The changing landscape of live kidney donation in the United States from 2005 to 2017

Evaluation and Long-Term Follow-Up of Living Kidney Donors

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

Seasonal Patterns of Living Kidney Donation in the United States From 1995 to 2019

BACKGROUND

The number of living kidney donors in the United States has declined since 2005, with variations based on the donor-recipient relationship. The reasons for this decline are unclear, and strategies to mitigate declined donations remain elusive. We examined the change in donor number monthly (within-year) versus annually (between-years) to inform potentially modifiable factors for future interventions.

METHODS

In this registry-based cohort analysis of 141 759 living kidney donors between 1995 and 2019, we used linear mixed-effects models for donor number per month and year to analyze between-year and within-year variation in donation. We used Poisson regression to quantify the change in the number of donors per season before and after 2005, stratified by donor-recipient relationship and zip-code household income tertile.

RESULTS

We observed a consistent summer surge in donations during June, July, and August. This surge was statistically significant for related donors (incidence rate ratio [IRR] range: 1.12-1.33) and unrelated donors (IRR range: 1.06-1.16) across donor income tertiles.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate lower rates of living kidney donation in non-summer months across income tertiles. Interventions are needed to address barriers to donation in non-summer seasons and facilitate donations throughout the year. Since the Organ Donor Leave Law provides a solid foundation for supporting year-round donation, extending the law's provisions beyond federal employees may mitigate identified seasonal barriers.

Donor Perceptions and Preferences of Telemedicine and In-Person Visits for Living Kidney Donor Evaluation

Introduction

Living kidney donor evaluation is a lengthy and complex process requiring in-person visits. Access to transplant centers, travel costs, lost wages, and dependent care arrangements are barriers to willing donors initiating evaluation. Telemedicine can help streamline and epedite the evaluation process. We aimed to deeply understand donor experiences and preferences using hybrid telemedicine video/in-person visits to ease access to donor evaluation or counseling.

Methods

We conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with donors or donor candidates who completed their evaluation through telemedicine/in-person, or in-person only visits at a tertiary transplant center between November 27, 2019 and March 1, 2021. Enrollment continued until data saturation was reached (interviews with 20 participants) when no new information emerged from additional interviews. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.

Results

Eight themes were identified as follows: (i) reducing financial and logistical burdens (minimizing travel time and travel-related expenses), (ii) enhancing flexibility with scheduling (less time off work and child or family caregiver arrangements), (iii) importance of a walkthrough and establishing shared understanding, (iv) supporting information with technology and visual aids, (v) key role of the coordinator, (vi) preferred visit by provider role (meeting donor surgeon in-person to create rapport and engaging primary care provider in donor evaluation/follow-up), (vii) comparing modality differences in human connection, and (viii) opportunity for family and support network engagement (allowing loved ones to be involved in telemedicine visits irrespective of geographic locations and pandemic restrictions).

Conclusion

Telemedicine/in-person hybrid model can make donor evaluation more accessible and convenient. Our findings help inform about determinants that influence the adoption of telemedicine to initiate donor evaluation to motivate willing donors. In addition, our results call for policy and legislation that support telemedicine services for living donor kidney transplantation across states.

Novel indications for referral and care for simultaneous liver kidney transplant recipients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Kidney dysfunction is challenging in liver transplant candidates to determine whether it is reversible or not. This review focuses on the pertinent data on how to best approach liver transplant candidates with kidney dysfunction in the current era after implementing the simultaneous liver kidney (SLK) allocation policy and safety net.

RECENT FINDINGS

The implementation of the SLK policy inverted the steady rise in SLK transplants and improved the utilization of high-quality kidneys. Access to kidney transplantation following liver transplant alone (LTA) increased with favorable outcomes. Estimating GFR in liver transplant candidates remains challenging, and innovative methods are needed. SLK provided superior patient and graft survival compared to LTA only for patients with advanced CKD and dialysis at least 3 months. SLK can provide immunological protection against kidney rejection in highly sensitized candidates. Post-SLK transplant care is complex, with an increased risk of complications and hospitalization.

SUMMARY

The SLK policy improved kidney access and utilization. Transplant centers are encouraged, under the safety net, to reserve SLK for liver transplant candidates with advanced CKD or dialysis at least 3 months while allowing lower thresholds for highly sensitized patients. Herein, we propose a practical approach to liver transplant candidates with kidney dysfunction.

Unrecognized opportunities: The landscape of pediatric kidney-paired donation in the United States

BACKGROUND

Pediatric (age < 18 years) kidney transplant (KT) candidates face increasingly complex choices. The 2014 kidney allocation system nearly doubled wait times for pediatric recipients. Given longer wait times and new ways to optimize compatibility, more pediatric candidates may consider kidney-paired donation (KPD). Motivated by this shift and the potential impact of innovations in KPD practice, we studied pediatric KPD procedures in the US from 2008 to 2021.

METHODS

We describe the characteristics and outcomes of pediatric KPD recipients with comparison to pediatric non-KPD living donor kidney transplants (LDKT), pediatric LDKT recipients, and pediatric deceased donor (DDKT) recipients.

RESULTS

Our study cohort includes 4987 pediatric DDKTs, 3447 pediatric non-KPD LDKTs, and 258 pediatric KPD transplants. Fewer centers conducted at least one pediatric KPD procedure compared to those that conducted at least one pediatric LDKT or DDKT procedure (67, 136, and 155 centers, respectively). Five centers performed 31% of the pediatric KPD transplants. After adjustment, there were no differences in graft failure or mortality comparing KPD recipients to non-KPD LDKT, LDKT, or DDKT recipients.

DISCUSSION

We did not observe differences in transplant outcomes comparing pediatric KPD recipients to controls. Considering these results, KPD may be underutilized for pediatric recipients. Pediatric KT centers should consider including KPD in KT candidate education. Further research will be necessary to develop tools that could aid clinicians and families considering the time horizon for future KT procedures, candidate disease and histocompatibility characteristics, and other factors including logistics and donor protections.

Living kidney donors with HIV: experience and outcomes from a case series by the HOPE in Action Consortium

Background

Living kidney donation is possible for people living with HIV (PLWH) in the United States within research studies under the HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act. There are concerns that donor nephrectomy may have an increased risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in PLWH due to HIV-associated kidney disease and antiretroviral therapy (ART) nephrotoxicity. Here we report the first 3 cases of living kidney donors with HIV under the HOPE Act in the United States.

Methods

Within the HOPE in Action Multicenter Consortium, we conducted a prospective study of living kidney donors with HIV. Pre-donation, we estimated the 9-year cumulative incidence of ESRD, performed genetic testing of apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1), excluding individuals with high-risk variants, and performed pre-donation kidney biopsies (HOPE Act requirement). The primary endpoint was ≥grade 3 nephrectomy-related adverse events (AEs) in year one. Post-donation, we monitored glomerular filtration rate (measured by iohexol/Tc-99m DTPA [mGFR] or estimated with serum creatinine [eGFR]), HIV RNA, CD4 count, and ART.

Findings

There were three donors with two-four years of follow-up: a 35 year-old female, a 52 year-old male, and a 47 year-old male. Pre-donation 9-year estimated cumulative incidence of ESRD was 3.01, 8.01, and 7.76 per 10,000 persons, respectively. In two donors with APOL1 testing, no high-risk variants were detected. Biopsies from all three donors showed no kidney disease. Post-donation, two donors developed nephrectomy-related ≥grade 3 AEs: a medically-managed ileus and a laparoscopically-repaired incisional hernia. GFR declined from 103 to 84 mL/min/1.73 m2 at four years (mGFR) in donor 1, from 77 to 52 mL/min/1.73 m2 at three years (eGFR) in donor 2, and from 65 to 39 mL/min/1.73 m2 at two years (eGFR) in donor 3. HIV RNA remained <20 copies/mL and CD4 count remained stable in all donors.

Interpretation

The first three living kidney donors with HIV under the HOPE Act in the United States have had promising outcomes at two-four years, providing proof-of-concept to support living donation from PLWH to recipients with HIV.

Funding

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health.

The ties that transplant: The social capital determinants of the living kidney donor relationship distribution

The network perspective on social capital decomposes it into ego's network size, alters' relevant resources, and social factors moderating access to alters' resources, but rarely examines how it is distributed across relationship types. Using this approach, I investigate the situationally-relevant social capital relationship distribution and its association with health-related social support, with an application to the living kidney donor relationship distribution. Analyzing an original survey of transplant candidates (N = 72) and their reports on their family and friends (N = 1548), I compare the tie count, donation-relevant biomedical resource, and tie strength relationship distributions to administrative data on the national distribution of living kidney donor relationships. I find that the tie strength relationship distribution matches the completed living kidney donor relationship distribution far better than the tie count and donation-relevant biomedical resource relationship distributions. These conclusions are upheld in race- and gender-stratified analyses and are robust across alternative approaches.

Sociodemographic Variables in Canadian Organ Donation Organizations: A Health Information Survey

Health systems must collect equity-relevant sociodemographic variables to measure and mitigate health inequities. The specific variables collected by organ donation organizations (ODOs) across Canada, variable definitions, and processes of the collection are not defined. We undertook a national health information survey of all ODOs in Canada. These results will inform the development of a standard national dataset of equity-relevant sociodemographic variables.

Methods

We conducted an electronic, self-administered cross-sectional survey of all ODOs in Canada from November 2021 to January 2022. We targeted key knowledge holders familiar with the data collection processes within each Canadian ODO known to Canadian Blood Services. Categorical item responses are presented as numbers and proportions.

Results

We achieved a 100% response rate from 10 Canadian ODOs. Most data were collected by organ donation coordinators. Only 2 of 10 ODOs reported using scripts explaining why sociodemographic data are being collected or incorporated training in cultural sensitivity for any given variable. A lack of cultural sensitivity training was endorsed by 50% of respondents as a barrier to the collection of sociodemographic variables by ODOs, whereas 40% of respondents identified a lack of training in sociodemographic variable collection as a significant barrier.

Conclusions

Few programs routinely collect sufficient data to examine health inequities with an intersectional lens. Most data collection occurs midway through the ODO interaction, creating a missed opportunity to better understand differences in social identities of patients who register their intention to donate in advance or who decline the donation. National standardization of equity-relevant data collection definitions and processes of the collection is needed.

Factors enabling transplant program participation in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) Living Donor Collective: A national survey

BACKGROUND

The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) Living Donor Collective (LDC), the first effort to create a lifetime registry for living donor candidates in the United States, requires transplant programs to register donor candidates while the SRTR conducts follow-up.

METHODS

To better understand facilitators and barriers to program participation, we conducted a brief electronic survey of U.S. transplant program staff from October 26, 2021 to December 17, 2021.

RESULTS

We received 132 responses, with at least one response from 87 living donor programs (46 kidney programs, 33 kidney and liver programs, and eight liver programs alone). We found 86% of program representatives strongly agreed or agreed that funding adequate to cover the cost of data collection would facilitate LDC participation, 92% agreed or strongly agreed with importance of electronic data submission options, and 74% reported that elimination of requirements to submit duplicative pre-operative information to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) would be helpful. Other potentially enabling factors include reduction in duration of OPTN postdonation follow-up requirements, ease-of-use, protection from data use for regulation, adequate data security, and equity in data access.

CONCLUSION

This survey identifies potential targets to strengthen participation in the effort to create a national living donor registry in the United States. Collaboration and investment to overcome barriers to LDC participation among transplant programs are vital to generate long-term data on living donation for donor candidates, donors, and patients in need of transplant.

Changing landscape of living kidney donation and the role of telemedicine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There has been a decline in living kidney donation over the last two decades. Donors from low-income families or racial/ethnic minorities face greater disproportionate geographic, financial, and logistical barriers to completing lengthy and complex evaluations. This has contributed to the decreased proportion of these subgroups. The authors view telemedicine as a potential solution to this problem.

RECENT FINDINGS

Since the initial decline of donors in 2005, biologically related donors have experienced a lack of growth across race/ethnicity. Conversely, unrelated donors have emerged as the majority of donors in recent years across race/ethnicity, except for unrelated black donors. Disparities in access to living kidney donation persist. Telemedicine using live-video visits can overcome barriers to access transplant centers and facilitate care coordination. In a U.S. survey, nephrologists, surgeons, coordinators, social workers, and psychologists/psychologists across transplant centers are favorably disposed to use telemedicine for donor evaluation/follow-up beyond the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. However, with the waning of relaxed telemedicine regulations under the Public Health Emergency, providers perceive payor policy and out-of-state licensing as major factors hindering telemedicine growth prospects.

SUMMARY

Permanent federal and state policies that support telemedicine services for living kidney donation can enhance access to transplant centers and help overcome barriers to donor evaluation.

Attitudes Toward Organ Donation in an Arab-Based Population

BACKGROUND

Commitment to organ donation may vary among willing younger and older adults. We aimed to understand attitudes toward organ donation among Arab adults.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of a representative sample of adults from 13 regions in Saudi Arabia between February 12, 2021, and March 14, 2021. We stratified the analyses by individuals' age (younger, 18 to 39 years old; older, ≥40 years old).

RESULTS

Of 4217 individuals contacted, 3120 respondents (1846 younger and 1274 older) completed the survey, with a response rate of 74%. We found that 54% of younger and 47% of older respondents expressed support for organ transplantation, and 49% of younger and 35% of older respondents wanted to donate their organs. However, only 4% of younger and 3% of older respondents had registered in the national donor database. Knowledge sources that most likely to influence attitudes toward organ donation for younger and older respondents, respectively, were physician/health care worker (58% and 55%), family member (29% and 26%), scientist/researcher (29% and 22%), and religious scholar (16% and 23%).

CONCLUSION

Though many younger and older adults express a willingness to donate, few are registered to be a donor. Our findings highlight the influential sources of knowledge that can be implemented in future interventions to increase commitment to organ donation.

Telemedicine services for living kidney donation: A US survey of multidisciplinary providers

Individuals considering living kidney donation face geographic, financial, and logistical challenges. Telemedicine can facilitate healthcare access/care coordination. Yet difficulties exist in telemedicine implementation and sustainability. We sought to examine centers' practices and providers' attitudes toward telemedicine to improve services for donors. We surveyed multidisciplinary providers from 194 active adult US living donor kidney transplant centers; 293 providers from 128 unique centers responded to the survey (center representation rate = 66.0%), reflecting 83.9% of practice by donor volume and 91.5% of US states/territories. Most centers (70.3%) plan to continue using telemedicine beyond the pandemic for donor evaluation/follow-up. Video was mostly used by nephrologists, surgeons, and psychiatrists/psychologists. Telephone and video were mostly used by social workers, while video or telephone was equally used by coordinators. Half of respondent nephrologists and surgeons were willing to accept a remote completion of physical exam; 68.3% of respondent psychiatrists/psychologists and social workers were willing to accept a remote completion of mental status exam. Providers strongly agreed that telemedicine was convenient for donors and would improve the likelihood of completing donor evaluation. However, providers (65.5%) perceived out-of-state licensing as a key policy/regulatory barrier. These findings help inform practice and underscore the instigation of policies to remove barriers using telemedicine to increase living kidney donation.

Examining post-donation outcomes in Hispanic/Latinx living kidney donors in the United States: A systematic review

We conducted a systematic review to assess outcomes in Hispanic donors and explore how Hispanic ethnicity was characterized. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus through October 2021. Two reviewers independently screened study titles, abstracts, and full texts; they also qualitatively synthesized results and independently assessed quality of included studies. Eighteen studies met our inclusion criteria. Study sample sizes ranged from 4007 to 143,750 donors and mean age ranged from 37 to 54 years. Maximum follow-up time of studies varied from a perioperative donor nephrectomy period to 30 years post-donation. Hispanic donors ranged between 6% and 21% of the donor populations across studies. Most studies reported Hispanic ethnicity under race or a combined race and ethnicity category. Compared to non-Hispanic White donors, Hispanic donors were not at increased risk for post-donation mortality, end-stage kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, non-pregnancy-related hospitalizations, or overall perioperative surgical complications. Compared to non-Hispanic White donors, most studies showed Hispanic donors were at higher risk for diabetes mellitus following nephrectomy; however, mixed findings were seen regarding the risk for post-donation chronic kidney disease and hypertension. Future studies should evaluate cultural, socioeconomic, and geographic differences within the heterogeneous Hispanic donor population, which may further explain variation in health outcomes.

The Scope of Telemedicine in Kidney Transplantation: Access and Outreach Services

Access to transplant centers is a key barrier for kidney transplant evaluation and follow-up care for both the recipient and donor. Potential kidney transplant recipients and living kidney donors may face geographic, financial, and logistical challenges in engaging with a transplant center and maintaining post-transplant continuity of care. Telemedicine via synchronous video visits has the potential to overcome the access barrier to transplant centers. Transplant centers can start the evaluation process for potential recipients and donors via telemedicine, especially for those who have challenges to come for an in-person visit or when there are restrictions on clinic capacities, such as during a pandemic. Similarly, transplant centers can use telemedicine to sustain post-transplant follow-up care while avoiding the burden of travel and its associated costs. However, expansion to telemedicine-based kidney transplant services is substantially dependent on telemedicine infrastructure, insurer policy, and state regulations. In this review, we discuss the practice of telemedicine in kidney transplantation and its implications for expanding access to kidney transplant services and outreach from pretransplant evaluation to post-transplant follow-up care for the recipient and donor.

Age-adapted percentiles of measured glomerular filtration in healthy individuals: extrapolation to living kidney donors over 65 years

OBJECTIVES

Most data on glomerular filtration rate (GFR) originate from subjects <65 years old, complicating decision-making in elderly living kidney donors. In this retrospective multi-center study, we calculated percentiles of measured GFR (mGFR) in donors <65 years old and extrapolated these to donors ≥65 years old.

METHODS

mGFR percentiles were calculated from a development cohort of French/Belgian living kidney donors <65 years (n=1,983), using quantiles modeled as cubic splines (two linear parts joining at 40 years). Percentiles were extrapolated and validated in an internal cohort of donors ≥65 years (n=147, France) and external cohort of donors and healthy subjects ≥65 years (n=329, Germany, Sweden, Norway, France, The Netherlands) by calculating percentages within the extrapolated 5th-95th percentile (P5-P95).

RESULTS

Individuals in the development cohort had a higher mGFR (99.9 ± 16.4 vs. 86.4 ± 14 and 82.7 ± 15.5 mL/min/1.73 m²) compared to the individuals in the validation cohorts. In the internal validation cohort, none (0%) had mGFR below the extrapolated P5, 12 (8.2%) above P95 and 135 (91.8%) between P5-P95. In the external validation cohort, five subjects had mGFR below the extrapolated P5 (1.5%), 25 above P95 (7.6%) and 299 (90.9%) between P5-P95.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate that extrapolation of mGFR from younger donors is possible and might aid with decision-making in elderly donors.

Disparities in living donation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Living organ donation provides improved access to transplantation, thereby shortening transplant wait times and allowing for more deceased organ transplants. However, disparity in access to living donation has resulted in decreased rates of living donor transplants for some populations of patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Though there have been marked improvements in deceased donor equity, there are still challenges as it relates to gender, racial/ethnic, and socio-economic disparity. Improvements in living donation rates in Hispanic and Asian populations are tempered by challenges in African American rates of organ donation. Socio-economic disparity may drive gender disparities in organ donation resulting in disproportionate female living donors. Tailored approaches relating to language-specific interventions as well as directed educational efforts have helped mitigate disparity. Additionally, the use of apolipoprotein1 testing and modifications of glomerular filtration rate calculators may improve rates of African American donation. This review will evaluate recent data in living donor disparity as well as highlight successes in mitigating disparity.

SUMMARY

Though there are still challenges in living donor disparity, many efforts at tailoring education and access as well as modifying living donor evaluation and identifying systemic policy changes may result in improvements in living donation rates.

Long-term kidney function and survival in recipients of allografts from living kidney donors with hypertension: a national cohort study

Allografts from living kidney donors with hypertension may carry subclinical kidney disease from the donor to the recipient and, thus, lead to adverse recipient outcomes. We examined eGFR trajectories and all-cause allograft failure in recipients from donors with versus without hypertension, using mixed-linear and Cox regression models stratified by donor age. We studied a US cohort from 1/1/2005 to 6/30/2017; 49 990 recipients of allografts from younger (<50 years old) donors including 597 with donor hypertension and 21 130 recipients of allografts from older (≥50 years old) donors including 1441 with donor hypertension. Donor hypertension was defined as documented predonation use of antihypertensive therapy. Among recipients from younger donors with versus without hypertension, the annual eGFR decline was -1.03 versus -0.53 ml/min/m² (P = 0.002); 13-year allograft survival was 49.7% vs. 59.0% (adjusted allograft failure hazard ratio [aHR] 1.23; 95% CI 1.05-1.43; P = 0.009). Among recipients from older donors with versus without hypertension, the annual eGFR decline was -0.67 versus -0.66 ml/min/m² (P = 0.9); 13-year allograft survival was 48.6% versus 52.6% (aHR 1.05; 95% CI 0.94-1.17; P = 0.4). In secondary analyses, our inferences remained similar for risk of death-censored allograft failure and mortality. Hypertension in younger, but not older, living kidney donors is associated with worse recipient outcomes.

Shift in Living Kidney Donor Demographics Over the Past 50 Years in a German Transplant Center

Background

Living kidney donors may face health risks after donation. Age, sex, body mass index, comorbidities, and relationship to the recipient have an impact on lifetime living kidney donor risk. In view of a changing landscape in renal transplantation with increasing organ shortages, the selection criteria for potential donors may have changed over time.

Material/Methods

We investigated donor demographics and outcomes in a cohort of 760 living kidney donors who donated from 1967 to 2016 at the transplant center in Heidelberg, Germany.

Results

The living kidney donor age increased from 34.9±11.5 to 53.2±10.2 years, with 11.4% donors aged 65 years in the period from 2011 to 2016. The number of donors with comorbidities at the time of donation increased. The percentage of donors with a history of obesity, hypertension, smoking, and a family history of kidney disease enlarged to 18.6%, 36.1%, 37.0%, and 9.1%, respectively. De novo hypertension was a common problem in more than half of the donors at long-term follow-up, and donor renal function decreased about 30 mL/mi/1.73 m².

Conclusions

This detailed analysis of living kidney donor demographics over the last 50 years detected an increased proportion of donors with higher age and comorbidities today. Careful donor selection, regular follow-up visits, and systematic donor registries are required to further improve donor outcomes.

Temporal trends in living kidney donation in France between 2007 and 2017

BACKGROUND

Long-term studies have demonstrated a slight increased risk for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) for living kidney donors (LKD). In France, living kidney donation doubled within the past 10 years. We investigated the change in characteristics of LKD between 2007 and 2017 and the adequacy of follow-up.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the national registry for LKD. We compared characteristics of LKD between two study periods: 2007-11 and 2012-17, and stratified donors by age and relation to recipient. We aggregated four characteristics associated with higher ESRD risk [young age, first-degree relation to recipient, obesity, low glomerular filtration rate (GFR) for age] in a single risk indicator ranging from 0 to 4.

RESULTS

We included 3483 donors. The proportion of unrelated donors >56 years of age increased significantly. The proportion of related donors <56 years of age decreased significantly. The body mass index and proportion of obese donors did not change significantly. The proportion of donors with low estimated GFR for age decreased significantly from 5% to 2.2% (P < 0.001). The proportion of donors with adequate follow-up after donation increased from 19.6% to 42.5% (P < 0.001). No donor had a risk indicator equal to 4, and the proportion of donors with a risk indicator equal to 0 increased significantly from 19.2% to 24.9% (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

An increase in living kidney donation in France does not seem to be associated with the selection of donors at higher risk of ESRD and the proportion of donors with adequate annual follow-up significantly increased.

Living kidney donor evaluation for all candidates with normal estimated GFR for age

Multiple days assessments are frequent for the evaluation of candidates to living kidney donation, combined with an early GFR estimation (eGFR). Living kidney donation is questionable when eGFR is <90 ml/min/1.73 m² (KDIGO guidelines) or 80 ml/min/1.73 m² (most US centres). However, age-related GFR decline results in a lower eGFR for older candidates. That may limit the number of older kidney donors. Yet, continuing the screening with a GFR measure increases the number of eligible donors. We hypothesized that in-depth screening should be proposed to all candidates with a normal eGFR for age. We compared the evolution of eGFR after donation between three groups of predonation eGFR: normal for age (S_age ) higher than 90 or 80 ml/min/1.73 m² (S₉₀ and S_80, respectively); across three age groups (<45, 45-55, >55 years) in a population of 1825 French living kidney donors with a median follow-up of 5.9 years. In donors younger than 45, postdonation eGFR, absolute- and relative-eGFR variation were not different between the three groups. For older donors, postdonation eGFR was higher in S₉₀ than in S₈₀ or S_age but other comparators were identical. Postdonation eGFR slope was comparable between all groups. Our results are in favour of in-depth screening for all candidates to donation with a normal eGFR for age.

Social Determinants of Health and Race Disparities in Kidney Transplant

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Black patients have a higher incidence of kidney failure but lower rate of deceased- and living-donor kidney transplantation compared with White patients, even after taking differences in comorbidities into account. We assessed whether social determinants of health (e.g., demographics, cultural, psychosocial, knowledge factors) could account for race differences in receiving deceased- and living-donor kidney transplantation.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Via medical record review, we prospectively followed 1056 patients referred for kidney transplant (2010-2012), who completed an interview soon after kidney transplant evaluation, until their kidney transplant. We used multivariable competing risk models to estimate the cumulative incidence of receipt of any kidney transplant, deceased-donor transplant, or living-donor transplant, and the factors associated with each outcome.

RESULTS

Even after accounting for social determinants of health, Black patients had a lower likelihood of kidney transplant (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.55 to 0.99) and living-donor transplant (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.26 to 0.95), but not deceased-donor transplant (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.67 to 1.26). Black race, older age, lower income, public insurance, more comorbidities, being transplanted before changes to the Kidney Allocation System, greater religiosity, less social support, less transplant knowledge, and fewer learning activities were each associated with a lower probability of any kidney transplant. Older age, more comorbidities, being transplanted before changes to the Kidney Allocation System, greater religiosity, less social support, and fewer learning activities were each associated with a lower probability of deceased-donor transplant. Black race, older age, lower income, public insurance, higher body mass index, dialysis before kidney transplant, not presenting with a potential living donor, religious objection to living-donor transplant, and less transplant knowledge were each associated with a lower probability of living-donor transplant.

CONCLUSIONS

Race and social determinants of health are associated with the likelihood of undergoing kidney transplant.

Quantifying Risk Tolerance Among Potential Living Kidney Donors With the Donor-Specific Risk Questionnaire

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Enhanced informed consent tools improve patient engagement. A novel visual aid measured potential donors' risk tolerance to postdonation kidney failure and assessed if the closeness of the relationship to the intended recipient altered willingness to accept risk.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis of donor evaluations at the time of enrollment into a longitudinal mixed-methods study between November 2014 and February 2016.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Three US kidney transplant centers. English-speaking adults presenting for in-person living kidney donor evaluation.

EXPOSURE

Closeness of the relationship between the potential living donor and intended recipient.

OUTCOME

Willingness to accept postdonation kidney failure.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

The Donor-Specific Risk Questionnaire, a dot matrix visual diagram, was used to measure willingness to accept kidney failure risk. Multivariable logistic regression assessed associations between risk acceptance and data from social science instruments, which measured donors' perceived closeness with the recipient. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically per grounded theory.

RESULTS

307 participants (response rate: 86%) completed testing. 96% indicated a willingness to accept a risk of kidney failure of 0.9% or greater. Those who were older (OR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.96-0.99]), women (OR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.31-0.93]), and Black (OR, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.08-0.76]) were less likely to be in the medium versus low willingness to accept risk group. Closeness of the relationship to the recipient was independently associated with greater risk acceptance (for every 1-point greater closeness score, odds ratios for being in the medium and high willingness to accept risk groups were 1.21 [95% CI, 1.03-1.41] and 2.42 [95% CI, 1.53-3.82] compared with being in the low willingness to accept risk group). With the exception of parental relationships, biological linkages were not associated with accepting higher kidney failure risk.

LIMITATIONS

First demonstration of visual aid that used one risk estimate of kidney failure provided to all participants. Risk estimates were not customized to different demographic groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Relationship closeness was independently associated with a greater willingness to accept postdonation kidney failure. Visual aids can provide transplant teams with individualized donor perspectives on risk thresholds and can potentially facilitate greater patient-centered care for living donors.

African Americans' discussions about living-donor kidney transplants with family or friends: Who, what, and why not?

BACKGROUND

Although discussions with family or friends can improve access to living-donor kidney transplantation (LDKT), they remain an understudied step in the LDKT process.

METHODS

Among 300 African American transplant candidates, we examined how sociodemographic, clinical, LDKT-related, and psychosocial characteristics related to the occurrence of LDKT discussions with family or friends. We also analyzed the relation between discussion occurrence and donor activation on transplant candidates' behalves (at least one donor inquiry or completed donor evaluation in the medical record). We assessed associations of discussion characteristics (context, content, and perceptions) with donor activation among discussants, and we identified discussion barriers among non-discussants.

RESULTS

Most candidates (90%) had discussed LDKT. Only family functioning was statistically significantly associated with discussion occurrence. Specifically, family dysfunction was associated with 62% lower odds of discussion than family function. Family functioning, discussion occurrence, and different discussion characteristics were statistically significantly related to donor activation. The most prevalent discussion barrier was never having thought about discussing LDKT.

CONCLUSIONS

Family functioning affected the likelihood of discussing LDKT, and family functioning, discussion occurrence, and discussion characteristics were associated with donor activation. Advancing understanding of how family functioning and LDKT discussions affect progression to LDKT may benefit interventions to increase LDKT.

The kidney evaluation of living kidney donor candidates: US practices in 2017

We surveyed US transplant programs to assess practices used to assess kidney health in living kidney donor candidates in 2017; the response rate was 31%. In this report, we focus on the kidney; a companion piece focuses on the metabolic and cardiovascular aspects of candidate evaluation. Compared to 2005, programs have become more stringent in accepting younger candidates and less stringent in accepting older candidates. The 24-hour creatinine clearance remains the mainstay for kidney function assessment, with 74% continuing to use a value below 80 mL/min/1.73 m² for exclusion and 22% using age-based criteria. ApoL1 genotyping is obtained routinely or selectively by 45%, half of which use the high-risk genotype as an absolute exclusion criterion. For history of symptomatic stones, 49% accept if there is no current radiographic evidence of stones and urine profile is low risk, 80%-95% consider candidates with unilateral asymptomatic stones, but only 33%-48% consider if stones are bilateral. In addition, 14% use the risk assessment tool developed by Grams et al routinely for decision-making, and 42% use it sometimes. Also, 57% reported not having yet determined a risk threshold for acceptable postdonation risk above which candidates are excluded. Contemporary practice variation underscores the need for better evidence to guide the donor selection process.

The first increase in live kidney donation in the United States in 15 years

The first sustained increase in live kidney donation in the United States in 15 years was observed from 2017 to 2019. To help sustain this surge, we studied 35 900 donors (70.3% white, 14.5% Hispanic, 9.3% black, 4.4% Asian) to understand the increase in 2017-2019 vs 2014-2016 using Poisson regression. Among biologically related donors aged <35, 35-49, and ≥50 years, the number of donors did not change across race/ethnicity but increased by 38% and 29% for Hispanic and black ≥50. Among unrelated donors <35, 35-49, and ≥50, white donors increased by 18%, 14%, and 27%; Hispanic donors <35 did not change but increased by 22% and 35% for 35-49 and ≥50; black donors <35 declined by 23% and did not change for 35-49 and ≥50; Asian donors did not change. Among kidney paired donors <35, 35-49, and ≥50, white donors increased by 42%, 50%, and 68%; Hispanic donors <35 and 35-49 increased by 36% and 55% and did not change for ≥50; black donors did not change; Asian donors <35 did not change but increased by 107% and 82% for 35-49 and ≥50. The increase in donation was driven predominantly by unrelated and paired white donors. Donation among unrelated black individuals should be promoted.

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

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

Telemedicine in the Care of Kidney Transplant Recipients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: Case Reports

Kidney transplant recipients who develop symptoms consistent with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are bringing unique challenges to health care professionals. Telemedicine has surged dramatically since the pandemic in effort to maintain patient care and reduce the risk of COVID-19 exposure to patients, health care workers, and the public. Herein we present reports of 3 kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19 who were managed using telemedicine via synchronous video visits integrated with an electronic medical record system, from home to inpatient settings. We demonstrate how telemedicine helped assess, diagnose, triage, and treat patients with COVID-19 while avoiding a visit to an emergency department or outpatient clinic. While there is limited information about the duration of viral shedding for immunosuppressed patients, our findings underscore the importance of using telemedicine in the follow-up care for kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19 who have recovered from symptoms but might have persistently positive nucleic acid tests. Our experience emphasizes the opportunities of telemedicine in the management of kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19 and in the maintenance of uninterrupted follow-up care for such immunosuppressed patients with prolonged viral shedding. Telemedicine may help increase access to care for kidney transplant recipients during and beyond the pandemic as it offers a prompt, safe, and convenient platform in the delivery of care for these patients. Yet, to advance the practice of telemedicine in the field of kidney transplantation, barriers to increasing the widespread implementation of telemedicine should be removed, and research studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of telemedicine in the care of kidney transplant recipients.

Kidney Dyads: Caregiver Burden and Relationship Strain Among Partners of Dialysis and Transplant Patients

BACKGROUND

Caring for dialysis patients is difficult, and this burden often falls on a spouse or cohabiting partner (henceforth referred to as caregiver-partners). At the same time, these caregiver-partners often come forward as potential living kidney donors for their loved ones who are on dialysis (henceforth referred to as patient-partners). Caregiver-partners may experience tangible benefits to their well-being when their patient-partner undergoes transplantation, yet this is seldom formally considered when evaluating caregiver-partners as potential donors.

METHODS

To quantify these potential benefits, we surveyed caregiver-partners of dialysis patients and kidney transplant (KT) recipients (N = 99) at KT evaluation or post-KT. Using validated tools, we assessed relationship satisfaction and caregiver burden before or after their patient-partner's dialysis initiation and before or after their patient-partner's KT.

RESULTS

Caregiver-partners reported increases in specific measures of caregiver burden (P = 0.03) and stress (P = 0.01) and decreases in social life (P = 0.02) and sexual relations (P < 0.01) after their patient-partner initiated dialysis. However, after their patient-partner underwent KT, caregiver-partners reported improvements in specific measures of caregiver burden (P = 0.03), personal time (P < 0.01), social life (P = 0.01), stress (P = 0.02), sexual relations (P < 0.01), and overall quality of life (P = 0.03). These improvements were of sufficient impact that caregiver-partners reported similar levels of caregiver burden after their patient-partner's KT as before their patient-partner initiated dialysis (P = 0.3).

CONCLUSIONS

These benefits in caregiver burden and relationship quality support special consideration for spouses and partners in risk-assessment of potential kidney donors, particularly those with risk profiles slightly exceeding center thresholds.

Has the UK living kidney donor population changed over time? A cross-sectional descriptive analysis of the UK living donor registry between 2006 and 2017

BACKGROUND

A living-donor kidney transplant is the best treatment for most people with kidney failure. Population cohort studies have shown that lifetime living kidney donor risk is modified by sex, age, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), comorbidity and relationship to the recipient.

OBJECTIVES

We investigated whether the UK population of living kidney donors has changed over time, investigating changes in donor demographics.

DESIGN

We undertook a cross-sectional analysis of the UK living kidney donor registry between January 2006 to December 2017. Data were available on living donor sex, age, ethnicity, BMI, hypertension and relationship to recipient.

SETTING

UK living donor registry.

PARTICIPANTS

11 651 consecutive living kidney donors from January 2006 to December 2017.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Living kidney donor demographic characteristics (sex, age, ethnicity, BMI and relationship to the transplant recipient) were compared across years of donation activity. Donor characteristics were also compared across different ethnic groups.

RESULTS

Over the study period, the mean age of donors increased (from 45.8 to 48.7 years, p<0.001), but this change appears to have been limited to the White population of donors. Black donors were younger than White donors, and a greater proportion were siblings of their intended recipient and male. The proportion of non-genetically related non-partner donations increased over the 12-year period of analysis (p value for linear trend=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

The increasing age of white living kidney donors in the UK has implications for recipient and donor outcomes. Despite an increase in the number of black, Asian and minority ethnic individuals waitlisted for a kidney transplant, there has been no increase in the ethnic diversity of UK living kidney donors. Black donors in the UK may be at a much greater risk of developing kidney failure due to accumulated risks: whether these risks are being communicated needs to be investigated.

Early graft losses in paired kidney exchange: Experience from 10 years of the National Kidney Registry

Cooperative kidney paired donation (KPD) networks account for an increasing proportion of all living donor kidney transplants in the United States. There are sparse data on the rate of primary nonfunction (PNF) losses and their consequences within KPD networks. We studied National Kidney Registry (NKR) transplants (February 14, 2009 to December 31, 2017) and quantified PNF, graft loss within 30 days of transplantation, and graft losses in the first-year posttransplant and assessed potential risk factors. Of 2364 transplants, there were 38 grafts (1.6%) lost within the first year, 13 (0.5%) with PNF. When compared to functioning grafts, there were no clinically significant differences in blood type compatibility, degree of HLA mismatch, number of veins/arteries, cold ischemia, and travel times. Of 13 PNF cases, 2 were due to early venous thrombosis, 2 to arterial thrombosis, and 2 to failure of desensitization and development of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR). Given the low rate of PNF, the NKR created a policy to allocate chain-end kidneys to recipients with PNF following event review and attributable to surgical issues of donor nephrectomy. It is expected that demonstration of low incidence of poor early graft outcomes and the presence of a "safety net" would further encourage program participation in national KPD.

Abdominal Organ Transplantation: Noteworthy Literature in 2019

In the year 2019, we identified and screened over 400 peer-reviewed publications on pancreatic transplantation, over 200 on intestinal transplantation, and over 1900 on kidney transplantation. The liver transplantation section focuses on and features selected articles among 70 clinical trials published in 2019. This review highlights noteworthy literature pertinent to anesthesiologists and critical care physicians caring for patients undergoing abdominal organ transplantation. We explore a broad range of topics, including risks for and prediction of perioperative complications, updated indications for transplantation, recommendations on perioperative management, including Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programs, and topics relevant to optimization of patient and graft outcomes and survival.

Evaluation and care of international living kidney donor candidates: Strategies for addressing common considerations and challenges

End-stage kidney disease patients in the United States may have family members or friends who are not US citizens or residents but are willing to serve as their living kidney donor in the United States ("international donors"). In July 2017, the American Society for Transplantation (AST) Live Donor Community of Practice (LDCOP) convened a multidisciplinary workgroup of experts in living donation care, including coordinators, social workers, donor advocates, administrators, and physicians, to evaluate educational gaps related to the evaluation and care of international donors. The evaluation of international living donor candidates is a resource-intensive process that raises key considerations for assessing risk of exploitation/inducement and addressing communication barriers, logistics barriers, and access to care in their home country. Through consensus-building discussions, we developed recommendations related to: (a) establishing program guidelines for international donor candidate evaluation and selection; (b) initial screening; (c) logistics planning; (d) comprehensive evaluation; and (e) postdonation care and follow-up. These recommendations are not intended to direct formal policy, but rather as guidance to help programs more efficiently and effectively structure and execute evaluations and care coordination. We also offer recommendations for research and advocacy to optimize the care of this unique group of living donors.

Kidney Transplantation From Hepatitis B Surface Antigen (HBsAg)–Positive Living Donors to HBsAg-Negative Recipients: Clinical Outcomes at a High-Volume Center in China

Background

Data on kidney transplantation (KTx) from hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)–positive (HBsAg+) donors to HBsAg-negative (HBsAg−) recipients [D(HBsAg+)/R(HBsAg-)] are limited. We aimed to report the outcomes of D(HBsAg+)/R(HBsAg−) KTx in recipients with or without hepatitis B surface antibody (HBsAb).

Methods

Eighty-three D(HBsAg+)/R(HBsAg−) living KTx cases were retrospectively identified. The 384 cases of KTx from hepatitis B core antibody–positive (HBcAb+) living donors to HBcAb-negative (HBcAb−) recipients [D(HBcAb+)/R(HBcAb−)] were used as the control group. The primary endpoint was posttransplant HBsAg status change from negative to postive (-− →+).

Results

Before KTx, 24 donors (28.9%) in the D(HBsAg+)/R(HBsAg−) group were hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA positive, and 20 recipients were HBsAb−. All 83 D(HBsAg+)/R(HBsAg−) recipients received HBV prophylaxis, while no D(HBcAb+)/R(HBcAb−) recipients received prophylaxis. After a median follow-up of 36 months (range, 6–106) and 36 months (range, 4–107) for the D(HBsAg+)/R(HBsAg−) and D(HBcAb+)/R(HBcAb−) groups, respectively, 2 of 83 (2.41%) D(HBsAg+)/R(HBsAg−) recipients and 1 of 384 (0.26%) D(HBcAb+)/R(HBcAb−) became HBsAg+, accompanied by HBV DNA-positive (P = .083). The 3 recipients with HBsAg−→+ were exclusively HBsAb−/HBcAb− before KTx. Recipient deaths were more frequent in the D(HBsAg+)/R(HBsAg−) group (6.02% vs 1.04%, P = .011), while liver and graft function, rejection, infection, and graft loss were not significantly different. In univariate analyses, pretransplant HBsAb−/HBcAb− combination in the D(HBsAg+)/R(HBsAg−) recipients carried a significantly higher risk of HBsAg−→+, HBV DNA−→+, and death.

Conclusions

Living D(HBsAg+)/R(HBsAg−) KTx in HBsAb+ recipients provides excellent graft and patient survivals without HBV transmission. HBV transmission risks should be more balanced with respect to benefits of D(HBsAg+)/R(HBsAg−) KTx in HBsAb-/HBcAb− candidates.

Practical Considerations for APOL1 Genotyping in the Living Kidney Donor Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Association between the apolipoprotein L1 gene (APOL1) and nephropathy has altered the epidemiology of chronic kidney disease. In addition, donor APOL1 genotypes play important roles in the time to allograft failure in kidneys transplanted from deceased donors and the safety of living kidney donation.

METHODS

This article reviews genetic testing for inherited kidney disease in living kidney donors to improve donor safety. APOL1 genotyping in donors with recent African ancestry is considered.

RESULTS

Based on current data, transplant physicians should discuss APOL1 genotyping with potential living kidney donors self-reporting recent African ancestry. Until results from APOL1 Long-term Kidney Transplant Outcomes Network ancillary studies are available, we present practical approaches from our experience for considering APOL1 genotyping in the living donor evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Transplant physicians should inform potential living kidney donors at risk for APOL1-associated nephropathy about the gene and possibility of genetic testing early in the donor evaluation, well before scheduling the donor nephrectomy. Transplant programs must weigh risks of performing a donor nephrectomy in those with 2 APOL1 renal risk variants (high-risk genotypes), particularly younger individuals. Our program counsels kidney donors with APOL1 high-risk genotypes in the same fashion as with risk genotypes in other nephropathy genes. Because most African American kidney donor candidates lacking hypertension, proteinuria and reduced kidney function after workup will not possess APOL1 high-risk genotypes, genetic testing is unlikely to markedly increase donor declines and may reassure donors with regard to their long-term kidney outcomes, potentially increasing the number of African American donors.

The true risk of living kidney donation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The safety of living donor nephrectomy is essential to the continued success, growth, and sustainability of the clinical practice of living donor kidney transplantation. This review summarizes recent advances in our understanding of the perioperative and long-term risks faced by living kidney donors.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although adverse perioperative complications are extremely rare, donors particularly men, Black, or obese, frequently experience minor complications that result in delayed return to normal duties at home and work. Similarly, although long-term complications such as end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are rare, recent studies suggest a relative increase in risk of ESRD that is attributable to donation. Several risk calculators have been developed to help donors and their care providers quantify the baseline and postdonation risk of ESRD based on demographic and health characteristics. Thresholds of risk may help define what is an acceptable level of risk to the donor and the transplant center.

SUMMARY

Individualized risk calculators now allow care providers and potential donors to objectively and transparently participate in shared decision-making about the safety of living kidney donation.

Risk of ESKD in Older Live Kidney Donors with Hypertension

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Hypertension in older kidney donor candidates is viewed as safe. However, hypertension guidelines have evolved and long-term outcomes have not been explored. We sought to quantify the 15-year risk of ESKD and mortality in older donors (≥50 years old) with versus those without hypertension.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

A United States cohort of 24,533 older donors from 1999 to 2016, including 2265 with predonation hypertension, were linked to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data and the Social Security Death Master File to ascertain ESKD development and mortality. The exposure of interest was predonation hypertension. From 2004 to 2016, hypertension was defined as documented predonation use of antihypertensive therapy, regardless of systolic BP or diastolic BP; from 1999 to 2003, when there was no documentation of antihypertensive therapy, hypertension was defined as predonation systolic BP ≥140 or diastolic BP ≥90 mm Hg.

RESULTS

Older donors were 82% white, 6% black, 7% Hispanic, and 3% Asian. The median follow-up was 7.1 years (interquartile range, 3.4-11.1; maximum, 18). There were 24 ESKD and 252 death events during the study period. The 15-year risk of ESKD was 0.8% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.4 to 1.6) for donors with hypertension (mean systolic BP, 138 mm Hg) versus 0.2% (95% CI, 0.1 to 0.4) for donors without hypertension (mean systolic BP, 123 mm Hg; adjusted hazard ratio, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.28 to 7.22; P=0.01). When predonation antihypertensive therapy was available, the risk of ESKD was 6.21-fold higher (95% CI, 1.20 to 32.17; P=0.03) for donors using antihypertensive therapy (mean systolic BP, 132 mm Hg) versus those not using antihypertensive therapy (mean systolic BP, 124 mm Hg). There was no significant association between donor hypertension and 15-year mortality (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.66; P=0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with older donors without hypertension, older donors with hypertension had higher risk of ESKD, but not mortality, for 15 years postdonation. However, the absolute risk of ESKD was small.