believed that elimination of race would allow more preemptive waitlisting for Black patients, but a majority (79%) also raised concerns that such an approach could incur harms. More than one third of the responding programs lacked or were unsure of availability of testing for cystatin C or measured GFR. At this time, 40% of represented centers did not plan to remove race from eGFR calculators, 46% were planning to remove, and 15% had already done so. There was substantial variability in eGFR reporting and listing of multiracial patients with some Black ancestry. There was no difference in GFR acceptance thresholds for Black versus non-Black living donors.

CONCLUSIONS

This national survey highlights a broad consensus that extant approaches to GFR estimation are unsatisfactory, but it also identified a range of current opinions.

Operational challenges in the COVID era: Asymptomatic infections and vaccination timing

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has created unprecedented challenges for solid organ transplant programs. While transplant activity has largely recovered, appropriate management of deceased donor candidates who are asymptomatic but have positive nucleic acid testing (NAT) for SARS‐CoV‐2 is unclear, as this result may reflect active infection or prolonged viral shedding. Furthermore, candidates who are unvaccinated or partially vaccinated continue to receive donor offers. In the absence of robust outcomes data, transplant professionals at US adult kidney transplant centers were surveyed (February 13, 2021 to April 29, 2021) to determine community practice (N: 92 centers, capturing 41% of centers and 57% of transplants performed). The majority (97%) of responding centers declined organs for asymptomatic NAT+ patients without documented prior infection. However, 32% of centers proceed with kidney transplant in NAT+ patients who were at least 30 days from initial diagnosis with negative chest imaging. Less than 7% of programs reported inactivating patients who were unvaccinated or partially vaccinated. In conclusion, despite national recommendations to wait for negative testing, many centers are proceeding with kidney transplant in patients with positive SARS‐CoV‐2 NAT results due to presumed viral shedding. Furthermore, few centers are requiring COVID‐19 vaccination prior to transplantation at this time.

An International survey on living kidney donation and transplant practices during the COVID-19 pandemic

The scope of the impact of the Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID‐19) pandemic on living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) practices across the world is not well‐defined. We received survey responses from 204 transplant centers internationally from May to June 2020 regarding the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on LDKT practices. Respondents represented 16 countries on five continents. Overall, 75% of responding centers reported that LDKT surgery was on hold (from 67% of North American centers to 91% of European centers). The majority (59%) of centers reported that new donor evaluations were stopped (from 46% of North American centers to 86% of European centers), with additional 23% of centers reporting important decrease in evaluations. Only 10% of centers reported slight variations on their evaluations. For the centers that continued donor evaluations, 40% performed in‐person visits, 68% by video, and 42% by telephone. Center concerns for donor (82%) and recipient (76%) safety were the leading barriers to LDKT during the pandemic, followed by patients concerns (48%), and government restrictions (46%). European centers reported more barriers related to staff limitations while North and Latin American centers were more concerned with testing capacity and insufficient resources including protective equipment. As LDKT resumes, 96% of the programs intend to screen donor and recipient pairs for coronavirus infection, most of them with polymerase chain reaction testing of nasopharyngeal swab samples. The COVID‐19 pandemic has had broad impact on all aspects of LDKT practice. Ongoing research and consensus‐building are needed to guide safe reopening of LDKT programs.

Survey of Clinician Opinions on Kidney Transplantation from Hepatitis C Virus Positive Donors: Identifying and Overcoming Barriers

Background

Transplant practices related to use of organs from Hepatitis C virus infected donors (DHCV+) is evolving rapidly.

Methods

We surveyed U.S. kidney transplant programs by email and professional society listserv postings between 7/19-1/20 to assess attitudes, management strategies, and barriers related to use of viremic (nucleic acid testing (NAT)+) donor organs in HCV uninfected recipients.

Results

Staff at 112 unique programs responded, representing 54% of U.S. adult kidney transplant programs and 69% of adult deceased donor kidney transplant volume in 2019. Most survey respondents were transplant nephrologists (46%) or surgeons (43%). Among responding programs, 67% currently transplant DHCV antibody+/NAT- organs under a clinical protocol or as standard of care. By comparison, only 58% offer DHCV NAT+ kidney transplant to HCV- recipients, including 35% under clinical protocols, 14% as standard of care, and 9% under research protocols. Following transplant of DHCV NAT+ organs to uninfected recipients, 53% start direct acting antiviral agent (DAA) therapy after discharge and documented viremia. Viral monitoring protocols after DHCV NAT+ to HCV uninfected recipient kidney transplantation varied substantially. 56% of programs performing these transplants report having an institutional plan to provide DAA treatment if declined by the recipient's insurance. Respondents felt a mean decrease in waiting time of ≥18 months (range 0-60) justifies the practice. Program concerns related to use of DHCV NAT+ kidneys include insurance coverage concerns (72%), cost (60%), and perceived risk of transmitting resistant infection (44%).

Conclusions

Addressing knowledge about safety and logistical/financial barriers related to use of DHCV NAT+ kidney transplantation for HCV uninfected recipients may help reduced discards and expand the organ supply.

Survey of US Living Kidney Donation and Transplantation Practices in the COVID-19 Era

INTRODUCTION

The scope of the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) practices is not well defined.

METHODS

We surveyed US transplant programs to assess practices, strategies, and barriers to living LDKT during the COVID-19 pandemic. After institutional review board approval, the survey was distributed from 9 May 2020 to 30 May 2020 by e-mail and postings to professional society list-servs. Responses were stratified based on state COVID-19 cumulative incidence levels.

RESULTS

Staff at 118 unique centers responded, representing 61% of US living donor recovery programs and 75% of LKDT volume in the prepandemic year. Overall, 66% reported that LDKT surgery was on hold (81% in "high" vs. 49% in "low" COVID-19 cumulative incidence states). A total of 36% reported that evaluation of new donor candidates had paused, 27% reported that evaluations were very much decreased (>0% to <25% typical), and 23% reported that evaluations were moderately decreased (25% to <50% typical). Barriers to LDKT surgery included program concerns for donor (85%) and recipient (75%) safety, patient concerns (56%), elective case restrictions (47%), and hospital administrative restrictions (48%). Programs with higher local COVID-19 cumulative incidence reported more barriers related to staff and resource diversion. Most centers continuing donor evaluations used remote strategies (video, 82%; telephone, 43%). As LDKT resumes, all programs will screen for COVID-19, although timeframe and modalities will vary. Recommendations for presurgical self-quarantine are also variable.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 pandemic has had broad impacts on LDKT practice. Ongoing research and consensus building are needed to reduce barriers, to guide optimal practices, and to support safe restoration of LDKT across centers.

Care of international living kidney donor candidates in the United States: A survey of contemporary experience, practice, and challenges

The evaluation and care of non-US citizen, non-US residents who wish to come to the United States to serve as international living kidney donors (ILKDs) can pose unique challenges. We surveyed US transplant programs to better understand practices related to ILKD care. We distributed the survey by email and professional society list-servs (Fall 2018, assessing 2017 experience). Eighty-five programs responded (36.8% program response rate), of which 80 considered ILKD candidates. Only 18 programs had written protocols for ILKD evaluation. Programs had a median of 3 (range: 0,75) ILKD candidates who initiated contact during the year, from origin countries spanning 6 continents. Fewer (median: 1, range: 0,25) were approved for donation. Program-reported reasons for not completing ILKD evaluations included visa barriers (58.6%), inability to complete evaluation (34.3%), concerns regarding follow-up (31.4%) or other healthcare access (28.6%), and financial impacts (21.4%). Programs that did not evaluate ILKDs reported similar concerns. Staff time required to evaluate ILKDs was estimated as 1.5-to-3-times (47.9%) or >3-times (32.9%) that needed for domestic candidates. Among programs accepting ILKDs, on average 55% reported successful completion of 1-year follow-up. ILKD evaluation is a resource-intensive process with variable outcomes. Planning and commitment are necessary to care for this unique candidate group.

Center Variation and Risk Factors for Failure to Complete 6 Month Postdonation Follow-up Among Obese Living Kidney Donors

BACKGROUND

Living kidney donors in the United States who were obese at donation are at increased risk of end-stage renal disease and may benefit from intensive postdonation follow-up. However, they are less likely to have complete follow-up data. Center variation and risk factors for incomplete follow-up are unknown.

METHODS

Adult living kidney donors with obesity (body mass index, ≥30 kg/m) at donation reported to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients from January 2005 to July 2015 were included (n = 13 831). Donor characteristics were compared by recorded serum creatinine at 6 months postdonation, and multilevel logistic regression models were used to estimate odds of 6-month creatinine.

RESULTS

After adjustment, older age, female sex, and donation after implementation of new center follow-up requirements were associated with higher odds of 6-month creatinine, with lower odds for obese donors with a history of smoking, biologically related donors, and at centers with higher total living donor volume. 23% of variation in recorded 6-month serum creatinine among obese donors was attributed to center (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.232, P < 0.001). The adjusted probability of 6-month creatinine by center ranged from 10% to 91.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Tremendous variation in recorded 6-month postdonation serum creatinine exists among obese living donors, with high volume centers having the lowest probability of follow-up. Moreover, individual-level characteristics such as age, sex, and relationship to recipient were associated with recorded 6-month creatinine. Given increased risk for end-stage renal disease among obese living donors, center-level efforts targeted specifically at increasing postdonation follow-up among obese donors should be developed and implemented.

Survival in Living Kidney Donors: An Australian and New Zealand Cohort Study Using Data Linkage

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background.

Living kidney donors are a highly selected healthy population expected to have high survival postdonation, but mortality studies are limited. Our study aimed to compare mortality in living kidney donors with the general population in Australia and New Zealand, hypothesizing that donor survival would exceed average survival.

Methods.

All living kidney donors in Australia, 2004–2013, and New Zealand, 2004–2012, from the Australian and New Zealand Living Kidney Donor Registry were included. We ascertained primary cause of death from data linkage with national death registers. Standardized mortality ratios and relative survival were estimated, matching on age, sex, calendar year, and country.

Results.

Among 3253 living kidney donors, there were 32 deaths over 20 331 person-years, with median follow-up 6.2 years [interquartile range: 3.9–8.4]. Only 25 donors had diabetes-fasting blood sugar level predonation, of which 3 had impaired glucose tolerance. At discharge, the median creatinine was 108 µmol/L and estimated glomerular filtration rate was 58 mL/min/1.72 m². Four deaths occurred in the first year: 2 from immediate complications of donation, and 2 from unrelated accidental causes. The leading cause of death was cancer (n = 16). The crude mortality rate was 157 (95% confidence interval [CI], 111-222)/100 000 person-y, and the standardized mortality ratio was 0.33 (95% CI, 0.24-0.47). The 5-year cumulative relative survival was 1.019 (95% CI, 1.014-1.021), confirming that the survival probability in living kidney donors was 2% higher relative to the general population.

Conclusions.

As expected, mortality in living kidney donors was substantially lower than the general population and is reassuring for potential donor counseling. The Living Donor Registry only captured a third of the deaths, highlighting the benefit of data linkage to national death registries in the long-term follow-up of living kidney donors.

Perspectives on implementing mobile health technology for living kidney donor follow-up: In-depth interviews with transplant providers

BACKGROUND

United States transplant centers are required to report follow-up data for living kidney donors for 2 years post-donation. However, living kidney donor (LKD) follow-up is often incomplete. Mobile health (mHealth) technologies could ease data collection burden but have not yet been explored in this context.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with a convenience sample of 21 transplant providers and thought leaders about challenges in LKD follow-up, and the potential role of mHealth in overcoming these challenges.

RESULTS

Participants reported challenges conveying the importance of follow-up to LKDs, limited data from international/out-of-town LKDs, and inadequate staffing. They believed the 2-year requirement was insufficient, but expressed difficulty engaging LKDs for even this short time and inadequate resources for longer-term follow-up. Participants believed an mHealth system for post-donation follow-up could benefit LKDs (by simplifying communication/tasks and improving donor engagement) and transplant centers (by streamlining communication and decreasing workforce burden). Concerns included cost, learning curves, security/privacy, patient language/socioeconomic barriers, and older donor comfort with mHealth technology.

CONCLUSIONS

Transplant providers felt that mHealth technology could improve LKD follow-up and help centers meet reporting thresholds. However, designing a secure, easy to use, and cost-effective system remains challenging.

Billing for living kidney donor care: Balancing cost recovery, regulatory compliance, and minimized donor burden

PURPOSE

To provide standardized guidance for transplant programs to maximize financial reimbursement related to living donor care, and to minimize financial consequences of evaluation, surgical and follow-up care to living donor candidates and donors.

RECENT FINDINGS

In 2014, the American Society for Transplantation (AST) Live Donor Community of Practice (LDCOP) "Consensus Conference on Best Practices in Live Kidney Donation" identified inconsistencies in billing practices as a barrier to living donor financial neutrality, and issued a strong recommendation that the transplant community actively pursue strategies and policies to make living donation a financially neutral act, within the framework of federal law. The LDCOP convened a multidisciplinary group of experts to review and synthesize current Medicare regulations and commercial payer practices related to billing for living donor care, and the implications for transplant programs and patients. We developed guidance for transplant program staff related to strategies to consistently and appropriately obtain reimbursement via the Medicare Cost Report by utilizing organ acquisition; coordinate available coverage for donor pretesting, evaluation, hospitalization, follow-up care, and complications; coordinate charges in kidney paired donation; and maximize coverage through private insurance contracting. We also offer recommendations to protect donor confidentiality in the context of billing, and to educate and prepare donor candidates and donors about any remaining gaps in coverage related to donation.

SUMMARY

Best practices in billing for living donation-related care should focus on balancing cost recovery, regulatory compliance, and minimized donor burden. Herein we offer 9 recommendations for best practice. We also offer a platform of 7 recommendations for research & advocacy efforts to better understand the climate of living donor medical costs, and to optimize billing practices that support provision of living donor transplant services to all patients who can benefit and to achieve financial neutrality for living donors.

The Impact of the mKidney mHealth System on Live Donor Follow-Up Compliance: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Every year, more than 5500 healthy people in the United States donate a kidney for the medical benefit of another person. The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) requires transplant hospitals to monitor living kidney donors (LKDs) for 2 years postdonation. However, the majority (115/202, 57%) of transplant hospitals in the United States continue to fail to meet nationally mandated requirements for LKD follow-up. A novel method for collecting LKD follow-up is needed to ease both the transplant hospital-level and patient-level burden. We built mKidney—a mobile health (mHealth) system designed specifically to facilitate the collection and reporting of OPTN-required LKD follow-up data. The mKidney mobile app was developed on the basis of input elicited from LKDs, transplant providers, and thought leaders.

Objective

The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of the mKidney smartphone app on LKD follow-up rates.

Methods

We will conduct a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) with LKDs who undergo LKD transplantation at Methodist Specialty and Transplant Hospital in San Antonio, Texas. Eligible participants will be recruited in-person by a study team member at their 1-week postdonation clinical visit and randomly assigned to the intervention or control arm (1:1). Participants in the intervention arm will receive the mHealth intervention (mKidney), and participants in the control arm will receive the current standard of follow-up care. Our primary outcome will be policy-defined complete (all components addressed) and timely (60 days before or after the expected visit date) submission of LKD follow-up data at required 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year visits. Our secondary outcome will be hospital-level compliance with OPTN reporting requirements at each visit. Data analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. Additionally, we will collect quantitative and qualitative process data regarding the implementation of the mKidney system.

Results

We began recruitment for this RCT in May 2018. We plan to enroll 400 LKDs over 2 years and follow participants for the 2-year mandated follow-up period.

Conclusions

This pilot RCT will evaluate the impact of the mKidney system on rates of LKD and hospital compliance with OPTN-mandated LKD follow-up at a large LKD transplant hospital. It will provide valuable information on strategies for implementing such a system in a clinical setting and inform effect sizes for future RCT sample size calculations.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/11000

Assessing the Attitudes and Perceptions Regarding the Use of Mobile Health Technologies for Living Kidney Donor Follow-Up: Survey Study

BACKGROUND

In 2013, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network began requiring transplant centers in the United States to collect and report postdonation living kidney donor follow-up data at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Despite this requirement, <50% of transplant centers have been able to collect and report the required data. Previous work identified a number of barriers to living kidney donor follow-up, including logistical and administrative barriers for transplant centers and cost and functional barriers for donors. Novel smartphone-based mobile health (mHealth) technologies might reduce the burden of living kidney donor follow-up for centers and donors. However, the attitudes and perceptions toward the incorporation of mHealth into postdonation care among living kidney donors are unknown. Understanding donor attitudes and perceptions will be vital to the creation of a patient-oriented mHealth system to improve living donor follow-up in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to assess living kidney donor attitudes and perceptions associated with the use of mHealth for follow-up.

METHODS

We developed and administered a cross-sectional 14-question survey to 100 living kidney donors at our transplant center. All participants were part of an ongoing longitudinal study of long-term outcomes in living kidney donors. The survey included questions on smartphone use, current health maintenance behaviors, accessibility to health information, and attitudes toward using mHealth for living kidney donor follow-up.

RESULTS

Of the 100 participants surveyed, 94 owned a smartphone (35 Android, 58 iPhone, 1 Blackberry), 37 had accessed their electronic medical record on their smartphone, and 38 had tracked their exercise and physical activity on their smartphone. While 77% (72/93) of participants who owned a smartphone and had asked a medical question in the last year placed the most trust with their doctors, nurses, or other health care professionals regarding answering a health-related question, 52% (48/93) most often accessed health information elsewhere. Overall, 79% (74/94) of smartphone-owning participants perceived accessing living kidney donor information and resources on their smartphone as useful. Additionally, 80% (75/94) perceived completing some living kidney donor follow-up via mHealth as useful. There were no significant differences in median age (60 vs 59 years; P=.65), median years since donation (10 vs 12 years; P=.45), gender (36/75, 36%, vs 37/75, 37%, male; P=.57), or race (70/75, 93%, vs 18/19, 95%, white; P=.34) between those who perceived mHealth as useful for living kidney donor follow-up and those who did not, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, smartphone ownership was high (94/100, 94.0%), and 79% (74/94) of surveyed smartphone-owning donors felt that it would be useful to complete their required follow-up with an mHealth tool, with no significant differences by age, sex, or race. These results suggest that patients would benefit from an mHealth tool to perform living donor follow-up.

Follow-up Care of Living Kidney Donors in Alberta, Canada

Background

Previous guidelines recommend that living kidney donors receive lifelong annual follow-up care to assess renal health.

Objective

To determine whether these best practice recommendations are currently being followed.

Design

Retrospective cohort study using linked health care databases.

Setting

Alberta, Canada (2002-2014).

Patients

Living kidney donors.

Measurements

We determined the proportion of donors who had annual outpatient physician visits and laboratory measurements for serum creatinine and albuminuria.

Results

There were 534 living kidney donors with a median follow-up of 7 years (maximum 13 years). The median age at the time of donation was 41 years and 62% were women. Overall, 25% of donors had all 3 markers of care (physician visit, serum creatinine, albuminuria measurement) in each year of follow-up. Adherence to physician visits was higher than serum creatinine or albuminuria measurements (67% vs 31% vs 28% of donors, respectively). Donors with guideline-concordant care were more likely to be older, reside closer to the transplant center, and receive their nephrectomy in more recent years.

Limitations

Our results may not be generalizable to other countries that do not have a similar universal health care system.

Conclusions

These findings suggest significant evidence-practice gaps, in that the majority of donors saw a physician, but the minority had measurements of kidney function or albuminuria. Future interventions should target improving follow-up care for all donors.

The National Landscape of Living Kidney Donor Follow-Up in the United States

In 2013, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)/ United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) mandated that transplant centers collect data on living kidney donors (LKDs) at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postdonation, with policy-defined thresholds for the proportion of complete living donor follow-up (LDF) data submitted in a timely manner (60 days before or after the expected visit date). While mandated, it was unclear how centers across the country would perform in meeting thresholds, given potential donor and center-level challenges of LDF. To better understand the impact of this policy, we studied Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data for 31,615 LKDs between January 2010 and June 2015, comparing proportions of complete and timely LDF form submissions before and after policy implementation. We also used multilevel logistic regression to assess donor- and center-level characteristics associated with complete and timely LDF submissions. Complete and timely 2-year LDF increased from 33% prepolicy (January 2010 through January 2013) to 54% postpolicy (February 2013 through June 2015) (p < 0.001). In an adjusted model, the odds of 2-year LDF increased by 22% per year prepolicy (p < 0.001) and 23% per year postpolicy (p < 0.001). Despite these annual increases in LDF, only 43% (87/202) of centers met the OPTN/UNOS-required 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year LDF thresholds for LKDs who donated in 2013. These findings motivate further evaluation of LDF barriers and the optimal approaches to capturing outcomes after living donation.

Expectations and Experiences of Follow-up and Self-Care After Living Kidney Donation: A Focus Group Study

BACKGROUND

Ensuring donor wellbeing warrants ongoing monitoring after living kidney donation. However, there is considerable variability in donor follow-up processes, including information provided to donors regarding self-care. Loss to follow-up is common, suggesting that the aims and benefits of monitoring and follow-up may not be apparent. We aimed to describe the experiences and expectations of living kidney donors regarding follow-up and self-care after donation.

METHODS

Participants from 3 transplant centers in Australia and Canada participated in 14 focus groups (n = 123). Transcripts were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

We identified 4 themes: lacking identification as a patient (invincibility and confidence in health, immediate return to normality, avoid burdening specialty services, redundancy of specialist attention, unnecessary travel), empowerment for health (self-preservation for devastating consequences, self-advocacy and education, needing lifestyle advice, tracking own results), safety net and reassurance (availability of psychosocial support, confidence in kidney-focused care, continuity and rapport, and access to waitlist priority), and neglect and inattention (unrecognized ongoing debilitations, primary focus on recipient, hospital abandonment, overlooking individual priorities, disconnected from system, coping with dual roles, and lacking support for financial consequences).

CONCLUSIONS

Living kidney donors who felt well and confident about their health regarded specialist follow-up as largely unnecessary. However, some felt they did not receive adequate medical attention, were prematurely detached from the health system, or held unresolved anxieties about the consequences of their decision to donate. Ongoing access to healthcare, psychosocial support, and education may reassure donors that any risks to their health are minimized.

Diabetes Mellitus in Living Pancreas Donors: Use of Integrated National Registry and Pharmacy Claims Data to Characterize Donation-Related Health Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Living donor pancreas transplant is a potential treatment for diabetic patients with end-organ complications. Although early surgical risks of donation have been reported, long-term medical outcomes in living pancreas donors are not known.

METHODS

We integrated national Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data (1987-2015) with records from a nationwide pharmacy claims warehouse (2005-2015) to examine prescriptions for diabetes medications and supplies as a measure of postdonation diabetes mellitus. To compare outcomes in controls with baseline good health, we matched living pancreas donors to living kidney donors (1:3) by demographic traits and year of donation.

RESULTS

Among 73 pancreas donors in the study period, 45 were identified in the pharmacy database: 62% women, 84% white, and 80% relatives of the recipient. Over a mean postdonation follow-up period of 16.3 years, 26.7% of pancreas donors filled prescriptions for diabetes treatments, compared with 5.9% of kidney donors (odds ratio, 4.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.91-8.93; P = 0.0003). Use of insulin (11.1% vs 0%) and oral agents (20.0% vs 5.9%; odds ratio, 4.50, 95% confidence interval, 2.09-9.68; P = 0.0001) was also higher in pancreas donors.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetes is more common after living pancreas donation than after living kidney donation, supporting clinical consequences from reduced endocrine reserve.

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.

Patterns of primary care utilization before and after living kidney donation

BACKGROUND

Annual visits with a primary care provider (PCP) are recommended for living kidney donors to monitor long-term health postdonation, yet adherence to this recommendation is unknown.

METHODS

We surveyed 1170 living donors from our center from 1970 to 2012 to ascertain frequency of PCP visits pre- and postdonation. Interviews occurred median (IQR) 6.6 (3.8-11.0) years post-transplant. We used multivariate logistic regression to examine associations between donor characteristics and PCP visit frequency.

RESULTS

Overall, only 18.6% had less-than-annual PCP follow-up postdonation. The strongest predictor of postdonation PCP visit frequency was predonation PCP visit frequency. Donors who had less-than-annual PCP visits before donation were substantially more likely to report less-than-annual PCP visits postdonation (OR=9.8 14.421.0, P<.001). Men were more likely to report less-than-annual PCP visits postdonation (adjusted OR=1.2 1.62.3, P<.01); this association was amplified in unmarried/noncohabiting men (aOR=2.4 3.96.3, P<.001). Donors without college education were also more likely to report less-than-annual PCP visits postdonation (aOR=1.3 1.82.5 , P=.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The importance of annual PCP visits should be emphasized to all living donors, especially those with less education, men (particularly single men), and donors who did not see their PCP annually before donation.

Clinical Investigation Into Plasma Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin and Body Adipose Tissue Associated With Remaining Renal Function in Living Kidney Donor

OBJECTIVE

Plasma neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (pNGAL) is known to increase in proportion to the degree and period of renal damage. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical relevance of pNGAL and body adipose tissue to remaining renal function in living kidney donors.

METHODS

Between July 2013 and February 2015, 75 live kidney donors were enrolled. Visceral adipose tissue (VAT), subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) and VAT/SAT ratio were measured in preoperative CT scan which performed before surgery. We analyzed the correlation among the variables (VAT, SAT, and VAT/SAT ratio), eGFR and pNGAL. ΔpNGAL-max(=Maximum pNGAL-measures), ΔpNGAL-min(=Minimum pNGAL-measures), ΔeGFR-max(=Maximum eGFR-measures) and ΔeGFR-min(=Minimum eGFR-measures) were also analyzed.

RESULTS

The highest value of pNGAL (207.46 ± 76 ng/mL) was observed on postoperative day 7, and the lowest value of eGFR (57.52 ± 11.20 mL/min/1.73 m²) was also measured on postoperative day 7. A significant correlation was found between ΔpNGAL, VAT, and VAT-to-SAT ratio. Moreover, a significant correlation between ΔpNGALmin and ΔeGFRmin was revealed. Also, VAT-to-SAT ratio was correlated with ΔeGFRmin during the all of the follow-up periods, and it was also correlated with ΔpNGALmin until postoperative day 3.

CONCLUSION

There was a correlation between the elevation of pNGAL until postoperative day 5 and the decrease of eGFR after living donor nephrectomy. VAT-to-SAT ratio had a significant correlation with both ΔpNGALmin and eGFRmin. Given the metabolism of pNGAL, the increase of pNGAL seemed to be affected as a consequence of body adipose tissue.

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.

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.

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

This article describes the development and implementation of an initiative at one transplant center to annually assess psychosocial outcomes of living kidney donors. The current analysis focuses on a cohort of adults (n = 208) who donated a kidney at BIDMC between September 2005 and August 2012, in which two post-donation annual assessments could be examined. One and two year post-donation surveys were returned by 59 % (n = 123) and 47 % (n = 98) of LKDs, respectively. Those who did not complete any survey were more likely to be younger (p = 0.001), minority race/ethnicity (p < 0.001), and uninsured at the time of donation (p = 0.01) compared to those who returned at least one of the two annual surveys. The majority of donors reported no adverse physical or psychosocial consequences of donation, high satisfaction with the donation experience, and no donation decision regret. However, a sizable minority of donors felt more pain intensity than expected and recovery time was much slower than expected, and experienced a clinically significant decline in vitality. We describe how these outcomes are used to inform clinical practice at our transplant center as well as highlight challenges in donor surveillance over time.

Critical Factors Associated With Missing Follow-Up Data for Living Kidney Donors in the United States

Follow-up care for living kidney donors is an important responsibility of the transplant community. Prior reports indicate incomplete donor follow-up information, which may reflect both donor and transplant center factors. New UNOS regulations require reporting of donor follow-up information by centers for 2 years. We utilized national SRTR data to evaluate donor and center-level factors associated with completed follow-up for donors 2008-2012 (n = 30 026) using multivariable hierarchical logistic models. We compared center follow-up compliance based on current UNOS standards using adjusted and unadjusted models. Complete follow-up at 6, 12, and 24 months was 67%, 60%, and 50% for clinical and 51%, 40%, and 30% for laboratory data, respectively, but have improved over time. Donor risk factors for missing laboratory data included younger age 18-34 (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.03, 1.58-2.60), black race (AOR = 1.17, 1.05-1.30), lack of insurance (AOR = 1.25, 1.15-1.36), lower educational attainment (AOR = 1.19, 1.06-1.34), >500 miles to center (AOR = 1.78, 1.60-1.98), and centers performing >40 living donor transplants/year (AOR = 2.20, 1.21-3.98). Risk-adjustment moderately shifted classification of center compliance with UNOS standards. There is substantial missing donor follow-up with marked variation by donor characteristics and centers. Although follow-up has improved over time, targeted efforts are needed for donors with selected characteristics and at centers with higher living donor volume. Adding adjustment for donor factors to policies regulating follow-up may function to provide more balanced evaluation of center efforts.

Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: Improving Efficiencies in Live Kidney Donor Evaluation--Recommendations from a Consensus Conference

The education, evaluation, and support of living donors before, during, and after donation have historically been considered the roles and responsibilities of transplant programs. Although intended to protect donors, ensure true informed consent, and prevent coercion, this structure often leaves referring nephrologists unclear about the donor process and uncertain regarding the ultimate outcome of potential donors for their patients. The aim of this article is to help the referring nephrologist understand the donor referral and evaluation process, help the referring nephrologist understand the responsibilities of the transplant program, and offer suggestions about how the referring nephrologist can help to improve efficiencies in the process of donor education and evaluation. A partnership between referring nephrologists and transplant programs is an important step in advancing living kidney donation. The referring nephrologists are the frontline providers and are in a unique position to offer education about living donation and improve efficiencies in the process. Understanding the donor referral and evaluation process, the responsibilities of the transplant program, and the potential role referring nephrologists can play in the process is critical to establishing such a partnership.

Experiences obtaining insurance after live kidney donation

The impact of kidney donation on the ability to change or initiate health or life insurance following donation is unknown. To quantify this risk, we surveyed 1046 individuals who donated a kidney at our center between 1970 and 2011. Participants were asked whether they changed or initiated health or life insurance after donation, and if they had any difficulty doing so. Among 395 donors who changed or initiated health insurance after donation, 27 (7%) reported difficulty; among those who reported difficulty, 15 were denied altogether, 12 were charged a higher premium and 8 were told they had a preexisting condition because they were kidney donors. Among 186 donors who changed or initiated life insurance after donation, 46 (25%) reported difficulty; among those who reported difficulty, 23 were denied altogether, 27 were charged a higher premium and 17 were told they had a preexisting condition because they were kidney donors. In this single-center study, a high proportion of kidney donors reported difficulty changing or initiating insurance, particularly life insurance. These practices by insurers create unnecessary burden and stress for those choosing to donate and could negatively impact the likelihood of live kidney donation among those considering donation.

Hospitalizations following living donor nephrectomy in the United States

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Living donors represented 43% of United States kidney donors in 2012. Although research suggests minimal long-term consequences of donation, few comprehensive longitudinal studies for this population have been performed. The primary aims of this study were to examine the incidence, risk factors, and causes of rehospitalization following donation.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

State Inpatient Databases (SID) compiled by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality were used to identify living donors in four different states between 2005 and 2010 (n=4524). Multivariable survival models were used to examine risks for rehospitalization, and patient characteristics were compared with data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR). Outcomes among patients undergoing appendectomy (n=200,274), cholecystectomy (n=255,231), and nephrectomy for nonmetastatic carcinoma (n=1314) were contrasted.

RESULTS

The study population was similar to United States donors (for SRTR and SID, respectively: mean age, 41 and 41 years; African Americans, 12% and 10%; women, 60% and 61%). The 3-year incidence of rehospitalization following donation was 11% for all causes and 9% excluding pregnancy-related hospitalizations. After censoring of models for pregnancy-related rehospitalizations, older age (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.02 per year; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.01 to 1.03), African American race (AHR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.54 to 3.03), depression (AHR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.12 to 3.14), hypothyroidism (AHR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.06 to 2.49), and longer initial length of stay were related to higher rehospitalization rates among donors. Compared with living donors, adjusted risks for rehospitalizations were greater among patients undergoing appendectomy (AHR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.42 to 1.75), cholecystectomy (AHR, 2.25; 95% CI, 2.03 to 2.50), and nephrectomy for nonmetastatic carcinoma (AHR, 2.95; 95% CI, 2.58 to 3.37). Risks for rehospitalizations were higher among African Americans than whites in each of the surgical groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The SID is a valuable source for evaluating characteristics and outcomes of living kidney donors that are not available in traditional transplant databases. Rehospitalizations following donor nephrectomy are less than seen with other comparable surgical procedures but are relatively higher among donors who are older, are African American, and have select comorbid conditions. The increased risks for rehospitalizations among African Americans are not unique to living donation.

Managing the Psychosocial and Financial Consequences of Living Donation

There has been dramatic growth in the last decade in the literature on psychosocial and financial impacts of living organ donation. With this growth has come recognition that these impacts must be considered when educating prospective donors about the donation process, and when planning donor follow-up care after donation. Our review highlights recent studies that provide new information on the nature of psychosocial and financial outcomes in living donors, with special attention to studies examining unrelated donors (i.e., those with no biologic or longstanding emotional connection to the transplant patient), given that these individuals represent a growing segment of the living donor population. Limitations and gaps in available evidence are noted. We also discuss recent recommendations for post-donation monitoring of donors' psychosocial and financial outcomes, and we consider advances in evidence regarding interventions and prevention strategies to minimize any adverse psychosocial and financial impacts of living donation.

A human rights approach to human trafficking for organ removal

Human trafficking for organ removal (HTOR) should not be reduced to a problem of supply and demand of organs for transplantation, a problem of organized crime and criminal justice, or a problem of voiceless, abandoned victims. Rather, HTOR is at once an egregious human rights abuse and a form of human trafficking. As such, it demands a human-rights based approach in analysis and response to this problem, placing the victim at the center of initiatives to combat this phenomenon. Such an approach requires us to consider how various measures impact or disregard victims/potential victims of HTOR and gives us tools to better advocate their interests, rights and freedoms.

Comorbidity burden and perioperative complications for living kidney donors in the United States

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Since 1998, 35% of kidney transplants in the United States have been derived from living donors. Research suggests minimal long-term health consequences after donation, but comprehensive studies are limited. The primary objective was to evaluate trends in comorbidity burden and complications among living donors.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) was used to identify donors from 1998 to 2010 (n=69,117). Comorbid conditions, complications, and length of stay during hospitalization were evaluated. Outcomes among cohorts undergoing appendectomies, cholecystectomies and nephrectomy for nonmetastatic carcinoma were compared, and sample characteristics were validated with the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR). Survey regression models were used to identify risk factors for outcomes.

RESULTS

The NIS captured 89% (69,117 of 77,702) of living donors in the United States. Donor characteristics were relatively concordant with those noted in SRTR (mean age, 40.1 versus 40.3 years [P=0.18]; female donors, 59.0% versus 59.1% [P=0.13]; white donors, 68.4% versus 69.8% [P<0.001] for NIS versus SRTR). Incidence of perioperative complications was 7.9% and decreased from 1998 to 2010 (from 10.1% to 7.6%). Men (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20 to 1.56) and donors with hypertension (AOR, 3.35; 95% CI, 2.24 to 5.01) were more likely to have perioperative complications. Median length of stay declined over time (from 3.7 days to 2.5 days), with longer length of stay associated with obesity, depression, hypertension, and pulmonary disorders. Presence of depression (AOR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.12), hypothyroidism (AOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.11), hypertension (AOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.27 to 1.49), and obesity (AOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.11) increased over time. Complication rates and length of stay were similar for patients undergoing appendectomies and cholecystectomies but were less than those with nephrectomies for carcinoma.

CONCLUSIONS

The NIS is a representative sample of living donors. Complications and length of stay after donation have declined over time, while presence of documented comorbid conditions has increased. Patients undergoing appendectomy and cholecystectomy have similar outcomes during hospitalization. Monitoring the health of living donors remains critically important.

Living-donor follow-up attitudes and practices in U.S. kidney and liver donor programs

BACKGROUND

Although U.S. transplantation programs must submit living-donor follow-up data through 2 years after donation, the submissions have high rates of incomplete or missing data. It is important to understand barriers programs face in collecting follow-up information.

METHODS

Two hundred thirty-one programs performing living kidney donor (LKD) and/or living liver donor (LLD) transplantation were contacted to complete a survey about program attitudes concerning donor follow-up, follow-up practices, and barriers to success.

RESULTS

Respondents representing 147 programs (111 with only LKD and 36 with both LKD and LLD) participated. Sixty-eight percent of LKD and 83% of LLD respondents said that achieving follow-up was a high priority. The majority agreed that donors should be followed at least 2 years (61% LKD programs and 73% LLD programs), and sizeable percentages (31% LKD and 37% LLD) endorsed 5 years of follow-up. However, approximately 40% of programs lost contact with more than 75% of their donors by 2 years after donation. Follow-up barriers included donors not wanting to return to the program (87%), out-of-date contact information (73%), and lack of program (54%) or donor (49%) reimbursement for follow-up costs. Whereas 92% of LKD and 96% of LLD programs inform potential donors about follow-up requirements, fewer (67% LKD and 78% LLD) develop plans with donors to achieve follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Most respondents agree that donor follow-up is important, but they report difficulty achieving it. Improvements may occur if programs work with donors to develop plans to achieve follow-up, programmatic standards are set for completeness in follow-up data reporting, and sufficient staff resources are available to ensure ongoing post-donation contact.

Reimbursement for living kidney donor follow-up care: how often does donor insurance pay?

BACKGROUND

Currently, many transplantation centers do not follow former living kidney donors on a long-term basis. Several potential barriers have been identified to provide this follow-up of former living kidney donors, including concerns that donor insurance will not reimburse transplantation centers or primary care physicians for this care. Here, we report the rates at which different insurance companies reimbursed our transplantation center for follow-up visits of living donors.

METHODS

We collected data on all yearly follow-up visits of living donors billed from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2010, representing 82 different donors. Concurrent visits of their recipients were available for 47 recipients and were used as a control group.

RESULTS

We find that most bills for follow-up visits of living kidney donors were paid by insurance companies, at a rate similar to the reimbursement for recipient follow-up care.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that, for former donors with insurance, inadequate reimbursement should not be a barrier in providing follow-up care.

Health care follow-up by live kidney donors more than three yr post-nephrectomy

BACKGROUND

Live kidney donors are advised to follow up regularly with healthcare providers to monitor kidney function and to diagnose and treat relevant comorbidities. We sought to determine the frequency and correlates of follow-up care among live kidney donors.

METHODS

We sent a mailed questionnaire to 606 live kidney donors from a single center who were at least three yr post-nephrectomy.

RESULTS

We received usable responses from 276 (45.5%), at a median of 6.2 yr post-donation. Compared with non-responders, responding donors were more likely to be older (p < 0.001), female (p = 0.002), white (p < 0.001), and married to the recipient (p < 0.001). In the prior year, 87.7% of respondents reported seeing a physician or other healthcare professional, and 79.0% had seen a "general doctor" such as their primary care provider. In univariable analyses of live kidney donors who responded to our survey, lack of medical follow-up in the past year was associated with younger age, current lack of health insurance, and infrequent contact with the transplant recipient.

CONCLUSIONS

Most responding live kidney donors had seen a healthcare provider within the past year. To improve donors' follow-up, transplant centers can consider targeting donors who are younger or lack health insurance.

Clinical Assessment of Follow-Up Cystatin C-Based eGFR in Live Kidney Donors

PURPOSE

We aimed to compare the cystatin C-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and the serum creatinine-based eGFR and to investigate the clinical roles of the cystatin C-based eGFR in assessing the follow-up renal function of kidney donors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We enrolled 121 healthy kidney donors who underwent live donor nephrectomy between October 2009 and December 2010 in a prospective manner. Serum creatinine and cystatin C were measured preoperatively and were followed after the surgery (1st, 4th, and 7th postoperative day and 1st, 3rd, 6th, and 12th postoperative month). We also compared the sensitivity and specificity of each eGFR method for predicting the development of chronic kidney disease (CKD) after donor nephrectomy.

RESULTS

For those who had a Modification of Diet in Renal Disease postoperative day 4 eGFR of less than 60 ml/min/1.73 m(2), the probability of developing CKD was 89.0% (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration eGFR, 66.0%; Cockcroft-Gault eGFR, 74.0%; cystatin C eGFR, 57.1%). A cystatin C eGFR of below 60 ml/min/1.73 m(2) at postoperative day 4 predicted CKD at 6 months with a specificity of 90.3%, which was the highest among the estimation methods used. Cystatin C eGFRs were generally higher than the creatinine-based eGFRs.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that cystatin C-based estimations of the GFR are helpful for predicting the recovery of renal function in kidney donors and could be added to the follow-up protocol of kidney donors who may develop CKD, especially patients whose immediate postoperative renal function is marginal.

Cancer diagnoses after living kidney donation: linking U.S. Registry data and administrative claims

BACKGROUND

Mortality records identify cancer as the leading cause of death among living kidney donors, but information on the burden of cancer outside death records is limited in this population.

METHODS

We examined a database wherein U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network identifiers for 4,650 living kidney donors in 1987 to 2007 were linked to administrative data of a U.S. private health insurer (2000-2007 claims) to identify postdonation cancer diagnoses. Skin cancer and non-skin cancer diagnoses were ascertained from International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes on billing claims. Donors were also matched one-to-one with general insurance beneficiaries by sex and age when benefits began. Diagnosis rates within observation windows were compared as rate ratios.

RESULTS

The median time from donation to the end of plan insurance enrollment was 7.7 years, with a median observation period of 2.1 years. Skin cancer rates were similar among prior living donors in the observation period and nondonor controls (rate ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-1.40). In contrast, the rate of total non-skin cancers was significantly less common among donors than among controls (rate ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55-0.99), although reduced relative risk was limited to donors captured earlier in relation to donation. Several cases of cancer diagnosis (uterine, melanoma, "other") were identified within the first year after donation. Prostate cancer diagnosis was significantly more common among living donors compared with controls (rate ratio, 3.80; 95% CI, 1.42-10.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Continued study of cancer after kidney donation is warranted to ensure that evaluation, selection, and long-term follow-up support overall good health of the donor.