1
|
Sipma WS, van Londen M, Visser A, de Jong MFC, Ahaus KCTB. Improving healthcare services for living kidney donors: an experience-based approach in the Netherlands. Front Public Health 2025; 13:1512852. [PMID: 40071116 PMCID: PMC11893550 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1512852] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/17/2024] [Accepted: 02/06/2025] [Indexed: 03/14/2025] Open
Abstract
Living kidney donors voluntarily donate one of their kidneys to someone suffering from end-stage kidney disease. Transplantation is a life-saving opportunity for these patients and generally provides an increase in quality of life. A major goal of research and practice related to living kidney donation concerns the safety of the donor. In comparison, only limited research has been carried out on donor experiences of the donor journey in the full cycle of care. To gain further insight into this, we have performed an experience-based co-design (EBCD) study in a major transplant center in the Netherlands. EBCD is a research approach where professionals and patients share experiences with the purpose of improving the healthcare journey. We identified 11 areas for potential improvement: from intake, throughout surgery and hospitalization, to homecare and aftercare. Donors indicated the importance of person-specific information during the admission process, accurate communication with health professionals and attention to recovery after surgery. Nevertheless, no one regretted their donation, and the overall experience was positive. An important finding for professionals is that donors feel like 'normal' patients and want to be taken care of even though they are healthy. Just like other patients, they can be anxious before surgery and some may have concerns about recovery. Although this is a single-center study, the results should be relevant for all transplant centers that are interested in improving donor experiences. We concluded that the EBCD approach, when embedded in a local context, is a valuable tool for bringing patients' experiences to healthcare improvement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wim S. Sipma
- Department of Health Services Management & Organisation, Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Marco van Londen
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
| | - Annemieke Visser
- Department of Applied Health Research (TGO), University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
| | - Margriet F. C. de Jong
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
| | - Kees C. T. B. Ahaus
- Department of Health Services Management & Organisation, Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Massey EK, Rule AD, Matas AJ. Living Kidney Donation: A Narrative Review of Mid- and Long-term Psychosocial Outcomes. Transplantation 2025; 109:259-272. [PMID: 38886889 PMCID: PMC11652709 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000005094] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/19/2023] [Revised: 04/26/2024] [Accepted: 05/02/2024] [Indexed: 06/20/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma K. Massey
- Erasmus Medical Center Transplant Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Department of Internal Medicine, Rotterdam, Zuid Holland, the Netherlands
| | - Andrew D. Rule
- Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Arthur J. Matas
- Department of Surgery, Transplantation Division, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Fleetwood VA, Lam NN, Lentine KL. Long-Term Risks of Living Kidney Donation: State of the Evidence and Strategies to Resolve Knowledge Gaps. Annu Rev Med 2025; 76:357-372. [PMID: 39869429 DOI: 10.1146/annurev-med-050223-112648] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/29/2025]
Abstract
Living-donor kidney transplantation is the preferred treatment for kidney failure. In the United States, rates of living kidney donation have been stagnant, which is partly related to concerns over medical and financial risks. Recent research has better characterized the risks of living kidney donation, although the field is limited by a lack of robust registries. Available evidence supports small increases in the risks of end-stage kidney disease and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in living donors. For most donors, the 15-year risk of kidney failure is less than 1%, but for certain populations this risk may be higher. New tools such as genetic kidney disease panels may assist with risk stratification. Living kidney donors generally have similar or improved psychosocial health following donation compared to prior to donation and nondonor experience. Postdonation care allows for preventative care measures to mitigate risk as well as ongoing surveillance of donor outcomes. Continuing efforts to capture and report outcomes of living donation are necessary to safely expand living donation worldwide.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vidya A Fleetwood
- SSM Health Saint Louis University Hospital Transplant Center, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA; ,
| | - Ngan N Lam
- Divisions of Transplant Medicine and Nephrology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada;
| | - Krista L Lentine
- SSM Health Saint Louis University Hospital Transplant Center, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA; ,
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Lentine KL, Waterman AD, Cooper M, Nagral S, Gardiner D, Spiro M, Rela M, Danovitch G, Watson CJ, Thomson D, Van Assche K, Torres M, Beatriz DG, Delmonico FL. Expanding Opportunities for Living Donation: Recommendations From the 2023 Santander Summit to Ensure Donor Protections, Informed Decision Making, and Equitable Access. Transplantation 2025; 109:22-35. [PMID: 39437374 PMCID: PMC12077664 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000005124] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/25/2024]
Abstract
A strategic vision toward global convergence in transplantation must encourage and remove barriers to living organ donation and transplantation. Here, we discuss deliberations of a working group of the 2023 Santander Summit charged with formulating recommendations for the safe expansion of living donor kidney transplantation and living donor liver transplantation worldwide. Living donor kidney transplantation has grown to be the preferred treatment for advanced kidney failure. Living donor liver transplantation emerged more recently as a strategy to reduce waitlist mortality, with adoption influenced by cultural factors, regional policies, clinical team experience, and the maturity of regional deceased donor transplant systems. Barriers to living donor transplantation span domains of education, infrastructure, risk assessment/risk communication, and financial burden to donors. Paired donor exchange is a growing option for overcoming incompatibilities to transplantation but is variably used across and within countries. Effectively expanding access to living donor transplantation requires multifaceted strategies, including improved education and outreach, and measures to enhance efficiency, transparency, and shared decision making in donor candidate evaluation. Efforts toward global dissemination and vigilant oversight of best practices and international standards for the assessment, informed consent, approval, and monitoring of living donors are needed. Fostering greater participation in paired exchange requires eliminating disincentives and logistical obstacles for transplant programs and patients, and establishing an ethical and legal framework grounded in World Health Organization Guiding Principles. Sharing of best practices from successful countries and programs to jurisdictions with emerging practices is vital to safely expand the practice of living donation worldwide and bring the field together globally.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Krista L. Lentine
- Saint Louis University Transplant Center, SSM Health Saint Louis University Hospital, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Amy D. Waterman
- Academic Institute, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | | | - Dale Gardiner
- Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation, NHS Blood and Transplant, Bristol, UK
| | - Michael Spiro
- Royal Free Hospital, Hampstead, London & Division of Surgery, University College London, UK
| | - Mohamed Rela
- Rela Institute and Medical Centre, Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai, India
| | | | | | - David Thomson
- Groote Schuur Hospital, University of Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Kristof Van Assche
- Research Group Personal Rights and Property Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Martín Torres
- Instituto Nacional Central Unico de Ablación e Implante (INCUCAI), Ministry of Health, Argentina
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Rossi AP, Katz-Greenberg G, Coscia L, Brady CW, Doligalski C, Irani RA, Matas A, Shah S, Lentine KL. Living Donation and Pregnancy-Related Complications: State of the Evidence and Call To Action for Improved Risk Assessment. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2024; 19:1659-1670. [PMID: 39652653 PMCID: PMC11637692 DOI: 10.2215/cjn.0000000593] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2024]
Abstract
Living kidney donation and living liver donation significantly increases organ supply to make lifesaving transplants possible, offering survival benefits to the recipients and cost savings to society. Of all living donors, 40% are women of childbearing age. However, limited data exist regarding the effect of donation on future pregnancies and of pregnancy-related complications on postdonation outcomes. In February 2023, the American Society of Transplantation Women's Health Community of Practice held a virtual Controversies Conference on reproductive health, contraception, and pregnancy after transplantation and living donation. Experts in the field presented the available data. Smaller breakout sessions were created to discuss findings, identify knowledge gaps, and develop recommendations. We present the conference findings related to living donation. The evidence reviewed shows that gestational hypertension and gestational diabetes mellitus before kidney donation have been associated with an increased risk of developing postdonation hypertension and diabetes mellitus, respectively, without increasing the risk of developing an eGFR <45 ml/min after donation. The risk of preeclampsia in living kidney donors increases to 4%-10%, and low-dose aspirin may help reduce that risk. Little is known about the financial burden for living donors who become pregnant, their risk of postpartum depression, or the optimal time between donation and conception. The data on living liver donors are even scarcer. The creation of a registry of donor candidates may help answer many of these questions and, in turn, educate prospective donors so that they can make an informed choice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Goni Katz-Greenberg
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Lisa Coscia
- Transplant Pregnancy Registry International, Gift of Life, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Carla W. Brady
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Christina Doligalski
- Department of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina Hospitals and Clinics, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Roxanna A. Irani
- Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Arthur Matas
- Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | - Silvi Shah
- Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio
| | - Krista L. Lentine
- SSM Health Saint Louis University Transplant Center, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Clifton E, Winder GS, Lentine KL, Zimbrean PC, Yadav A, Rubman S, Kalil R, Kumar V, Prashar R, Gan G, Deng Y, Joyce M, Holmes R, Laflen J, Bakhai D, Liapakis A, Doshi MD. Psychosocial Evaluation of Living Kidney Donors: A Survey of Current Practices in the United States. Transplantation 2024; 108:e382-e389. [PMID: 38867351 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000005095] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/14/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Best practices in psychosocial evaluation and care of living donor candidates and donors are not well established. METHODS We surveyed 195 living kidney donor (LKD) transplant centers in United States from October 2021 to April 2022 querying (1) composition of psychosocial teams, (2) evaluation processes including clinical tools and domains assessed, (3) selection criteria, and (4) psychosocial follow-up post-donation. RESULTS We received 161 responses from 104 programs, representing 53% of active LKD programs and 67% of LKD transplant volume in 2019. Most respondents (63%) were social workers/independent living donor advocates. Over 90% of respondents indicated donor candidates with known mental health or substance use disorders were initially evaluated by the psychosocial team. Validated psychometric or transplant-specific tools were rarely utilized but domains assessed were consistent. Active suicidality, self-harm, and psychosis were considered absolute contraindications in >90% of programs. Active depression was absolute contraindication in 50% of programs; active anxiety disorder was excluded 27%. Conditions not contraindicated to donation include those in remission: anxiety (56%), depression (53%), and posttraumatic stress disorder (41%). There was acceptance of donor candidates using alcohol, tobacco, or cannabis recreationally, but not if pattern met criteria for active use disorder. Seventy-one percent of programs conducted post-donation psychosocial assessment and use local resources to support donors. CONCLUSIONS There was variation in acceptance of donor candidates with mental health or substance use disorders. Although most programs conducted psychosocial screening post-donation, support is not standardized and unclear if adequate. Future studies are needed for consensus building among transplant centers to form guidelines for donor evaluation, acceptance, and support.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erin Clifton
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | | | - Krista L Lentine
- Department of Internal Medicine, SSM Health Saint Louis University Hospital, St. Louis, MO
| | - Paula C Zimbrean
- Departments of Psychiatry and Surgery (Transplant), Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT
| | - Anju Yadav
- Division of Nephrology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Susan Rubman
- Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT
| | - Roberto Kalil
- Department of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD
| | - Vineeta Kumar
- Comprehensive Transplant Institute, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL
| | | | - Geliang Gan
- Yale Center for Analytical Sciences, New Haven, CT
| | - Yanhong Deng
- Yale Center for Analytical Sciences, New Haven, CT
| | - Michael Joyce
- Department of Social Work, Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT
| | - Rachel Holmes
- Department of Psychiatry, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN
| | - Jennie Laflen
- Department of Surgery, St. Louis University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO
| | - Darsh Bakhai
- Department of Social Work, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | | | - Mona D Doshi
- Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Cholin LK, Ramos EF, Yahr J, Schold JD, Poggio ED, Delvalle CL, Huml AM. Psychosocial characteristics of potential and actual living kidney donors. BMC Nephrol 2024; 25:31. [PMID: 38267875 PMCID: PMC10807153 DOI: 10.1186/s12882-023-03375-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2022] [Accepted: 10/19/2023] [Indexed: 01/26/2024] Open
Abstract
The psychosocial assessment is an essential component of the living kidney donor (LKD) evaluation. However, it remains uncertain how specific psychosocial factors impact LKD eligibility. We performed a retrospective chart review of LKD candidates who initiated the evaluation process and who had completed a required, in-person licensed social work (LSW) visit. LSW notes were reviewed for frequency of psychosocial factors that may impact the success of LKD candidate approval by the selection committee. 325 LKD candidates were included in the study: 104 not-approved and 221 approved. Not-approved LKD candidates were more likely to receive a negative family reaction to wanting to donate than approved LKD candidates (8.7% vs 1.4%, p < 0.01). On multivariate analysis, Black race, history of psychiatric illness, highest level of education being high school, and high psychosocial risk score assignment were all associated with a lower odds ratio of being approved. The majority of not-approved LKD candidates were disqualified for medical reasons (N = 76, 73.1%). In conclusion, psychosocial factors impact donation even after LKD candidates make it to an in-person evaluation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Liza K Cholin
- Department of Nephrology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, 300 W 10Th Ave, Columbus, OH, #1150, USA.
| | - Everly F Ramos
- Department of Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, USA
| | - Jordana Yahr
- Department of Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, USA
| | - Jesse D Schold
- Department of Surgery and Transplant, University of CO Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO,, USA
| | - Emilio D Poggio
- Department of Kidney Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
- Department of Transplantation, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | | | - Anne M Huml
- Department of Kidney Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
- Department of Transplantation, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Josephson MA, Becker Y, Budde K, Kasiske BL, Kiberd BA, Loupy A, Małyszko J, Mannon RB, Tönshoff B, Cheung M, Jadoul M, Winkelmayer WC, Zeier M. Challenges in the management of the kidney allograft: from decline to failure: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference. Kidney Int 2023; 104:1076-1091. [PMID: 37236423 DOI: 10.1016/j.kint.2023.05.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2023] [Revised: 05/11/2023] [Accepted: 05/12/2023] [Indexed: 05/28/2023]
Abstract
In March 2022, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) held a virtual Controversies Conference to address the important but rarely examined phase during which the kidney transplant is failing or has failed. In addition to discussing the definition of a failing allograft, 4 broad areas were considered in the context of a declining functioning graft: prognosis and kidney failure trajectory; immunosuppression strategies; management of medical and psychological complications, and patient factors; and choice of kidney replacement therapy or supportive care following graft loss. Identifying and paying special attention to individuals with failing allografts was felt to be important in order to prepare patients psychologically, manage immunosuppression, address complications, prepare for dialysis and/or retransplantation, and transition to supportive care. Accurate prognostication tools, although not yet widely available, were embraced as necessary to define allograft survival trajectories and the likelihood of allograft failure. The decision of whether to withdraw or continue immunosuppression after allograft failure was deemed to be based most appropriately on risk-benefit analysis and likelihood of retransplantation within a few months. Psychological preparation and support was identified as a critical factor in patient adjustment to graft failure, as was early communication. Several models of care were noted that enabled a medically supportive transition back to dialysis or retransplantation. Emphasis was placed on the importance of dialysis-access readiness before initiation of dialysis, in order to avoid use of central venous catheters. The centrality of the patient to all management decisions and discussions was deemed to be paramount. Patient "activation," which can be defined as engaged agency, was seen as the most effective way to achieve success. Unresolved controversies, gaps in knowledge, and areas for research were also stressed in the conference deliberations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michelle A Josephson
- Section of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, and Transplant Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
| | - Yolanda Becker
- Transplantation Institute, Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Klemens Budde
- Department of Nephrology and Medical Intensive Care, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Bertram L Kasiske
- Department of Medicine, Hennepin Healthcare, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Bryce A Kiberd
- Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
| | - Alexandre Loupy
- Université Paris Cité, INSERM U970, Paris Institute for Transplantation and Organ Regeneration, F-75015 Paris, France; Department of Kidney Transplantation, Necker Hospital, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
| | - Jolanta Małyszko
- Department of Nephrology, Dialysis and Internal Diseases, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
| | - Roslyn B Mannon
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA
| | - Burkhard Tönshoff
- Department of Pediatrics I, University Children's Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Michael Cheung
- Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO), Brussels, Belgium
| | - Michel Jadoul
- Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Wolfgang C Winkelmayer
- Selzman Institute for Kidney Health, Section of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Martin Zeier
- Division of Nephrology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Evans J, Gillies RD, Seward L. The value of screening tools in assessing living kidney donors for psychosocial risk factors: A literature review and case series. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2023; 57:923-924. [PMID: 36632820 DOI: 10.1177/00048674221149354] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Jacqueline Evans
- Department of Nephrology, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Robert Donald Gillies
- Department of Psychiatry, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.,Department of Psychiatry, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Louise Seward
- Department of Psychiatry, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Lim WH, Chan KE, Ng CH, Tan DJH, Tay PWL, Chin YH, Yong JN, Xiao J, Fu CE, Nah B, Tiong HY, Syn N, Devi K, Griva K, Mak LLY, Huang DQ, Fung J, Siddiqui MS, Muthiah M, Tan EXX. A qualitative systematic review of anonymous/unspecified living kidney and liver donors' perspectives. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0277792. [PMID: 36584032 PMCID: PMC9803135 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277792] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/22/2022] [Accepted: 11/03/2022] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES & BACKGROUND Anonymous live organ donors or unspecified donors are individuals willing to be organ donors for any transplant recipient with whom they have no biological or antecedent emotional relationship. Despite excellent recipient outcomes and the potential to help address organ scarcity, controversy surrounds the unconditional act of gifting one's organs to an unrelated recipient. This qualitative systematic review provides insights into the first-hand experiences, motivations, and challenges that unspecified donors face. METHODS A systematic search was conducted on Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science database for qualitative literature regarding unspecified living donors' motivations and experiences in liver and kidney transplantation. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted to generate themes and supportive subthemes. RESULTS 12 studies were included. The four major themes were (i) motivations, (ii) perception of risks, (iii) donor support, and (iv) benefits of donation. Unspecified donors demonstrated a deep sense of social responsibility but tended to underestimate health risks in favour of benefits for recipients. Despite the lack of emotional support from family and friends, the decision to donate was a resolute personal decision for donors. Majority benefitted emotionally and did not express regret. CONCLUSION This qualitative review bridges the gap in literature on unspecified living donor psychology and provides a comprehensive understanding of the decision-making matrix and experiences of donors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wen Hui Lim
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Kai En Chan
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Cheng Han Ng
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Darren Jun Hao Tan
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Phoebe Wen Lin Tay
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Yip Han Chin
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Jie Ning Yong
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Jieling Xiao
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Clarissa Elysia Fu
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Benjamin Nah
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Ho Yee Tiong
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
- National University Centre for Organ Transplantation, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
- Department of Urology, University Surgical Cluster, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Nicholas Syn
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Kamala Devi
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Konstadina Griva
- Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Loey Lung Yi Mak
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong
| | - Daniel Q. Huang
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
- National University Centre for Organ Transplantation, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
| | - James Fung
- Division of Liver Transplantation, Department of Surgery at Queen Mary Hospital, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong
| | - Mohammad Shadab Siddiqui
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Department of Internal Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, United States of America
| | - Mark Muthiah
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
- National University Centre for Organ Transplantation, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Eunice X. X. Tan
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
- National University Centre for Organ Transplantation, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Suwelack B, Dugas M, Koch M, Sommerer C, Urban M, Gerß J, Wegner J, Burgmer M. [Safety of the Living Kidney Donor - The German National Register - Development and Structure of a National Register in the Health Service Research]. DAS GESUNDHEITSWESEN 2021; 83:S33-S38. [PMID: 34731891 DOI: 10.1055/a-1547-7114] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
The German living donor register Safety of the Living Kidney Donor - The German National Register (SOLKID-GNR) collects data of the medical and psychosocial outcome of living kidney donors. For the first time in Germany, a prospective data collection allows a scientifically based long-term analysis of how a living kidney donation influences the psychological and physical health of living kidney donors. This will contribute directly to improve the information and care of living kidney donors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Barbara Suwelack
- Medizinische Klinik D - Transplantationsnephrologie, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Münster, Deutschland
| | - Martin Dugas
- Institut für Medizinische Informatik, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Münster, Deutschland
| | - Martina Koch
- Klinik für Allgemein-, Universitätsmedizin der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Viszeral- und Transplantationschirurgie, Mainz, Deutschland
| | - Claudia Sommerer
- Nephrologie am Zentrum für Innere Medizin, UniversitätsKlinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland
| | - Marc Urban
- Zentrum für Klinische Studien, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Münster, Deutschland
| | - Joachim Gerß
- Institut für Biometrie und Klinische Forschung, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Münster, Deutschland
| | - Jeannine Wegner
- Medizinische Klinik D - Transplantationsnephrologie, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Münster, Deutschland
| | - Markus Burgmer
- Abteilung für Psychosomatische Medizin und Psychotherapie, LWL-Klinik Münster, Münster, Deutschland.,Klinik für Psychosomatik und Psychotherapie, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Münster, Deutschland
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Garcia-Ochoa C, Feldman LS, Nguan C, Monroy-Caudros M, Arnold JB, Barnieh L, Boudville N, Cuerden MS, Dipchand C, Gill JS, Karpinski M, Klarenbach S, Knoll G, Lok CE, Miller M, Prasad GVR, Sontrop JM, Storsley L, Garg AX. Impact of Perioperative Complications on Living Kidney Donor Health-Related Quality of Life and Mental Health: Results From a Prospective Cohort Study. Can J Kidney Health Dis 2021; 8:20543581211037429. [PMID: 34394947 PMCID: PMC8361543 DOI: 10.1177/20543581211037429] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/19/2021] [Accepted: 07/05/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Although living kidney donation is safe, some donors experience perioperative complications. Objective: This study explored how perioperative complications affected donor-reported health-related quality of life, depression, and anxiety. Design: This research was a conducted as a prospective cohort study. Setting: Twelve transplant centers across Canada. Patients: A total of 912 living kidney donors were included in this study. Measurements: Short Form 36 health survey, Beck Depression Inventory and Beck Anxiety Inventory. Methods: Living kidney donors were prospectively enrolled predonation between 2009 to 2014. Donor perioperative complications were graded using the Clavien-Dindo classification system. Mental and physical health-related quality of life was assessed with the 3 measurements; measurements were taken predonation and at 3- and 12-months postdonation. Results: Seventy-four donors (8%) experienced a perioperative complication; most were minor (n = 67 [91%]), and all minor complications resolved before hospital discharge. The presence (versus absence) of a perioperative complication was associated with lower mental health-related quality of life and higher depression symptoms 3-month postdonation; neither of these differences persisted at 12-month. Perioperative complications were not associated with any changes in physical health-related quality of life or anxiety 3-month postdonation. Limitations: Minor complications may have been missed and information on complications postdischarge were not collected. No minimal clinically significant change has been defined for kidney donors across the 3 measurements. Conclusions: These findings highlight a potential opportunity to better support the psychosocial needs of donors who experience perioperative complications in the months following donation. Trial registration: NCT00319579 and NCT00936078.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Liane S Feldman
- Department of Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Chris Nguan
- The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | | | | | | | - Neil Boudville
- Medical School, Department of Renal Medicine, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
| | | | | | - John S Gill
- The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | | | | | - Greg Knoll
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | | | - Matthew Miller
- Division of Nephrology and Transplantation, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | | | - Jessica M Sontrop
- Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Western University, London, ON, Canada
| | | | - Amit X Garg
- Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Western University, London, ON, Canada.,Department of Medicine, Western University, London, ON, Canada.,Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
14
|
Mental Health and Well-Being of Solid Organ Transplant Donors. The Forgotten Sacrifices. TRANSPLANTOLOGY 2021. [DOI: 10.3390/transplantology2030026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
In light of a global organ shortage, living donor transplantation has become increasingly relevant as an alternative to deceased donor transplantation. While current research has revolved around the medical aspects of transplantation, there remains a paucity of literature regarding the quality of life (QOL) of living donors. Hence, this review aims to provide a comprehensive outline of the current landscape of living liver and kidney transplantation, with a focus on the mental health and wellbeing of donors. As highlighted in previous studies, organ donation has a significant impact on both physical and mental aspects of donor wellbeing, with marked deteriorations occurring in the short term. Furthermore, other qualitative aspects such as financial burden contribute greatly to donor distress, reflecting a need for improved donor care. To address these pertinent issues, recommendations for a successful transplant program are detailed in this review, which encompasses psychological and social aspects of donor care throughout the donation process. Further research can be done on the impact of recipient deaths on donor QOL and appropriate interventions. Overall, given the selfless sacrifices of living donors, the care of their mental wellbeing is essential. Therefore, greater emphasis should be placed on the provision of adequate psychosocial support for them.
Collapse
|
15
|
Tomer N, Small A, Mirza O, Palese M. Evidence of Resilience in Kidney Donors: A New York Statewide Cohort Analysis. Transplant Proc 2021; 53:803-807. [PMID: 33551185 DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2021.01.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/04/2020] [Revised: 12/08/2020] [Accepted: 01/08/2021] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Donor nephrectomy (DN) is a procedure performed to provide recipients with a kidney to treat end-stage renal disease. The following analysis evaluated depression diagnosis in DN patients compared to controls. METHODS DN patients and matched controls were identified between 2000 and 2009 from the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database. Cohorts were tracked for depression incidence. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine independent predictors of a postoperative depression diagnosis. RESULTS The total study cohort included 2108 DN cases and 2108 controls. In both donors and controls, the baseline rate of depression was 0.95% (n = 20). The 5-year incidence of depression diagnosis after exposure increased in both cohorts (donors: 2.5%, n = 53; controls: 7.2%, n = 152; P < .001). The 5-year relative risk for developing depression was 2.65 (CI 1.59-4.42, P = .0002) in donors and 7.60 (CI 4.79-12.07, P < .001) in controls. On multivariable regression, being a donor was associated with reduced risk of developing postoperative depression (OR = 0.322, CI 0.233-0.445, P < .001), and the greatest risk factor for postoperative depression was a prior depressive diagnosis (OR = 7.811, CI 3.814-15.997, P < .001). CONCLUSION Our analysis shows that the strongest risk factor for depression was a prior diagnosis of depression. However, willingness to undergo donor nephrectomy is associated with less subsequent depression than the control population, suggesting that kidney donors may be a more resilient cohort.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nir Tomer
- Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY
| | - Alexander Small
- Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY
| | - Omar Mirza
- Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY
| | - Michael Palese
- Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Wagner-Johnston ND, Hannum SM, Heughan JA, Abshire M, Wolff JL, Yarkony K, Symons H, Jones RJ, Dy SM. Assessing Early Supportive Care Needs among Son or Daughter Haploidentical Transplantation Donors. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2020; 26:2121-2126. [PMID: 32781288 PMCID: PMC7609517 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2020.08.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/08/2020] [Revised: 07/28/2020] [Accepted: 08/03/2020] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
Increasingly, adolescent, young adult, and adult children are relied upon as donors for their parents undergoing blood and marrow stem cell transplant. How family functioning impacts donors' decision making and whether haploidentical donor children have unique supportive care needs is unknown. In this qualitative research study, we conducted 15 semistructured telephone interviews among individuals who underwent blood or marrow stem cell donation for their parent. Interviews explored donors' perspectives of the transplant experience across the trajectory from screening through early post-transplant follow-up and elicited unmet needs. Major themes included: (1) perception of choice, (2) act of giving back, (3) burdens of donation, (4) anticipated health benefit to parent, and (5) impact of donation on parent/child relationship. The majority of participants described high family functioning, but strain was also evident. Family functioning rarely was reported as affecting the decision to donate, with all donors expressing a sense of obligation. Participants were overwhelmingly satisfied with their decision and the ability to give back to their parent. Suggestions for the health care team to improve the donation experience focused on increased education about potential delays in screening, better description of possible complications for recipients, and provision of emotional support following donation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Susan M Hannum
- Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - JaAlah-Ai Heughan
- Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Maryland
| | | | - Jennifer L Wolff
- Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Kathryn Yarkony
- Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Heather Symons
- Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Richard J Jones
- Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Sydney M Dy
- Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Maryland; Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Pawłowski M, Fila-Witecka K, Rymaszewska JE, Łuc M, Kamińska D, Rymaszewska J. Quality of life, depression and anxiety in living donor kidney transplantation. Transplant Rev (Orlando) 2020; 34:100572. [PMID: 33038784 DOI: 10.1016/j.trre.2020.100572] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/18/2020] [Revised: 09/15/2020] [Accepted: 09/15/2020] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
Due to its numerous advantages, transplantation from a living kidney donor is the best method of renal replacement therapy. However, the characteristics of the procedure require to consider well-being of not only the recipient, but also the donor - a person who suddenly becomes a patient despite former good health. The living donation is a selfless act, but also a decision that may endanger one's own health. The aim of this article was to review the current knowledge concerning the quality of life, symptoms of anxiety and depression occurring among living kidney donors and recipients. In order to do that, we performed a systematic research in the PubMed, Google Scholar and CINAHL databases for the years 2000-2019 with the use of key words. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were met by only 15 articles. This study shows that the mental state of donors is generally better than that of recipients. Additionally, reduction of anxiety and depression as well as increase in the quality of life occurs in both donors and recipients in the post-transplant period compared to the time before surgery. Further research is needed on this topic in order to improve psychological aspects of care of live kidney donors and recipients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Mateusz Łuc
- Psychiatry Department, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland
| | - Dorota Kamińska
- Nephrology and Transplantology Department, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland
| | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
Cannabis Dependence or Abuse in Kidney Transplantation: Implications for Posttransplant Outcomes. Transplantation 2020; 103:2373-2382. [PMID: 30747847 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000002599] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cannabis is categorized as an illicit drug in most US states, but legalization for medical indications is increasing. Policies and guidance on cannabis use in transplant patients remain controversial. METHODS We examined a database linking national kidney transplant records (n = 52 689) with Medicare claims to identify diagnoses of cannabis dependence or abuse (CDOA) and associations [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) with 95% upper and lower confidence limits (CLs)] with graft, patient, and other clinical outcomes. RESULTS CDOA was diagnosed in only 0.5% (n = 254) and 0.3% (n = 163) of kidney transplant recipients in the years before and after transplant, respectively. Patients with pretransplant CDOA were more likely to be 19 to 30 years of age and of black race, and less likely to be obese, college-educated, and employed. After multivariate and propensity adjustment, CDOA in the year before transplant was not associated with death or graft failure in the year after transplant, but was associated with posttransplant psychosocial problems such as alcohol abuse, other drug abuse, noncompliance, schizophrenia, and depression. Furthermore, CDOA in the first year posttransplant was associated with an approximately 2-fold increased risk of death-censored graft failure (aHR, 2.29; 95% CL, 1.59-3.32), all-cause graft loss (aHR, 2.09; 95% CL, 1.50-2.91), and death (aHR, 1.79; 95% CL, 1.06-3.04) in the subsequent 2 years. Posttransplant CDOA was also associated with cardiovascular, pulmonary, and psychosocial problems, and with events such as accidents and fractures. CONCLUSIONS Although associations likely, in part, reflect associated conditions or behaviors, clinical diagnosis of CDOA in the year after transplant appears to have prognostic implications for allograft and patient outcomes. Recipients with posttransplant CDOA warrant focused monitoring and support.
Collapse
|
19
|
Chmel R, Pastor Z, Matecha J, Janousek L, Novackova M, Fronek J. Uterine transplantation in an era of successful childbirths from living and deceased donor uteri: Current challenges. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 2020; 164:115-120. [DOI: 10.5507/bp.2019.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2018] [Accepted: 04/25/2019] [Indexed: 01/18/2023] Open
|
20
|
Kvarnström N, Enskog A, Dahm-Kähler P, Brännström M. Live versus deceased donor in uterus transplantation. Fertil Steril 2019; 112:24-27. [PMID: 31277763 DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.05.029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/15/2019] [Revised: 05/22/2019] [Accepted: 05/22/2019] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
Uterus transplantation to treat absolute uterine factor infertility is a rapidly evolving field still at its early clinical experimental stage. Most human uterus transplantation attempts and live births have been after transplantation with uteri from live donors, who, in most cases, are closely related to the recipient. However, successful transplant with live births after uterus transplantation from deceased donors has also been reported. This article discusses the pros and cons in relation to live and deceased donors for uterus transplantation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Anders Enskog
- Department of Anesthesiology & Intensive Care, Göteborg, Sweden
| | - Pernilla Dahm-Kähler
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, Sweden
| | - Mats Brännström
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, Sweden; Stockholm IVF-EUGIN, Stockholm, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Lentine KL, Lam NN, Segev DL. Risks of Living Kidney Donation: Current State of Knowledge on Outcomes Important to Donors. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2019; 14:597-608. [PMID: 30858158 PMCID: PMC6450354 DOI: 10.2215/cjn.11220918] [Citation(s) in RCA: 91] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Krista L Lentine
- Saint Louis University Center for Abdominal Transplantation, St. Louis, Missouri; .,Department of Medicine, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Ngan N Lam
- Division of Nephrology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; and
| | - Dorry L Segev
- Department of Surgery and .,Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Frech A, Natale G, Tumin D. Couples' employment after spousal kidney donation. SOCIAL WORK IN HEALTH CARE 2018; 57:880-889. [PMID: 30300111 DOI: 10.1080/00981389.2018.1523823] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/08/2023]
Abstract
We used data from the United Network for Organ Sharing registry of living kidney donors and recipients to identify correlates of paid employment among couples following spousal living donation. Among such couples, post-transplant employment of both spouses (41%) was as common as employment of the donor only (41%). However, when the recipient was female, donor-only employment after transplant was more than twice as likely as compared to employment of both spouses (relative risk ratio = 2.57; p < .001). We conclude that traditional gender roles regarding paid workforce participation may be associated with the likelihood of employment after spousal kidney donation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adrianne Frech
- a Department of Health Sciences , University of Missouri , Columbia , Missouri , USA
| | - Ginny Natale
- b Department of Sociology , Kent State University , Kent , Ohio , USA
| | - Dmitry Tumin
- c Department of Pediatrics , The Ohio State University College of Medicine , Columbus , Ohio , USA
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Järvholm S, Warren AM, Jalmbrant M, Kvarnström N, Testa G, Johannesson L. Preoperative psychological evaluation of uterus transplant recipients, partners, and living donors: Suggested framework. Am J Transplant 2018; 18:2641-2646. [PMID: 30058104 DOI: 10.1111/ajt.15039] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2018] [Revised: 07/18/2018] [Accepted: 07/22/2018] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
Uterus transplant has become a real option for women with uterine-factor infertility to become pregnant and give birth. The screening before uterus transplant consists of a multidisciplinary evaluation and includes the potential recipient, living donor, and, to some extent, the recipient's partner and future co-parent. The psychological evaluation has evolved from broad-based screening in the first uterus transplant trial, where the aim was to find suitable candidates for a novel experimental procedure with an unknown outcome, to a more directed screening with specific psychological domains for a complex infertility treatment with promising results. This report outlines a consensus by investigators with pioneering experience in the field of the key factors and suggests a framework for psychological evaluation of recipients and their partners as well as for live uterus donors before uterus transplant. We identify the main areas of particular value to the recipient screening (general psychological health, factors associated with infertility, and medication adherence), the partner (general psychological health and factors associated with infertility), and the living donor (psychological health and motivation to donate, especially in the case of the nondirected donor).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stina Järvholm
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sahlgrenska Academy, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Ann Marie Warren
- Division of Trauma, Acute Care, and Critical Care Surgery, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
| | - Maria Jalmbrant
- Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.,Middlesex University, London, UK
| | - Niclas Kvarnström
- Department of Transplantation, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Giuliano Testa
- Annette C. and Harold C. Simmons Transplant Institute, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
| | - Liza Johannesson
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sahlgrenska Academy, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Gothenburg, Sweden.,Annette C. and Harold C. Simmons Transplant Institute, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Holscher CM, Leanza J, Thomas AG, Waldram MM, Haugen CE, Jackson KR, Bae S, Massie AB, Segev DL. Anxiety, depression, and regret of donation in living kidney donors. BMC Nephrol 2018; 19:218. [PMID: 30180815 PMCID: PMC6122576 DOI: 10.1186/s12882-018-1024-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/25/2018] [Accepted: 08/28/2018] [Indexed: 01/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Previous studies have reported a wide range of prevalence of post-donation anxiety, depression, and regret in living kidney donors (LKDs). It is also unclear what risk factors are associated with these outcomes. Methods We screened 825 LKDs for anxiety and depression using 2-item GAD-2 and PHQ-2 scales and asked about regret. Results Overall, 5.5% screened positive for anxiety, 4.2% for depression, and 2.1% reported regretting their donation. While there was moderate correlation between positive anxiety and depression screens (r = 0.52), there was no correlation between regret and positive screens (r < 0.1 for both). A positive anxiety screen was more likely in LKDs with a positive depression screen (adjusted relative risk [aRR] 13.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.78–27.74, p < 0.001). Similarly, a positive depression screen was more likely in LKDs with a positive anxiety screen (aRR 19.50, 95% CI 6.94–54.81, p < 0.001), as well as in those whose recipients experienced graft loss (aRR 5.38, 95% CI 1.29–22.32, p = 0.02). Regret was more likely in LKDs with a positive anxiety screen (aRR 5.68, 95% CI 1.20–26.90, p = 0.03). This was a single center cross-sectional study which may limit generalizability and examination of causal effects. Also, due to the low prevalence of adverse psychosocial outcomes, we may lack power to detect some associations between donor characteristics and anxiety, depression, or regret. Conclusions Although there is a low prevalence of anxiety, depression, and regret of donation among LKDs, these are interrelated conditions and a positive screen for one condition should prompt evaluation for other conditions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Courtenay M Holscher
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 2000 E. Monument St., Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
| | - Joseph Leanza
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 2000 E. Monument St., Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA
| | - Alvin G Thomas
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 2000 E. Monument St., Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA
| | - Madeleine M Waldram
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 2000 E. Monument St., Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA
| | - Christine E Haugen
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 2000 E. Monument St., Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA
| | - Kyle R Jackson
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 2000 E. Monument St., Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA
| | - Sunjae Bae
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 2000 E. Monument St., Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.,Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Allan B Massie
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 2000 E. Monument St., Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.,Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Dorry L Segev
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 2000 E. Monument St., Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.,Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Lam NN, Lentine KL, Klarenbach S, Sood MM, Kuwornu PJ, Naylor KL, Knoll GA, Kim SJ, Young A, Garg AX. Validation of Living Donor Nephrectomy Codes. Can J Kidney Health Dis 2018; 5:2054358118760833. [PMID: 29662679 PMCID: PMC5896849 DOI: 10.1177/2054358118760833] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2017] [Accepted: 11/15/2017] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Use of administrative data for outcomes assessment in living kidney donors is increasing given the rarity of complications and challenges with loss to follow-up. Objective: To assess the validity of living donor nephrectomy in health care administrative databases compared with the reference standard of manual chart review. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: 5 major transplant centers in Ontario, Canada. Patients: Living kidney donors between 2003 and 2010. Measurements: Sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV). Methods: Using administrative databases, we conducted a retrospective study to determine the validity of diagnostic and procedural codes for living donor nephrectomies. The reference standard was living donor nephrectomies identified through the province’s tissue and organ procurement agency, with verification by manual chart review. Operating characteristics (sensitivity and PPV) of various algorithms using diagnostic, procedural, and physician billing codes were calculated. Results: During the study period, there were a total of 1199 living donor nephrectomies. Overall, the best algorithm for identifying living kidney donors was the presence of 1 diagnostic code for kidney donor (ICD-10 Z52.4) and 1 procedural code for kidney procurement/excision (1PC58, 1PC89, 1PC91). Compared with the reference standard, this algorithm had a sensitivity of 97% and a PPV of 90%. The diagnostic and procedural codes performed better than the physician billing codes (sensitivity 60%, PPV 78%). Limitations: The donor chart review and validation study was performed in Ontario and may not be generalizable to other regions. Conclusions: An algorithm consisting of 1 diagnostic and 1 procedural code can be reliably used to conduct health services research that requires the accurate determination of living kidney donors at the population level.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ngan N Lam
- Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
| | - Krista L Lentine
- Center for Abdominal Transplantation, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, MO, USA
| | - Scott Klarenbach
- Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
| | - Manish M Sood
- Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Kidney Research Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.,Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Health Research Institute, Ontario, Canada
| | - Paul J Kuwornu
- Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Ontario, Canada
| | - Kyla L Naylor
- Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Ontario, Canada.,Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Gregory A Knoll
- Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Kidney Research Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.,Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Health Research Institute, Ontario, Canada
| | - S Joseph Kim
- Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Ontario, Canada.,Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ann Young
- Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Amit X Garg
- Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Ontario, Canada.,Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.,Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Lentine KL, Naik AS, Ouseph R, Zhang Z, Axelrod DA, Segev DL, Dharnidharka VR, Brennan DC, Randall H, Gadi R, Lam NN, Hess GP, Kasiske BL, Schnitzler MA. Antidepressant medication use before and after kidney transplant: implications for outcomes - a retrospective study. Transpl Int 2018; 31:20-31. [PMID: 28771882 PMCID: PMC6334638 DOI: 10.1111/tri.13006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/11/2017] [Revised: 04/11/2017] [Accepted: 06/26/2017] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
We examined a novel database wherein national US transplant registry identifiers were linked to records from a large pharmaceutical claims warehouse (2008-2015) to characterize antidepressant use before and after kidney transplantation, and associations [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 95% CI] with death and graft failure. Among 72 054 recipients, 12.6% filled antidepressant medications in the year before transplant, and use was more common among women and patients who were white, unemployed, and had limited functional status. Pre-transplant antidepressant use was associated with 39% higher 1-year mortality (aHR 1.39, 95% CI 1.18-1.64) and 15% higher all-cause graft loss risk (aHR 1.15, 95% CI 1.02-1.30). More than 50% of patients who filled antidepressants pre-transplant continued fill post-transplant. Antidepressant use in the first year after transplant was associated with twofold higher risk of death (aHR 1.94, 95% CI 1.60-2.35), 38% higher risk of death-censored graft failure, and 61% higher risk of all-cause graft failure in the subsequent year. Pre-listing antidepressant use was also associated with increased mortality, but transplantation conferred a survival benefit regardless of prelisting antidepressant use status. While associations may in part reflect underlying behaviors or comorbidities, kidney transplant candidates and recipients treated with antidepressant medications should be monitored and supported to reduce the risk of adverse outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Krista L. Lentine
- Center for Abdominal Transplantation, Saint Louis
University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Saint Louis
University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Abhijit S Naik
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Rosemary Ouseph
- Center for Abdominal Transplantation, Saint Louis
University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Saint Louis
University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Zidong Zhang
- Center for Abdominal Transplantation, Saint Louis
University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - David A. Axelrod
- Division of Abdominal Transplantation, Department of
Surgery, Brody School of Medicine, Greenville, NC, USA
| | - Dorry L. Segev
- Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Johns
Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | | | - Daniel C. Brennan
- Transplant Nephrology, Washington University School of
Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Henry Randall
- Center for Abdominal Transplantation, Saint Louis
University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Raj Gadi
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Saint Louis
University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Ngan N. Lam
- Division of Nephrology, University of Alberta, Edmonton,
AB, Canada
| | - Gregory P. Hess
- Symphony Health, Conshohocken, PA, USA
- Leonard Davis Institute for Health Economics, University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia PA, USA
| | - Bertram L. Kasiske
- Division of Nephrology, Hennepin County Medical Center,
Minneapolis, MN, USA
| | - Mark A. Schnitzler
- Center for Abdominal Transplantation, Saint Louis
University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Henderson ML, Thomas AG, Shaffer A, Massie AB, Luo X, Holscher CM, Purnell TS, Lentine KL, Segev DL. The National Landscape of Living Kidney Donor Follow-Up in the United States. Am J Transplant 2017; 17:3131-3140. [PMID: 28510355 PMCID: PMC5690895 DOI: 10.1111/ajt.14356] [Citation(s) in RCA: 46] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/19/2016] [Revised: 04/28/2017] [Accepted: 05/04/2017] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M L Henderson
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | - A G Thomas
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | - A Shaffer
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD
| | - A B Massie
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD
| | - X Luo
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | - C M Holscher
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | - T S Purnell
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD
| | - K L Lentine
- Center for Abdominal Transplantation, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
| | - D L Segev
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Kasiske BL, Asrani SK, Dew MA, Henderson ML, Henrich C, Humar A, Israni AK, Lentine KL, Matas AJ, Newell KA, LaPointe Rudow D, Massie AB, Snyder JJ, Taler SJ, Trotter JF, Waterman AD. The Living Donor Collective: A Scientific Registry for Living Donors. Am J Transplant 2017; 17:3040-3048. [PMID: 28520316 DOI: 10.1111/ajt.14365] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/27/2016] [Revised: 04/20/2017] [Accepted: 05/07/2017] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
In the setting of an overall decline in living organ donation and new questions about long-term safety, a better understanding of outcomes after living donation has become imperative. Adequate information on outcomes important to donors may take many years to ascertain and may be evident only by comparing large numbers of donors with suitable controls. Previous studies have been unable to fully answer critical questions, primarily due to lack of appropriate controls, inadequate sample size, and/or follow-up duration that is too short to allow detection of important risks attributable to donation. The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network does not follow donors long term and has no prospective control group with which to compare postdonation outcomes. There is a need to establish a national living donor registry and to prospectively follow donors over their lifetimes. In addition, there is a need to better understand the reasons many potential donors who volunteer to donate do not donate and whether the reasons are justified. Therefore, the US Health Resources and Services Administration asked the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients to establish a national registry to address these important questions. Here, we discuss the efforts, challenges, and opportunities inherent in establishing the Living Donor Collective.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B L Kasiske
- Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Minneapolis, MN.,Department of Medicine, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN
| | - S K Asrani
- Transplant Hepatology, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, TX
| | - M A Dew
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - M L Henderson
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | - C Henrich
- Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Minneapolis, MN
| | - A Humar
- Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - A K Israni
- Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Minneapolis, MN.,Department of Medicine, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN
| | - K L Lentine
- Department of Medicine, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO
| | - A J Matas
- Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
| | - K A Newell
- Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA
| | - D LaPointe Rudow
- Recanati Miller Transplantation Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY
| | - A B Massie
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | - J J Snyder
- Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Minneapolis, MN
| | - S J Taler
- Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - J F Trotter
- Transplant Hepatology, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, TX
| | - A D Waterman
- David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Kidney Transplant Program, Los Angeles, CA
| | | |
Collapse
|
29
|
Lentine KL, Kasiske BL, Levey AS, Adams PL, Alberú J, Bakr MA, Gallon L, Garvey CA, Guleria S, Li PKT, Segev DL, Taler SJ, Tanabe K, Wright L, Zeier MG, Cheung M, Garg AX. Summary of Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors. Transplantation 2017; 101:1783-1792. [PMID: 28737659 PMCID: PMC5542788 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000001770] [Citation(s) in RCA: 220] [Impact Index Per Article: 27.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2017] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) engaged an evidence review team and convened a work group to produce a guideline to evaluate and manage candidates for living kidney donation. The evidence for most guideline recommendations is sparse and many "ungraded" expert consensus recommendations were made to guide the donor candidate evaluation and care before, during, and after donation. The guideline advocates for replacing decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation with a comprehensive approach to risk assessment using the best available evidence. The approach to simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics advances a new framework for assessing donor candidate risk and for defensible shared decision making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Josefina Alberú
- Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico
| | | | | | | | | | - Philip Kam-Tao Li
- Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong, China
| | - Dorry L. Segev
- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
30
|
Lentine KL, Kasiske BL, Levey AS, Adams PL, Alberú J, Bakr MA, Gallon L, Garvey CA, Guleria S, Li PKT, Segev DL, Taler SJ, Tanabe K, Wright L, Zeier MG, Cheung M, Garg AX. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors. Transplantation 2017; 101:S1-S109. [PMID: 28742762 PMCID: PMC5540357 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000001769] [Citation(s) in RCA: 233] [Impact Index Per Article: 29.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2017] [Accepted: 03/20/2017] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Josefina Alberú
- Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Dorry L. Segev
- Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
31
|
Risk-Factor Profile of Living Kidney Donors: The Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Living Kidney Donor Registry 2004-2012. Transplantation 2017; 100:1278-83. [PMID: 27123877 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000000877] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Recent literature suggests that living kidney donation may be associated with an excess risk of end-stage kidney disease and death. Efforts to maximize access to transplantation may result in acceptance of donors who do not fit within current guidelines, potentially placing them at risk of adverse long-term outcomes. METHODS We studied the risk profile of Australian and New Zealand living kidney donors using data from the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Living Kidney Donor Registry over 2004 to 2012. We compared their predonation profile against national guidelines for donor acceptance. RESULTS The analysis included 2,932 donors (mean age 48.8 ± 11.2 years, range 18-81), 58% female and 87% Caucasian. Forty (1%) had measured glomerular filtration rate less than 80 mL/min; 32 (1%) had proteinuria >300 mg/day; 589 (20%) were hypertensive; 495 (18%) obese; 9 (0.3%) were diabetic while a further 55 (2%) had impaired glucose tolerance; and 218 (7%) were current smokers. Overall 767 donors (26%) had at least one relative contraindication to donation and 268 (9%) had at least one absolute contraindication according to national guidelines. CONCLUSIONS Divergence of current clinical practice from national guidelines has occurred. In the context of recent evidence demonstrating elevated long-term donor risk, rigorous follow-up and reporting of outcomes are now mandated to ensure safety and document any change in risk associated with such a divergence.
Collapse
|
32
|
Sher Y, Zimbrean P. Psychiatric Aspects of Organ Transplantation in Critical Care: An Update. Crit Care Clin 2017; 33:659-679. [PMID: 28601140 DOI: 10.1016/j.ccc.2017.03.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
Transplant patients face challenging medical journeys, with many detours to the intensive care unit. Before and after transplantation, they have significant psychological and cognitive comorbidities, which decrease their quality of life and potentially compromise their medical outcomes. Critical care staff are essential in these journeys. Being cognizant of relevant psychosocial and mental health aspects of transplant patients' experiences can help critical care personnel take comprehensive care of these patients. This knowledge can empower them to understand their patients' psychological journeys, recognize patients' mental health needs, provide initial interventions, and recognize need for expert consultations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yelizaveta Sher
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University Medical Center, 401 Quarry Road, Suite 2320, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
| | - Paula Zimbrean
- Departments of Psychiatry and Surgery (Transplant), Yale New Haven Hospital, 20 York Street, Fitkin 611, New Haven, CT 06511, USA
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Matas AJ, Hays RE, Ibrahim HN. Long-Term Non-End-Stage Renal Disease Risks After Living Kidney Donation. Am J Transplant 2017; 17:893-900. [PMID: 27529688 DOI: 10.1111/ajt.14011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2016] [Revised: 06/29/2016] [Accepted: 08/04/2016] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
Despite generally positive outcomes and high rates of satisfaction, living kidney donors are at risk for both medical and psychosocial problems. In this review, the authors summarize non-end-stage renal disease (ESRD) risks for donors and describe limitations to the data. We review the evidence of medical risks (e.g. increased cardiovascular disease and mortality, preeclampsia) and psychosocial risks (e.g. mood disturbance, financial burden). We then discuss the evidence of differential risks among subsets and the impact of postdonation events (e.g. development of diabetes). Collectively, available evidence indicates the following. (1) Recognizing the importance of non-ESRD risks has been overshadowed by analyses of the reported risk of ESRD. This imbalance should be remedied. (2) There is little quantification of the true contribution of donation to medical and psychosocial outcomes. (3) Most studies, to date, have been retrospective, with limited sample sizes and diversity and with less-than-ideal controls for comparison of outcomes. (4) Many postdonation events (diabetes and hypertension) can now be reasonably predicted, and their association with adverse outcomes can be quantified. (5) Mechanisms and systems need to be implemented to evaluate and care for donors who develop medical and/or psychosocial problems. (6) Costs to donors are a significant burden, and making donation financially neutral should be a priority.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A J Matas
- Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
| | - R E Hays
- Transplant Clinic, Division of Transplantation, University of Wisconsin Hospital & Clinics, Madison, WI
| | - H N Ibrahim
- Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Live Donors of the Initial Observational Study of Uterus Transplantation—Psychological and Medical Follow-Up Until 1 Year After Surgery in the 9 Cases. Transplantation 2017; 101:664-670. [DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000001567] [Citation(s) in RCA: 60] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
|
35
|
Lentine KL, Lam NN, Schnitzler MA, Hess GP, Kasiske BL, Xiao H, Axelrod D, Garg AX, Schold JD, Randall H, Dzebisashvili N, Brennan DC, Segev DL. Predonation Prescription Opioid Use: A Novel Risk Factor for Readmission After Living Kidney Donation. Am J Transplant 2017; 17:744-753. [PMID: 27589826 DOI: 10.1111/ajt.14033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2016] [Revised: 08/08/2016] [Accepted: 08/21/2016] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
Implications of opioid use in living kidney donors for key outcomes, including readmission rates after nephrectomy, are unknown. We integrated Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data with records from a nationwide pharmacy claims warehouse and administrative records from an academic hospital consortium to quantify predonation prescription opioid use and postdonation readmission events. Associations of predonation opioid use (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]) in the year before donation and other baseline clinical, procedural, and center factors with readmission within 90 days postdonation were examined by using multivariate logistic regression. Among 14 959 living donors, 11.3% filled one or more opioid prescriptions in the year before donation. Donors with the highest level of predonation opioid use (>305 mg/year) were more than twice as likely as nonusers to be readmitted (6.8% vs. 2.6%; aOR 2.49, 95% confidence interval 1.74-3.58). Adjusted readmission risk was also significantly (p < 0.05) higher for women (aOR = 1.25), African Americans (aOR = 1.45), spouses (aOR = 1.42), exchange participants (aOR = 1.46), uninsured donors (aOR = 1.40), donors with predonation estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (aOR = 2.68), donors with predonation pulmonary conditions (aOR = 1.54), and after robotic nephrectomy (aOR = 1.68). Predonation opioid use is independently associated with readmission after donor nephrectomy. Future research should examine underlying mechanisms and approaches to reducing risks of postdonation complications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K L Lentine
- Center for Abdominal Transplantation, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
| | - N N Lam
- Division of Nephrology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
| | - M A Schnitzler
- Center for Abdominal Transplantation, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
| | - G P Hess
- Symphony Health, Pittsburgh, PA.,Leonard Davis Institute for Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | - B L Kasiske
- Division of Nephrology, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN
| | - H Xiao
- Center for Abdominal Transplantation, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
| | - D Axelrod
- Division of Abdominal Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Brody School of Medicine, Greenville, NC
| | - A X Garg
- Division of Nephrology, Western University, London, ON, Canada
| | - J D Schold
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - H Randall
- Center for Abdominal Transplantation, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
| | - N Dzebisashvili
- Dickson Advanced Analytics, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC
| | - D C Brennan
- Transplant Nephrology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
| | - D L Segev
- Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Traino HM, Nonterah CW, Gupta G, Mincemoyer J. Living Kidney Donors' Information Needs and Preferences. Prog Transplant 2016; 26:47-54. [PMID: 27136249 DOI: 10.1177/1526924816633943] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Past research suggests the information exchanged from transplant centers to potential living kidney donors is, in many cases, suboptimal. The purpose of this study was to assess donors' perceptions of the information provided while considering living donation. METHODS Semistructured telephone interviews conducted with 81 past living donors seen at 1 mid-Atlantic transplant center assessed the extent to which living kidney donors deemed Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)-mandated information useful to making a decision about donation and to which more information was or would have been desired before donating. Understanding of and satisfaction with the information was also assessed. RESULTS Participants were primarily white (67.9%), females (67.9%), with an average age of 57.8 years. Perceived usefulness ranged from a mean of 3.1 for the confidentiality of the transplant center's communication to 4.1 for postoperative care and short-term medical risks of donation. Donors of minority descent as well as those with more education and less income found the information provided most useful. Few donors desired additional information about the right to opt out of (8.6%) or decline (13.6%) donation; however, most wanted more information regarding the risk of being refused health, disability and/or life insurance after donating (77.8%), and insurance coverage for future health problems (66.7%). DISCUSSION This study revealed limited usefulness of certain CMS-mandated topics and a desire for additional information about donation. Efforts to standardize the informed consent process should incorporate donors' perspectives as to the specific topics, quantity of information, and the mode of communication found most useful when considering living donation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Heather M Traino
- Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Camilla W Nonterah
- Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), Richmond, VA, USA
| | - Gaurav Gupta
- Department of Internal Medicine, VCU Health System, Richmond, VA, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
Hays R, Rodrigue JR, Cohen D, Danovitch G, Matas A, Schold J, LaPointe Rudow D. Financial Neutrality for Living Organ Donors: Reasoning, Rationale, Definitions, and Implementation Strategies. Am J Transplant 2016; 16:1973-81. [PMID: 27037542 DOI: 10.1111/ajt.13813] [Citation(s) in RCA: 53] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/09/2015] [Revised: 03/13/2016] [Accepted: 03/19/2016] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
In the United States, live organ donation can be a costly and burdensome undertaking for donors. While most donation-related medical expenses are covered, many donors still face lost wages, travel expenses, incidentals, and potential for future insurability problems. Despite widespread consensus that live donors (LD) should not be responsible for the costs associated with donation, little has changed to alleviate financial burdens for LDs in the last decade. To achieve this goal, the transplant community must actively pursue strategies and policies to eliminate unreimbursed out-of-pocket costs to LDs. Costs should be more appropriately distributed across all stakeholders; this will also make live donation possible for people who, in the current system, cannot afford to proceed. We propose the goal of LD "financial neutrality," offer an operational definition to include the coverage/reimbursement of all medical, travel, and lodging costs, along with lost wages, related to the act of donating an organ, and guidance for consideration of medical care coverage, and wage and other expense reimbursement. The intent of this report is to provide a foundation to inform discussion within the transplant community and to advance initiatives for policy and resource allocation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R Hays
- Transplant Center, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, WI
| | - J R Rodrigue
- Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - D Cohen
- Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - G Danovitch
- Department of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
| | - A Matas
- Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota Medical Center-Fairview, Minneapolis, MN
| | - J Schold
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - D LaPointe Rudow
- Recanati Miller Transplantation Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
|
39
|
Psychosocial assessment of living kidney donors: What implications have temperament and character for decision-making? Compr Psychiatry 2016; 67:1-8. [PMID: 27095327 DOI: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2016.02.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/10/2015] [Revised: 02/04/2016] [Accepted: 02/08/2016] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE We compared the personality of kidney donor candidates to non-donor controls and analyzed the personality profile of candidates psychosocially at risk. METHODS 49 consecutive living kidney donor candidates underwent an extensive psychosocial evaluation. Psychosocial risk factors concerning knowledge of donation risks (1), donor-recipient-relationship (2), and/or mental health (3) were rated on a 3-point rating scale (0=high risk, 2=no risk). Furthermore, candidates as well as 49 age-and gender-matched non-donor controls filled in questionnaires concerning psychological distress (Symptom Checklist 90-R) and personality (Temperament and Character Inventory). RESULTS There were no significant differences between candidates and controls concerning psychological distress or personality. Psychosocial assessment identified 13 candidates (26.5%) with increased psychosocial risk. This group displayed compared to candidates without psychosocial risk no difference concerning age, gender, formal education, donor-recipient relationship and psychological distress. However, this group scored significantly higher on reward dependence compared to suitable donors and controls (p<0.05). Reward dependence was associated with a lack of adequate knowledge on donation (r=-0.35, p<0.05). CONCLUSION Reward dependence has important implications for decision-making, because it is associated with an increased tendency to deny potential risks of donation. Careful identification and assessment of reward dependent donor candidates is needed to ensure a free-willed decision.
Collapse
|
40
|
Johannesson L, Järvholm S. Uterus transplantation: current progress and future prospects. Int J Womens Health 2016; 8:43-51. [PMID: 26917976 PMCID: PMC4751897 DOI: 10.2147/ijwh.s75635] [Citation(s) in RCA: 55] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/15/2023] Open
Abstract
Even if reproductive medicine has been remarkably successful during the past few decades, with the introduction of in vitro fertilization in the late 1970s and intracytoplasmic sperm injection in the early 1990s, it has been repeatedly mocked by infertility due to an absolute uterine factor. No treatment has been available for the women suffering from an absent or dysfunctional uterus, in terms of carrying a pregnancy. Approximately one in 500 women suffer from absolute uterine infertility, and the option so far to become a mother has been to either adopt or utilize gestational surrogacy. As of today, a total of eleven cases of human uterus transplantations have been reported worldwide, conducted in three different countries. The results of these initial experimental cases far exceed what might be expected of a novel surgical method. Many more uterus transplantations are to be expected in the near future, as other research teams' preparations are being ready to be put into clinical practice. In this review, we summarize the current worldwide experience of uterus transplantation as a treatment of absolute uterine factor infertility and the future prospects of human uterus transplantation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Liza Johannesson
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Stina Järvholm
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Pérez-San-Gregorio MÁ, Fernández-Jiménez E, Luque-Budia A, Martín-Rodríguez A. Anxiety and concerns in Spanish living kidney donor candidates. Int J Psychiatry Med 2015; 50:163-77. [PMID: 26340911 DOI: 10.1177/0091217415605031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Donating a kidney while alive is an experience associated with important benefits for donors and recipients. In view of the inexistence of Spanish investigations, we aimed: (a) to compare the anxiety and concerns of Spanish living kidney donor candidates relating to themselves as a function of gender and their level of concern about potential kidney recipients, and (b) to analyze whether the results regarding anxiety symptoms were clinically significant compared with a representative sample of the general Spanish population. METHODS We selected 67 donor candidates whom we evaluated using the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and the Scale of Concerns Regarding Living Kidney Donation. RESULTS (1) The donor candidates who were more concerned about the recipients, in comparison with those who were less concerned, showed more state-anxiety and more concerns about themselves as donors, (2) the subgroup of more concerned females exhibited greater anxiety symptoms and concern about the consequences that nephrectomy could have on themselves, and (3) for all donor candidates, regardless of gender or level of concern about the recipient, the anxiety levels were not clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS Anxiety in donor candidates is similar to or lower than the normative levels.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Asunción Luque-Budia
- Liaison Mental Health Services, University Hospital Virgen del Rocío, Seville, Spain
| | - Agustín Martín-Rodríguez
- Department of Personality, Assessment, and Psychological Treatment, University of Seville, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Agerskov H, Ludvigsen MS, Bistrup C, Pedersen BD. From donation to everyday life: Living kidney donors' experiences three months after donation. J Ren Care 2015; 42:43-52. [PMID: 26463844 DOI: 10.1111/jorc.12137] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND As the number of patients with end stage kidney disease continues to rise internationally, living kidney donation remains a favourable treatment option. Long waiting times on dialysis can be avoided and short and long-term outcomes are better, when compared with deceased donor transplantation. Living kidney donation is a safe procedure for healthy individuals who have completed a rigorous screening programme. Significant experiences can occur during the recovery period. OBJECTIVE To investigate donors' experiences of donation and their recovery period, in the first three months after donation. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study took a phenomenological-hermeneutic approach. Open interviews were conducted three months after donation. Data were interpreted and discussed in accordance with Ricoeur's text interpretation theory on three levels: naïve reading, structural analysis and critical interpretation and discussion. FINDINGS The donation process was experienced as an 'expedition', including preparations, the operation, recovery and everyday life. Positive feelings were challenging to describe; however health troubles and vulnerability were evident. A closer relationship and a need to follow the recipient's progress implied that patient and donor felt they were a part of each other. Support from relatives was important but could also be a burden. CONCLUSION The kidney donation process is experienced as being like on an expedition, involving positive feelings, vulnerability, a closer patient-donor relationship and challenges around family relationships. It is essential that nurses are aware of the complexity of the situation and focus on the impact of the process, to support and facilitate donors' needs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hanne Agerskov
- Research Unit of Nursing, University of Southern Denmark Department of Nephrology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | | | - Claus Bistrup
- Department of Nephrology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | - Birthe D Pedersen
- Research Unit of Nursing, University of Southern Denmark, Funen, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Lentine KL, Lam NN, Schnitzler MA, Garg AX, Xiao H, Leander SE, Brennan DC, Taler SJ, Axelrod D, Segev DL. Gender differences in use of prescription narcotic medications among living kidney donors. Clin Transplant 2015; 29:927-37. [PMID: 26227016 DOI: 10.1111/ctr.12599] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/27/2015] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
Prescription narcotic use among living kidney donors is not well described. Using a unique database that integrates national registry identifiers for living kidney donors (1987-2007) in the United States with billing claims from a private health insurer (2000-2007), we identified pharmacy fills for prescription narcotic medications in periods 1-4 and >4 yr post-donation and estimated relative likelihoods of post-donation narcotic use by Cox regression. We also compared narcotic fill rates and medication possession ratios (MPRs, defined as (days of medication supplied)/(days observed)), between donors and age- and sex-matched non-donors. Overall, rates of narcotic medication fills were 32.3 and 32.4 per 100 person-years in periods 1-4 and >4 yr post-donation. After age and race adjustment, women were approximately twice as likely as men to fill a narcotic prescription in years 1-4 (adjusted hazard ratio, aHR, 2.28; 95% confidence interval, CI, 1.86-2.79) and >4 yr (aHR 1.70; 95% CI 1.50-1.93). MPRs in donors were low (<2.5% days exposed), and lower than among age- and sex-matched non-donors. Prescription narcotic medication use is more common among women than men in the intermediate term after live kidney donation. Overall, total narcotic exposure is low, and lower than among non-donors from the general population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Krista L Lentine
- Center for Outcomes Research, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.,Division of Abdominal Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Ngan N Lam
- Division of Nephrology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
| | - Mark A Schnitzler
- Center for Outcomes Research, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.,Division of Abdominal Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Amit X Garg
- Division of Nephrology, Western University, London, ON, Canada
| | - Huiling Xiao
- Center for Outcomes Research, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | | | - Daniel C Brennan
- Transplant Nephrology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Sandra J Taler
- Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - David Axelrod
- Division of Abdominal Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Hanover, NH, USA
| | - Dorry L Segev
- Division of Abdominal Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Schold JD, Buccini LD, Rodrigue JR, Mandelbrot D, Goldfarb DA, Flechner SM, Kayler LK, Poggio ED. Critical Factors Associated With Missing Follow-Up Data for Living Kidney Donors in the United States. Am J Transplant 2015; 15:2394-403. [PMID: 25902877 DOI: 10.1111/ajt.13282] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2014] [Revised: 01/25/2015] [Accepted: 02/11/2015] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J D Schold
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.,Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH
| | - L D Buccini
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.,Digestive Disease Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - J R Rodrigue
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA
| | | | - D A Goldfarb
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | - S M Flechner
- Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.,Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| | | | - E D Poggio
- Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.,Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Tan JC, Gordon EJ, Dew MA, LaPointe Rudow D, Steiner RW, Woodle ES, Hays R, Rodrigue JR, Segev DL. Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: Facilitating Education about Live Kidney Donation--Recommendations from a Consensus Conference. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2015; 10:1670-7. [PMID: 25908792 DOI: 10.2215/cjn.01030115] [Citation(s) in RCA: 43] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
The Best Practice in Live Kidney Donation Consensus Conference held in June of 2014 included the Best Practices in Living Donor Education Workgroup, whose charge was to identify best practice strategies in education of living donors, community outreach initiatives, commercial media, solicitation, and state registries. The workgroup's goal was to identify critical content to include in living kidney donor education and best methods to deliver educational content. A detailed summary of considerations regarding educational content issues for potential living kidney donors is presented, including the consensus that was reached. Educational topics that may require updating on the basis of emerging studies on living kidney donor health outcomes are also presented. Enhancing the educational process is important for increasing living donor comprehension to optimize informed decision-making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jane C Tan
- Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California;
| | - Elisa J Gordon
- Center for Healthcare Studies and Comprehensive Transplant Center, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Mary Amanda Dew
- Departments of Psychiatry, Psychology, Epidemiology, and Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | - Dianne LaPointe Rudow
- Recanati Miller Transplantation Institute, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Robert W Steiner
- Department of Medicine, University of California at San Diego, San Diego, California
| | - E Steve Woodle
- Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio
| | - Rebecca Hays
- Transplant Center, University of Wisconsin Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - James R Rodrigue
- Transplant Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; and
| | - Dorry L Segev
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | | |
Collapse
|
46
|
Lam NN, Garg AX, Segev DL, Schnitzler MA, Xiao H, Axelrod D, Brennan DC, Kasiske BL, Tuttle-Newhall JE, Lentine KL. Gout after living kidney donation: correlations with demographic traits and renal complications. Am J Nephrol 2015; 41:231-40. [PMID: 25896309 DOI: 10.1159/000381291] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2015] [Accepted: 02/24/2015] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The demographic and clinical correlates of gout after living kidney donation are not well described. METHODS Using a unique database that integrates national registry identifiers of U.S. living kidney donors (1987-2007) with billing claims from a private health insurer (2000-2007), we identified post-donation gout based on medical diagnosis codes or pharmacy fills for gout therapies. The frequencies and demographic correlates of gout after donation were estimated by Cox regression with left- and right-censoring. We also compared the rates of renal diagnoses among donors with and without gout, matched in the ratio 1:3 by age, sex, and race. RESULTS The study sample of 4,650 donors included 13.1% African Americans. By seven years, African Americans were almost twice as likely to develop gout as Caucasian donors (4.4 vs. 2.4%; adjusted hazard ratio, aHR, 1.8; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0-3.2). Post-donation gout risk also increased with older age at donation (aHR per year 1.05) and was higher in men (aHR 2.80). Gout rates were similar in donors and age- and sex-matched general non-donors (rate ratio 0.86; 95% CI 0.66-1.13). Compared to matched donors without gout, donors with gout had more frequent renal diagnoses, reaching significance for acute kidney failure (rate ratio 12.5; 95% CI 1.5-107.0), chronic kidney disease (rate ratio 5.0; 95% CI 2.1-11.7), and other disorders of the kidney (rate ratio 2.2; 95% CI 1.2-4.2). CONCLUSION Donor subgroups at increased risk of gout include African Americans, older donors, and men. Donors with gout have a higher burden of renal complications after demographic adjustment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ngan N Lam
- Division of Nephrology, Western University, London, Ont., Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
47
|
Sommerer C, Feuerstein D, Dikow R, Rauch G, Hartmann M, Schaier M, Morath C, Schwenger V, Schemmer P, Zeier M. Psychosocial and physical outcome following kidney donation-a retrospective analysis. Transpl Int 2015; 28:416-428. [PMID: 25557158 DOI: 10.1111/tri.12509] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2014] [Revised: 07/26/2014] [Accepted: 12/30/2014] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
Living renal donation is of benefit to the allograft recipient. Careful analysis of the donor outcome is necessary with respect to the medical condition, socioeconomic status, and health-related quality of life. All living kidney donors of the Transplant Center at Heidelberg were included. Renal function and comorbidities were assessed. HRQoL and fatigue symptoms were determined by self-reporting validated test systems [Short-Form 36 (SF-36), Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)]. In total, 430 of 519 living renal donors were eligible to participate: 295 living donors (68.6%) provided informed consent (age at donation 49 ± 11 years) with a median time after donation of 77 (24-484) months. Renal function was lower compared with predonation (66 ± 15 ml/min vs. 88 ± 14 ml/min). Blood pressure remained stable (128 ± 14 mmHg vs. 129 ± 15 mmHg) with an increase of 56 donors receiving antihypertensive treatment (27.1% vs. 19%). The SF-36 physical component summary score was significantly better for both genders compared with the general population; the SF-36 mental component summary score was lower for female donors, caused by a reduced role functioning. Prevalence of fatigue was increased in female donors between the ages of 40 and 59 years. Renal function and blood pressure were as expected from previous studies. Concerning the psychosocial outcome, female donors might be at risk of impairments postdonation. Future evaluations will confirm and specify whether these results are necessary.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claudia Sommerer
- Department of Nephrology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
48
|
Timmerman L, Laging M, Westerhof GJ, Timman R, Zuidema WC, Beck DK, IJzermans JNM, Betjes MGH, Busschbach JJV, Weimar W, Massey EK. Mental health among living kidney donors: a prospective comparison with matched controls from the general population. Am J Transplant 2015; 15:508-17. [PMID: 25582231 DOI: 10.1111/ajt.13046] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/21/2014] [Revised: 10/07/2014] [Accepted: 10/08/2014] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
The impact of living kidney donation on donors' mental health has not been sufficiently nor comprehensively studied. Earlier studies demonstrated that mental health did not change in the majority of donors, however they often lacked a suitable control group and/or had other methodological limitations. Consequently, it remains unclear whether changes in mental health found among a minority of donors reflect normal fluctuations. In this study we matched 135 donors with individuals from the general Dutch population on gender and baseline mental health and compared changes in mental health over time. Mental health was measured using the Brief Symptom Inventory and Mental Health Continuum Short Form. Primary analyses compared baseline and 6 months follow-up. Secondary analyses compared baseline and 9 (controls) or 15 months (donors) follow-up. Primary multilevel regression analyses showed that there was no change in psychological complaints (p = 0.20) and wellbeing (p = 0.10) over time and donors and controls did not differ from one another in changes in psychological complaints (p = 0.48) and wellbeing (p = 0.85). Secondary analyses also revealed no difference in changes between the groups. We concluded that changes in mental health in the short term after donation do not significantly differ from normal fluctuations found in the Dutch general population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L Timmerman
- Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
49
|
Jowsey SG, Jacobs C, Gross CR, Hong BA, Messersmith EE, Gillespie BW, Beebe TJ, Kew C, Matas A, Yusen RD, Hill-Callahan M, Odim J, Taler SJ. Emotional well-being of living kidney donors: findings from the RELIVE Study. Am J Transplant 2014; 14:2535-44. [PMID: 25293374 PMCID: PMC4205186 DOI: 10.1111/ajt.12906] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/31/2014] [Revised: 06/27/2014] [Accepted: 06/28/2014] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
Following kidney donation, short-term quality of life outcomes compare favorably to US normative data but long-term effects on mood are not known. In the Renal and Lung Living Donors Evaluation Study (RELIVE), records from donations performed 1963-2005 were reviewed for depression and antidepressant use predonation. Postdonation, in a cross-sectional cohort design 2010-2012, donors completed the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) depression screening instrument, the Life Orientation Test-Revised, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey and donation experience questions. Of 6909 eligible donors, 3470 were contacted and 2455 participated (71%). The percent with depressive symptoms (8%; PHQ-9>10) was similar to National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey participants (7%, p=0.30). Predonation psychiatric disorders were more common in unrelated than related donors (p=0.05). Postdonation predictors of depressive symptoms included nonwhite race OR=2.00, p=0.020), younger age at donation (OR=1.33 per 10 years, p=0.002), longer recovery time from donation (OR=1.74, p=0.0009), greater financial burden (OR=1.32, p=0.013) and feeling morally obligated to donate (OR=1.23, p=0.003). While cross-sectional prevalence of depression is comparable to population normative data, some factors identifiable around time of donation, including longer recovery, financial stressors, younger age and moral obligation to donate may identify donors more likely to develop future depression, providing an opportunity for intervention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- SG Jowsey
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN,The William J. von Liebig Transplant Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - C Jacobs
- College of Pharmacy and School of Nursing, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
| | - CR Gross
- College of Pharmacy and School of Nursing, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
| | - BA Hong
- Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
| | | | - BW Gillespie
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - TJ Beebe
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - C Kew
- University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL
| | - A Matas
- University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
| | - RD Yusen
- Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
| | | | - J Odim
- National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
| | - SJ Taler
- The William J. von Liebig Transplant Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN,Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | |
Collapse
|
50
|
Niemi M, Mandelbrot DA. The Outcomes of Living Kidney Donation from Medically Complex Donors: Implications for the Donor and the Recipient. CURRENT TRANSPLANTATION REPORTS 2014; 1:1-9. [PMID: 24579060 PMCID: PMC3933185 DOI: 10.1007/s40472-013-0001-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
Living kidney donation is an important option for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and has improved life expectancy and quality for patients otherwise requiring maintenance dialysis or deceased-donor transplantation. Given the favorable outcomes of live donation and the shortage of organs to transplant, individuals with potentially unfavorable demographic and clinical characteristics are increasingly being permitted to donate kidneys. While this trend has successfully expanded the live donor pool, it has raised concerns as to which acceptance criteria are safe. This review aims to summarize the existing literature on the outcomes of transplantation from medically complex, living kidney donors, including both donor and recipient outcomes when available.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew Niemi
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center 185 Pilgrim Road, Farr 8 Boston, MA 02215
| | - Didier A Mandelbrot
- The Transplant Center Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center 110 Francis Street, LMOB 7 Boston, MA 02215
| |
Collapse
|