Sequential liver and kidney living donors: Making the ultimate gift twice

There are nearly 150 living donors in the United States who donated more than one solid organ. Using our divisional database, we found 20 individuals who donated a liver and a kidney at different times. We performed a retrospective chart review of these donors, studying their motivating factors, complications and outcomes. The donors included 11 (55%) males and nine females. Thirteen (65%) donated the kidney before the liver. Fourteen (70%) were nondirected donors at the first donation, and four of the six directed donors in the first donation became nondirected in the second donation. Seventeen (85%) were nondirected at the second donation. Common reasons for donating the second time were a good experience with the first donation and knowing that one can donate again. Outcomes and the incidence of early complications were not significantly different after the 2nd versus the 1st donation. All donors recovered and currently are doing well. Our results show a significant number of dual organ donors are nondirected and motivated by their strong desire to help. A positive experience with the 1st donation often was the driving factor for the 2nd. A history of previous organ donation did not negatively impact the 2nd donation.

Comparison of Two Donor Liver Procurement Methods for Treatment of Pediatric Acute Liver Failure

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the difference and efficacy of two donor liver procurement methods for treatment of pediatric acute liver failure (PALF) by living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

METHODS

A total of 17 patients (12 men, 5 women) with PALF who underwent LDLT in our hospital between October 2016 and October 2020, and prognostic efficacy of donors and recipients using two donor liver procurement methods were analyzed.

RESULTS

The donors and recipients were both divided into laparoscopic (7 cases) and open (10 cases) donor liver procurement groups. In the recipients, two deaths occurred in the laparoscopic group and one in the open group, and there were three postoperative complications in the laparoscopic group and six in the open group. The cumulative 1-year and 3-year survival rates in the laparoscopic group and the open group were 80.0% and 85.7% separately. There was no difference in the postoperative survival and complications rates between the two groups. In the donors, the operation time, postoperative hospital stay, and blood loss of the laparoscopic group was significantly reduced compared with the open group (P ≤ 0.01). No death or serious complication occurred in either donor group.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic donor liver procurement is worth recommending than open donor liver procurement for treatment of PALF combined with LDLT in qualified transplant centers.

KDOQI US Commentary on the 2017 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

Living kidney donation is widely practiced throughout the world. During the past 2 decades, various groups have provided guidance about the evaluation and care of living donors. However, during this time, our knowledge in the field has advanced substantially and many agreed on the need for a comprehensive, unifying document. KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) addressed this issue at an international level with the publication of its clinical practice guideline on the evaluation and care of living kidney donors. The KDIGO work group extensively reviewed the available literature and wrote a series of guideline recommendations using various degrees of evidence when available. As has become recent practice, NKF-KDOQI (National Kidney Foundation-Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative) convened a work group to provide a commentary on the KDIGO guideline, with a focus on how these recommendations apply in the context of the United States. In the United States, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) guides and regulates the practice of living kidney donation. While the KDIGO guideline for the care of living kidney donors and UNOS policy are similar in most aspects of the care of living kidney donors, several important areas are not consistent or do not align with common practice by US transplantation programs in areas in which UNOS has not set specific policy. For the time being, and recognizing the value of the KDIGO guidelines, US transplantation programs should continue to follow UNOS policy.

Chronic pain following laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy: Prevalence and impact on quality of life

Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) following laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is a disregarded topic. In this cross-sectional study, all consecutive patients who underwent an LDN at the Radboud University Medical Center (Radboudumc; 2003-2016) were approached for participation. Five hundred twelve living kidney donors were included and asked to complete two questionnaires, including the McGill Pain Questionnaire and the RAND Short Form-36 Health Status Inventory (RAND SF-36) regarding their health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The mean prevalence of CPSP following LDN was 5.7%, with a mean follow-up time of 6 years. Possible predictors of CPSP following LDN are severe early postoperative pain, previous abdominal surgery, and preexisting backache. The RAND SF-36 revealed an impaired HRQoL in patients with CPSP when compared to patients without CPSP. In conclusion, this study revealed that the prevalence of CPSP following LDN is substantial. Given the possible association between the presence of CPSP and impaired HRQoL scores, living kidney donors should be well informed in the preoperative phase about the risk of CPSP.

Long-term donor quality of life after living donor liver transplantation in Japan

AIMS

This study examined the long-term quality of life (QOL) of living liver donors (LLDs) in Japan using both generic and LLD-specific instruments.

METHODS

The sample comprised 374 LLDs from five university hospitals in Japan who underwent surgery more than a year previously. QOL was evaluated using the Short Form-36 health survey (SF-36) and LLD-QOL scale.

RESULTS

SF-36 results indicated that the overall long-term QOL of LLDs was significantly better than the Japanese standard. When comparing by donor factors, LLDs whose recipients were children scored higher for "satisfaction" than those whose recipients were adults on the LLD-QOL scale. LLDs with complications had lower QOL for "scars" and "burden" on the LLD-QOL scale but no differences in SF-36 scores. LLDs with longer hospital stay had lower physical QOL on SF-36 and lower QOL for "scars" and "after-effects" on the LLD-QOL scale. LLDs whose recipients have died showed lower mental QOL on SF-36 and lower "satisfaction" and greater "lack of understanding of donor health" on the LLD-QOL scale.

CONCLUSIONS

Our multicenter study clarified the long-term QOL of LLDs and suggested that donors' QOL was related to the donors' and recipients' ages, donor's complications and hospital stay length, and recipient's prognosis.

Long-term psychosocial outcomes after nondirected donation: A single-center experience

Short-term studies have demonstrated that nondirected donors (NDDs) have psychosocial outcomes that are similar to donors who donate directly, but long-term studies have not been done. NDDs at our center were surveyed regarding motivation; support during donation; stress related to donation; regret; financial resources used for donation; preferences about communication with the recipient; and cost reimbursement. Of 100 NDDs who donated at our center in the last 20 years, 95 remain in contact with us, and 77 responded to our survey (mean ± standard deviation [SD] 6.7 ± 4 years postdonation). The most common motivation for donation was the desire to help another (99%). Many NDDs received support from family, friends, and employers. NDDs voiced stress about the possibility of recipient kidney rejection, physical consequences to themselves, and financial burden. Only one donor expressed regret. Almost half wanted some recipient information at donation; 61% preferred routine recipient status updates; 56% believed meeting the recipient should occur at any mutually agreeable time; and 55% endorsed reimbursement for expenses. Stressors for NDDs are analogous to those of directed donors; NDDs prefer having some information about the recipient and prefer to be given a choice regarding the timing for communication with the recipient. NDDs supported donation being financially neutral.

Causes and timing of end-stage renal disease after living kidney donation

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is a risk after kidney donation. We sought, in a large cohort of kidney donors, to determine the causes of donor ESRD, the interval from donation to ESRD, the role of the donor/recipient relationship, and the trajectory of the estimated GFR (eGFR) from donation to ESRD. From 1/1/1963 thru 12/31/2015, 4030 individuals underwent living donor nephrectomy at our center, as well as ascertainment of ESRD status. Of these, 39 developed ESRD (mean age ± standard deviation [SD] at ESRD, 62.4 ± 14.1 years; mean interval between donation and ESRD, 27.1 ± 9.8 years). Donors developing ESRD were more likely to be male, as well as smokers, and younger at donation, and to have donated to a first-degree relative. Of donors with a known cause of ESRD (n = 25), 48% was due to diabetes and/or hypertension; only 2 from a disease that would have affected 1 kidney (cancer). Of those 25 with an ascertainable ESRD cause, 4 shared a similar etiology of ESRD with their recipient. Almost universally, thechange of eGFR over time was stable, until new-onset disease (kidney or systemic). Knowledge of factors contributing to ESRD after living kidney donation can improve donor selection and counseling, as well as long-term postdonation care.

Serial follow-up of repeat voluntary blood donors reactive for anti-HCV ELISA

BACKGROUND

Voluntary non-remunerated repeat blood donors are perceived to be safer than the first time blood donors. This study was planned for follow-up of previous hepatitis C virus (HCV) test results of anti-HCV enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) reactive repeat blood donors. The aim was to suggest a protocol for re-entry of the blood donors who are confirmed HCV negative by nucleic acid test (NAT) and recombinant immunoblot assay (RIBA). A group of repeat voluntary donors were followed retrospectively who became reactive on a cross sectional study and showed HCV reactivity while donating blood regularly.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 51,023 voluntary non remunerated blood donors were screened for anti-HCV ELISA routinely. If anybody showed positivity, they were tested by two ELISA kits (screening and confirmatory) and then confirmed infection status by NAT and or RIBA. The previous HCV test results of repeat donors reactive by anti-HCV ELISA were looked back from the records. Data of donors who were repeat reactive with single ELISA kit (in the present study) were analyzed separately from those reactive with two ELISA kits (in the present study).

RESULTS

In this study, 140 (0.27%) donors who were reactive by anti HCV ELISA were included. Out of them, 35 were repeat voluntary donors and 16 (11.43%) were reactive with single ELISA kit. All 16 donors were reactive by single ELISA kit occasionally in previous donations. Their present ELISA positive donations were negative for HCV NAT and RIBA. A total of 19 (13.57%) donors were reactive with two ELISA kits. In their previous donations, the donors who were reactive even once with two ELISA kits were consistently reactive by the same two ELISA kits in their next donations also.

CONCLUSION

Donor sample reactive by only single ELISA kit may not be considered as infectious for disposal as they were negative by NAT and or RIBA. One time ELISA positivity was found probably due to ELISA kit specificity and sensitivity. Donors reactive with two ELISA kit should be discarded as there is a high positivity with NAT/ RIBA. However, donors reactive by two ELISA kits and negative by NAT and RIBA should be followed up and may not be deferred permanently.