|
1
|
van de Laar SC, de Weerd AE, Bemelman FJ, Idu MM, de Vries AP, Alwayn IP, Berger SP, Pol RA, van Zuilen AD, Toorop RJ, Hilbrands LB, Poyck PP, Christiaans MH, van Laanen JH, van de Wetering J, Kimenai HJ, Reinders ME, Porte RJ, Dor FJ, Minnee RC. Favorable Living Donor Kidney Transplantation Outcomes within a National Kidney Exchange Program: A Propensity Score-Matching Analysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2025; 20:440-450. [PMID: 39879095 PMCID: PMC11906000 DOI: 10.2215/cjn.0000000611] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/13/2024] [Accepted: 01/10/2025] [Indexed: 01/31/2025]
Abstract
Key Points KEP recipients have comparable long-term graft survival to direct living donor kidney transplantation recipients, which underscores the need to prioritize KEP over other's therapies. Our outcomes can be achieved regardless of whether the donor travels or the graft is transported, offering flexibility in program implementation. Background KEPs (kidney exchange programs) facilitate living donor kidney transplantations (LDKTs) for patients with incompatible donors, who are typically at higher risk than non-KEP patients because of higher sensitization and longer dialysis vintage. We conducted a comparative analysis of graft outcomes and risk factors for both KEP and non-KEP living donor kidney transplants. Methods All LDKTs performed in The Netherlands between 2004 and 2021 were included. The primary outcome measures were 1-, 5-, and 10-year death-censored graft survival. The secondary outcome measures were delayed graft function, graft function, rejection rates, and patient survival. We used a propensity score–matching model to account for differences at baseline. Results Of 7536 LDKTs, 694 (9%) were transplanted through the KEP. Ten-year graft survival was similar for KEP (0.916; 95% confidence interval, 0.894 to 0.939) and non-KEP (0.919; 0.912 to 0.926, P = 0.82). We found significant differences in 5-year rejection (12% versus 7%) and 5-year patient survival (KEP: 84%, non-KEP: 90%), which was nonsignificant after propensity score matching. Significant risk factors of lower graft survival included high donor age, retransplantations, extended dialysis vintage, higher panel reactive antibodies, and nephrotic syndrome as the cause of ESKD. Conclusions Transplantation through KEP offers a viable alternative for patients lacking compatible donors, avoiding specific and invasive pre- and post-transplant treatments. KEP's similar survival rate to non-KEPs suggests prioritizing KEP LDKTs over deceased donor kidney transplantation, desensitization, and dialysis. However, clinicians should consider the identified risk factors when planning and managing pre- and post-transplant care to enhance patient outcomes. Thus, we advocate for the broad adoption of KEP and establishment in regions lacking such programs, alongside initiation and expansion of international collaborations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stijn C. van de Laar
- Division of HPB and Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Transplant Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Imperial College Renal and Transplant Centre, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Annelies E. de Weerd
- Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center Transplant Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Frederike J. Bemelman
- Department of Internal Medicine, Infectious Diseases, Amsterdam Infection and Immunity Institute (AI&II), Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Mirza M. Idu
- Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Aiko P.J. de Vries
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
- Transplant Center, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Ian P.J. Alwayn
- Transplant Center, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Stefan P. Berger
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Robert A. Pol
- Division of Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Arjan D. van Zuilen
- Department of Nephrology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Raechel J. Toorop
- Department of Surgery, Utrecht University Medical Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Luuk B. Hilbrands
- Department of Nephrology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Paul P.C. Poyck
- Department of Vascular and Transplant Surgery, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Maarten H.L. Christiaans
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Jorinde H.H. van Laanen
- Department of Vascular Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Jacqueline van de Wetering
- Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center Transplant Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hendrikus J.A.N. Kimenai
- Division of HPB and Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Transplant Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marlies E.J. Reinders
- Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center Transplant Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Robert J. Porte
- Division of HPB and Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Transplant Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Frank J.M.F. Dor
- Division of HPB and Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Transplant Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Imperial College Renal and Transplant Centre, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Robert C. Minnee
- Division of HPB and Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Transplant Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Kute VB, Patel HV, Banerjee S, Engineer DP, Dave RB, Shah N, Chauhan S, Meshram H, Tambi P, Shah A, Saxena K, Balwani M, Parmar V, Shah S, Prakash V, Patel S, Patel D, Desai S, Rizvi J, Patel H, Parikh B, Kanodia K, Gandhi S, Rees MA, Roth AE, Modi P. Impact of single centre kidney-exchange transplantation to increase living donor pool in India: A cohort study involving non-anonymous allocation. Nephrology (Carlton) 2024; 29:917-929. [PMID: 39245449 DOI: 10.1111/nep.14380] [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: 05/20/2024] [Revised: 07/25/2024] [Accepted: 08/12/2024] [Indexed: 09/10/2024]
Abstract
AIM In India, 85% of organ donations are from living donors and 15% are from deceased donors. One-third of living donors were rejected because of ABO or HLA incompatibility. Kidney exchange transplantation (KET) is a cost-effective and legal strategy to increase living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) by 25%-35%. METHODS We report our experience with 539 KET cases and the evolution of a single-centre program to increase the use of LDKT. RESULTS Between January 2000 and 13 March, 2024, 1382 deceased donor kidney transplantations and 5346 LDKT were performed at our centre, including 10% (n = 539) from KET. Of the 539 KET, 80.9% (n = 436) were ABO incompatible pairs, 11.1% (n = 60) were compatible pairs, and 8% (n = 43) were sensitized pairs. There were 75% 2-way (n = 2 × 202 = 404), 16.2% 3-way (n = 3 × 29 = 87), 3% 4-way (n = 4 × 4 = 16), 1.8% 5-way (n = 5 × 2 = 10), 2.2% 6-way (n = 6 × 2 = 12), and 1.8% 10-way KET (n = 10 × 1 = 10). Of the recipients 81.2% (n = 438) were male and 18.8% (n = 101) were female, while of the donors, 78.5% (n = 423) were female and 21.5% (n = 116) were male. All donors were near relatives; wives (54%, n = 291) and mothers (20%, n = 108) were the most common donors. At a median follow-up of 8.2 years, patient survival, death censored graft survival, acute rejection, and median serum creatinine levels of functioning grafts were 81.63% (n = 440), 91% (n = 494), 9.8% (n = 53) and 1.3 mg/dL respectively. We credited the success to maintaining a registry of incompatible pairs, high-volume LDKT programs, non-anonymous allocation and teamwork. CONCLUSION This is the largest single-centre KET program in Asia. We report the challenges and solutions to replicate our success in other KET programs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vivek B Kute
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Himanshu V Patel
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Subho Banerjee
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Divyesh P Engineer
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Ruchir B Dave
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Nauka Shah
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Sanshriti Chauhan
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Harishankar Meshram
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Priyash Tambi
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Akash Shah
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Khushboo Saxena
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Manish Balwani
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Vishal Parmar
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Shivam Shah
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Ved Prakash
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Sudeep Patel
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Dev Patel
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Sudeep Desai
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Jamal Rizvi
- Department of Urology and Transplantation, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Gujarat University of Transplantation Sciences (GUTS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Harsh Patel
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Beena Parikh
- Department of Anaesthesiology, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Gujarat University of Transplantation Sciences (GUTS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Kamal Kanodia
- Department of Pathology, laboratory medicine, transfusion services and immunohematology, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Gujarat University of Transplantation Sciences (GUTS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Shruti Gandhi
- Department of Radiology, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Gujarat University of Transplantation Sciences (GUTS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Michael A Rees
- Alliance for Paired Kidney Donation, Perrysburg, Ohio, USA
- Department of Urology, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, Ohio, USA
| | - Alvin E Roth
- Department of Economics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Pranjal Modi
- Department of Urology and Transplantation, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Gujarat University of Transplantation Sciences (GUTS), Ahmedabad, India
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Kute VB, Fleetwood VA, Chauhan S, Meshram HS, Caliskan Y, Varma C, Yazıcı H, Oto ÖA, Lentine KL. Kidney paired donation in developing countries: A global perspective. CURRENT TRANSPLANTATION REPORTS 2023; 10:117-125. [PMID: 37720696 PMCID: PMC10501157 DOI: 10.1007/s40472-023-00401-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/18/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW We review the key principles of kidney paired donation (KPD) and discuss the status and unique considerations for KPD in developing countries. RECENT FINDINGS Despite the advantages of KPD programs, they remain rare among developing nations, and the programs that exist have many differences with those of in developed countries. There is a paucity of literature and lack of published data on KPD from most of the developing nations. Expanding KPD programs may require the adoption of features and innovations of successful KPD programs. Cooperation with national and international societies should be encouraged to ensure endorsement and sharing of best practices. SUMMARY KPD is in the initial stages or has not yet started in the majority of the emerging nations. But the logistics and strategies required to implement KPD in developing nations differ from other parts of the world. By learning from the KPD experience in developing countries and adapting to their unique needs, it should be possible to expand access to KPD to allow more transplants to happen for patients in need world-wide.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vivek B Kute
- Department of Nephrology and Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center and Dr. H L Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences, Ahmedabad, India
| | - Vidya A. Fleetwood
- Center for Abdominal Transplantation, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA
| | - Sanshriti Chauhan
- Department of Nephrology and Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center and Dr. H L Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences, Ahmedabad, India
| | - Hari Shankar Meshram
- Department of Nephrology and Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center and Dr. H L Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences, Ahmedabad, India
| | - Yasar Caliskan
- Center for Abdominal Transplantation, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA
| | - Chintalapati Varma
- Center for Abdominal Transplantation, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA
| | - Halil Yazıcı
- Division of Nephrology, Istanbul School of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Özgür Akın Oto
- Division of Nephrology, Istanbul School of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Krista L Lentine
- Center for Abdominal Transplantation, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Chandra Shrestha P, Bhandari TR, Adhikari R, Baral H, Verma RK, Shrestha KK. Living donor kidney paired exchange: An observational study. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 2022; 78:103761. [PMID: 35734678 PMCID: PMC9206995 DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2022.103761] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/01/2022] [Revised: 05/02/2022] [Accepted: 05/08/2022] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESKD). Kidney paired donation (KPD) provides the chance to match an incompatible donor/recipient pair with another donor and recipient in a similar condition. We aimed to compare the outcomes of pair exchange kidney transplantation with traditional live donor kidney transplantation in our context. Method A review of medical records of 62 patients (31 pairs) who underwent two-way conventional living kidney pair exchange from July 2016 to June 2021 was done. The control group was considered those 62 patients who had undergone classic live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) during the study period. The patient's demographics, intraoperative and postoperative variables including delayed graft function, length of hospital stay, graft survival, patient survival, and rejections rates were compared between the groups (KPD and LDKT). Results The majority of recipients were male (77.4 and 80.6%) while donors were female (77.4 and 69.4%) in KPD and the LDKT groups. Mean ages were 37 years (range: 19–59) and 37 years (range: 17–65) for the recipient's in KPD and the LDKT. KPD transplantation was performed in 62 recipients to avoid blood group incompatibility. There were no significant differences in outcomes comprising delayed graft function (1.6 and 3.2%), graft survival (100% in both groups), patient survival (95.2 and 96.8%), and rejections rates (1.6 and 1.6%) between KPD and LDKT group (P > 0.005). The length of stay was similar (5.9 and 5.7 days) in KPD and LDKT groups (P > 0.005). Conclusions The outcomes of KPD were comparable with classic LDKT in terms of delayed graft function, length of hospital stay, graft survival, patient survival, and rejections rates in our study. Therefore, the kidney paired donation program should be encouraged and promoted in centers where the ABO-incompatible transplant is expensive with added risk and the rate of deceased donor transplantation is very low.
Kidney paired donation (KPD) provides the chance to match for an incompatible donor/recipient pair with another donor and recipient in a similar condition. The outcomes of KPD were comparable with classic live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) in this study. KPD program should be promoted in centers where the ABO incompatible transplant is expensive with added risk and the rate of deceased donor transplantation is very low.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pukar Chandra Shrestha
- Department of Transplant Surgery, Shahid Dharmabhakta National Transplant Centre, Bhaktapur, Nepal
| | - Tika Ram Bhandari
- Department of Transplant Surgery, Shahid Dharmabhakta National Transplant Centre, Bhaktapur, Nepal
- Corresponding author. Department of Transplant Surgery, Shahid Dharmabhakta National Transplant Centre (SDNTC), Bhaktapur, Nepal.
| | - Rojan Adhikari
- Department of Urology, Shahid Dharmabhakta National Transplant Centre, Bhaktapur, Nepal
| | - Hari Baral
- Department of Urology, Shahid Dharmabhakta National Transplant Centre, Bhaktapur, Nepal
| | - Rakesh Kumar Verma
- Department of Urology, Shahid Dharmabhakta National Transplant Centre, Bhaktapur, Nepal
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
5
|
de Klerk M, Kal-van Gestel JA, van de Wetering J, Kho ML, Middel-de Sterke S, Betjes MGH, Zuidema WC, Roelen D, Glorie K, Roodnat JI. Creating Options for Difficult-to-match Kidney Transplant Candidates. Transplantation 2021; 105:240-248. [PMID: 32101984 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000003203] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Most transplantation centers recognize a small patient population that unsuccessfully participates in all available, both living and deceased donor, transplantation programs for many years: the difficult-to-match patients. This population consists of highly immunized and/or ABO blood group O or B patients. METHODS To improve their chances, Computerized Integration of Alternative Transplantation programs (CIAT) were developed to integrate kidney paired donation, altruistic/unspecified donation, and ABO and HLA desensitization. To compare CIAT with reality, a simulation was performed, including all patients, donors, and pairs who participated in our programs in 2015-2016. Criteria for inclusion as difficult-to-match, selected-highly immunized (sHI) patient were as follows: virtual panel reactive antibody >85% and participating for 2 years in Eurotransplant Acceptable Mismatch program. sHI patients were given priority, and ABO blood group incompatible (ABOi) and/or HLA incompatible (HLAi) matching with donor-specific antigen-mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) <8000 were allowed. For long-waiting blood group O or B patients, ABOi matches were allowed. RESULTS In reality, 90 alternative program transplantations were carried out: 73 compatible, 16 ABOi, and 1 both ABOi and HLAi combination. Simulation with CIAT resulted in 95 hypothetical transplantations: 83 compatible (including 1 sHI) and 5 ABOi combinations. Eight sHI patients were matched: 1 compatible, 6 HLAi with donor-specific antigen-MFI <8000 (1 also ABOi), and 1 ABOi match. Six/eight combinations for sHI patients were complement-dependent cytotoxicity cross-match negative. CONCLUSIONS CIAT led to 8 times more matches for difficult-to-match sHI patients. This offers them better chances because of a more favorable MFI profile against the new donor. Besides, more ABO compatible matches were found for ABOi couples, while total number of transplantations was not hampered. Prioritizing difficult-to-match patients improves their chances without affecting the chances of regular patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marry de Klerk
- Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - Marcia L Kho
- Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Michiel G H Betjes
- Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Willij C Zuidema
- Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Dave Roelen
- Department of Immunohaematology and Blood Transfusion LUMC, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Kristiaan Glorie
- Erasmus Q-Intelligence, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Joke I Roodnat
- Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
|
6
|
Kher V, Jha PK. Paired kidney exchange transplantation - pushing the boundaries. Transpl Int 2020; 33:975-984. [PMID: 32634850 DOI: 10.1111/tri.13693] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2019] [Revised: 08/02/2019] [Accepted: 07/01/2020] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
The scarcity of living organ donors makes it imperative to develop newer innovations to optimize and maximize the utilization of the available pool. ABO and HLA sensitization are important immunological barriers in renal transplant and can potentially lead to rejection of almost one-third of the willing living donors. Paired kidney exchange (PKE) is a rapidly growing method used to overcome these barriers and has grown in popularity over the last three decades since its introduction in 1986. Evolution of the matching strategies and use of complex algorithms has led to increase in the number of possible matches thereby benefiting multiple recipients. The use of altruistic donors and compatible pairs has also helped in increasing the possible exchanges. This review provides an in-depth analysis of the evolution, the present global scenario, and the future of PKE. It also discusses the recent trends of advanced donation, trans-organ paired exchange and global kidney exchange and the associated ethical concerns.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vijay Kher
- Department of Nephrology & Transplant Medicine, Medanta - The Medicity, Gurgaon, Harayana, India
| | - Pranaw Kumar Jha
- Department of Nephrology & Transplant Medicine, Medanta - The Medicity, Gurgaon, Harayana, India
| |
Collapse
|
|
7
|
Kurleto P, Skorupska-Król A, Broniatowska E, Bramstedt KA. Exploring the motives of Israeli Jews who were living kidney donors to strangers. Clin Transplant 2020; 34:e14034. [PMID: 32652718 DOI: 10.1111/ctr.14034] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/12/2020] [Revised: 06/29/2020] [Accepted: 07/06/2020] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
Non-directed living donors are individuals who donate a kidney to a recipient with whom they have neither a genetic nor emotional relationship. Israel legalized this type of donation in 2008. After this law was implemented, living donations significantly expanded. The aim of this article was to determine the motivations, characteristics, and perioperative experiences of non-directed living donors in Israel. Three online questionnaires (own questionnaire, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES), Rushton Self-Report Altruism Scale) were distributed to 180 Jewish kidney donors with the help of Matnat Chaim organization. One hundred and fifteen responses were received (69.3% response rate). The motivation for most donors (60%) was a strong willingness to help and a desire to do good. The majority of donors (78.3%) reported their health status as unchanged after donation; however, 16.5% experienced clinical problems (eg, wound infection, more pain than expected), and 5.2% experienced psychological complications. About 18% reported their health to improve after donation. Most (80%) inspired someone else to also become a kidney donor. This study breaks the myth that Jews do not support organ donation. In fact, their high level of altruism and their positive experience with donation has propelled the practice of non-directed donation in Israel.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paulina Kurleto
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski Krakow University, Krakow, Poland
| | - Agnieszka Skorupska-Król
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski Krakow University, Krakow, Poland
| | - Elżbieta Broniatowska
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski Krakow University, Krakow, Poland
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
8
|
He B, Ng ZQ, Mou L, Delriviere L, Jaques B, Tuke J, Musk GC, Lim W. Long-term outcome of kidney transplant by using restored kidney grafts after tumour ex vivo excision - a prospective study. Transpl Int 2020; 33:1253-1261. [PMID: 32589771 DOI: 10.1111/tri.13682] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2020] [Revised: 03/26/2020] [Accepted: 06/22/2020] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
The aim of this study is to report long-term outcomes of kidney transplantation by using the kidney graft after a small tumour ex vivo excision. A structured programme was established to use the restored kidney graft from urological referral after radical nephrectomy. The criteria were defined as tumour size ≤3 cm, margin clear on frozen section and recipients aged ≥60 years or those on the urgent list for transplantation as a result of imminent lack of dialysis access. The recipients were followed up regularly for surveillance of tumour recurrence. Between February 2007 and February 2018, 28 recipients had kidney transplantation by using the restored kidney grafts. The tumour size was 2.6 ± 0.7 cm. The follow-up was median 7 years without evidence of tumour recurrence. The patient and graft survival was satisfactory. Kidney transplantation by using restored kidneys after a small tumour excision is a novel source for selected recipients. The long-term patient and graft survival is satisfactory. Although there is a risk of tumour recurrence, it is rare event. Together with literature review, we would support use of kidney graft after a small tumour excision for selected recipients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bulang He
- WA Liver and Kidney Transplant Service, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia.,Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Medical School, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia.,Alfred Hospital, Monash University, Prahran, Vic., Australia
| | - Zi Qin Ng
- WA Liver and Kidney Transplant Service, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia
| | - Lingjun Mou
- WA Liver and Kidney Transplant Service, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia
| | - Luc Delriviere
- WA Liver and Kidney Transplant Service, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia.,Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Medical School, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
| | - Bryon Jaques
- WA Liver and Kidney Transplant Service, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia.,Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Medical School, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
| | - Jonathan Tuke
- School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
| | - Gabrielle C Musk
- Animal Care Services, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
| | - Wai Lim
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Medical School, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia.,Department of Nephrology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
|
9
|
Retrospective Analysis of the first 100 Kidney Transplants at the Istanbul Okan University, Health Application and Research Center. MEDICAL BULLETIN OF SISLI ETFAL HOSPITAL 2020; 53:221-227. [PMID: 32377087 PMCID: PMC7192273 DOI: 10.14744/semb.2019.54533] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2019] [Accepted: 04/05/2019] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
Objectives: The renal transplant program of Istanbul Okan University Hospital started in August 2017. Five cadaveric and 95 living donor kidney transplants have been performed for over 16 months. In this study, we aimed to share our experiences regarding kidney transplantation. Methods: In this study, a retrospective analysis of 100 patients who underwent kidney transplantation at the Istanbul Okan University over 16 months, the Health Application and Research Center was carried out. Patients’ demographics, creatinine levels of donors and recipients, co-morbid conditions, postoperative complications, features of arterial anastomosis and arterial variations observed on computed tomography angiography of donor-patient were assessed. Results: Mean age of donor patients was 44.05±13.76 (18-71) years. All living donors had computed tomography angiography for assessment of the vascular structure of both kidneys. Accessory right kidney artery was the most dominant vascular variation (16.5%). The primary cause of chronic renal disease was diabetes mellitus (36.4%) and hypertension (15.6%). Mean warm and cold ischemia time was 1.82±0.44 (1-3) and 40.25±6.12 (31-57) minutes, respectively. The most observed postoperative complication was stenosis of ureter anastomosis (4.1%). End-to-end arterial anastomosis between renal and internal iliac arteries was the most preferred anastomosis (57.2%). Conclusion: Increasing kidney transplantation, which is the most appropriate treatment in terms of cost-effectiveness, will be beneficial for patient health and economy of the country.
Collapse
|
|
10
|
Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation in New Caledonia: A Unique Collaboration With Australia. Transplantation 2020; 104:1-3. [DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000002859] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
|
|
11
|
Jacobs C, Berglund DM, Wiseman JF, Garvey C, Larson DB, Voges M, Radecki Breitkopf C, Ibrahim HN, Matas AJ. Long-term psychosocial outcomes after nondirected donation: A single-center experience. Am J Transplant 2019; 19:1498-1506. [PMID: 30417522 DOI: 10.1111/ajt.15179] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/05/2018] [Revised: 10/19/2018] [Accepted: 11/01/2018] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cheryl Jacobs
- Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | | | - Jennifer F Wiseman
- Department of Social Work, University of Minnesota Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | - Catherine Garvey
- Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | - Dawn B Larson
- Department of Social Work, University of Minnesota Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | - Margaret Voges
- University of Minnesota Health, Solid Organ Transplant, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | | | - Hassan N Ibrahim
- Division of Nephrology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas
| | - Arthur J Matas
- Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| |
Collapse
|
|
12
|
Stepkowski SM, Mierzejewska B, Fumo D, Bekbolsynov D, Khuder S, Baum CE, Brunner RJ, Kopke JE, Rees SE, Smith C, Ashlagi I, Roth AE, Rees MA. The 6-year clinical outcomes for patients registered in a multiregional United States Kidney Paired Donation program - a retrospective study. Transpl Int 2019; 32:839-853. [PMID: 30848501 DOI: 10.1111/tri.13423] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2018] [Revised: 12/11/2018] [Accepted: 03/04/2019] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
We examined what happened during a 6-year period to 1121 end-stage renal disease patients who registered with their willing/incompatible living donors for kidney exchanges with the Alliance for Paired Donation (APD). Of all patients, 65% were transplanted: 37% in kidney paired donation (APD-KPD, APD-other-KPD); 10% with compatible live donors (APD-LD); and 18% with deceased donors (APD-DD). The remaining patients were withdrawn (sick/died/others; 15%), or were still waiting (20%). For those patients with a cPRA 0-94%, 72% received a transplant. In contrast, only 49% of very highly sensitized (VHS; cPRA 95-100%) were transplanted. Of the VHS patients, 50% were transplanted by KPD/APD-LD while 50% benefited through prioritization of deceased donors in the modified kidney allocation system (KAS introduced in 2014). All APD transplanted groups had similar death-censored 4-year graft survivals as their relevant Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) groups. It is noteworthy that VHS graft and patient survival results were comparable to less sensitized and nonsensitized patients. All patients should be encouraged to search for compatible donors through different options. Expanding the donor pool through KPD and the new KAS of the OPTN increases the likelihood of transplantation for VHS patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stanislaw M Stepkowski
- Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, USA.,The Alliance for Paired Donation, Maumee, OH, USA
| | - Beata Mierzejewska
- The Alliance for Paired Donation, Maumee, OH, USA.,Department of Urology, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, USA
| | - David Fumo
- Department of Urology, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, USA
| | - Dulat Bekbolsynov
- Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, USA
| | - Sadik Khuder
- Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, USA
| | - Caitlin E Baum
- Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, USA
| | - Robert J Brunner
- Department of Urology, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, USA
| | | | - Susan E Rees
- The Alliance for Paired Donation, Maumee, OH, USA
| | - Connie Smith
- The Alliance for Paired Donation, Maumee, OH, USA
| | - Itai Ashlagi
- Department of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Alvin E Roth
- Department of Economics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Michael A Rees
- Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, USA.,The Alliance for Paired Donation, Maumee, OH, USA.,Department of Urology, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
13
|
Yacoubian AA, Dargham RA, Khauli RB. A review of the possibility of adopting financially driven live donor kidney transplantation. Int Braz J Urol 2019; 44:1071-1080. [PMID: 30044592 PMCID: PMC6442174 DOI: 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2017.0693] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2017] [Accepted: 05/23/2018] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Kidney transplantation for end-stage renal disease remains the preferred solution due to its survival advantage, enhanced quality of life and cost-effectiveness. The main obstacle worldwide with this modality of treatment is the scarcity of organs. The demand has always exceeded the supply resulting in different types of donations. Kidney donation includes pure living related donors, deceased donors, living unrelated donors (altruistic), paired kidney donation and more recently compensated kidney donation. Ethical considerations in live donor kidney transplantation have always created a debate especially when rewarding unrelated donors. In this paper, we examine the problems of financially driven kidney transplantation, the ethical legitimacy of this practice, and propose some innovative methods and policies that could be adopted to ensure a better practice with accepted ethical guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aline Adour Yacoubian
- Department of Surgery, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon.,Division of Urology and Renal Transplantation, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Rana Abu Dargham
- Department of Surgery, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon.,Division of Urology and Renal Transplantation, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Raja B Khauli
- Department of Surgery, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon.,Division of Urology and Renal Transplantation, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon
| |
Collapse
|
|
14
|
Initiating Maintenance Dialysis Before Living Kidney Donor Transplantation When a Donor Candidate Evaluation Is Well Underway. Transplantation 2019. [PMID: 29538259 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000002159] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Preemptive kidney transplants result in better outcomes and patient experiences than transplantation after dialysis onset. It is unknown how often a person initiates maintenance dialysis before living kidney donor transplantation when their donor candidate evaluation is well underway. METHODS Using healthcare databases, we retrospectively studied 478 living donor kidney transplants from 2004 to 2014 across 5 transplant centers in Ontario, Canada, where the recipients were not receiving dialysis when their donor's evaluation was well underway. We also explored some factors associated with a higher likelihood of dialysis initiation before transplant. RESULTS A total of 167 (35%) of 478 persons with kidney failure initiated dialysis in a median of 9.7 months (25th-75th percentile, 5.4-18.7 months) after their donor candidate began their evaluation and received dialysis for a median of 8.8 months (3.6-16.9 months) before kidney transplantation. The total cohort's dialysis cost was CAD $8.1 million, and 44 (26%) of 167 recipients initiated their dialysis urgently in hospital. The median total donor evaluation time (time from evaluation start to donation) was 10.6 months (6.4-21.6 months) for preemptive transplants and 22.4 months (13.1-38.7 months) for donors whose recipients started dialysis before transplant. Recipients were more likely to start dialysis if their donor was female, nonwhite, lived in a lower-income neighborhood, and if the transplant center received the recipient referral later. CONCLUSION One third of persons initiated dialysis before receiving their living kidney donor transplant, despite their donor's evaluation being well underway. Future studies should consider whether some of these events can be prevented by addressing inappropriate delays to improve patient outcomes and reduce healthcare costs.
Collapse
|
|
15
|
Flechner SM, Thomas AG, Ronin M, Veale JL, Leeser DB, Kapur S, Peipert JD, Segev D, Henderson ML, Shaffer AA, Cooper M, Hil G, Waterman AD. The first 9 years of kidney paired donation through the National Kidney Registry: Characteristics of donors and recipients compared with National Live Donor Transplant Registries. Am J Transplant 2018; 18:2730-2738. [PMID: 29603640 PMCID: PMC6165704 DOI: 10.1111/ajt.14744] [Citation(s) in RCA: 60] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2018] [Revised: 03/18/2018] [Accepted: 03/20/2018] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
The practice of kidney paired donation (KPD) is expanding annually, offering the opportunity for live donor kidney transplant to more patients. We sought to identify if voluntary KPD networks such as the National Kidney Registry (NKR) were selecting or attracting a narrower group of donors or recipients compared with national registries. For this purpose, we merged data from the NKR database with the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) database, from February 14, 2008, to February 14, 2017, encompassing the first 9 years of the NKR. Compared with all United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) live donor transplant patients (49 610), all UNOS living unrelated transplant patients (23 319), and all other KPD transplant patients (4236), the demographic and clinical characteristics of NKR transplant patients (2037) appear similar to contemporary national trends. In particular, among the NKR patients, there were a significantly (P < .001) greater number of retransplants (25.6% vs 11.5%), hyperimmunized recipients (22.7% vs 4.3% were cPRA >80%), female recipients (45.9% vs 37.6%), black recipients (18.2% vs 13%), and those on public insurance (49.7% vs 41.8%) compared with controls. These results support the need for greater sharing and larger pool sizes, perhaps enhanced by the entry of compatible pairs and even chains initiated by deceased donors, to unlock more opportunities for those harder-to-match pairs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | - John D Peipert
- Department of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University
| | | | | | | | | | - Garet Hil
- National Kidney Registry, Babylon, NY
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
16
|
Chen JHC, Hughes P, Woodroffe C, Ferrari P. Pre- and postdonation kidney function in donors of a kidney paired donation with unique criteria for donor glomerular filtration rate - a longitudinal cohort analysis. Transpl Int 2018; 32:291-299. [PMID: 30353584 DOI: 10.1111/tri.13366] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2018] [Revised: 05/22/2018] [Accepted: 10/17/2018] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
Baseline predonation estimated GFR (eGFR) appears to predict the risk of postdonation chronic kidney disease in live donors. New KIDGO guidelines recommend an eGFR ≥90 ml/min/1.73 m2 as an acceptable level of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) for kidney donation. In the Australian Paired Kidney Exchange (AKX) program, all donors with a raw measured GFR (mGFR) ≥80 ml/min are deemed suitable for donation, but the significance of this selection indicator is unclear. We analysed the first 129 live donors in the AKX program with at least 1-year follow-up linking records in the AKX database and ANZDATA. There were 73 male and 56 female donors; mean (±SD) age was 53 ± 11 years. Predonation eGFR was 94 ± 13 ml/min/1.73 m2 , mGFR 99 ± 17 ml/min/1.73 m2 and raw mGFR 108 ± 18 ml/min. Baseline eGFR was <80 ml/min/1.73 m2 in 19 donors, and <90 ml/min/1.73 m2 in 42 donors. At 1 year postdonation eGFR was 68 ± 15 ml/min/1.73 m2 and the predicted eGFR at 30 years postdonation was on average 50 (29-83) ml/min/1.73 m2 . The hypothetical mean age at end-stage kidney disease was estimated to be 145 (95% CI 120-263) years. Over 30% of AKX live donors would have been excluded from donation using KDIGO guidelines. Using AKX donor guidelines, the majority of donors with predicted eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2 30-year postdonation were aged ≥50 years. Long-term outcome data on AKX donors with low eGFR will need careful monitoring.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jenny H C Chen
- Department of Nephrology and Transplantation, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.,Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Peter Hughes
- Department of Nephrology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Vic., Australia.,University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic., Australia
| | - Claudia Woodroffe
- Department of Nephrology and Transplantation, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Paolo Ferrari
- Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.,Department of Nephrology, Ospedale Civico Lugano, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Lugano, Switzerland.,Biomedical Faculty, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
|
17
|
Kidney Paired Donation and the "Valuable Consideration" Problem: The Experiences of Australia, Canada, and the United States. Transplantation 2018; 101:1996-2002. [PMID: 29633981 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000001778] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/23/2023]
Abstract
As organ donation rates remain unable to meet the needs of individuals waiting for transplants, it is necessary to identify reasons for this shortage and develop solutions to address it. The introduction of kidney paired donation (KPD) programs represents one such innovation that has become a valuable tool in donation systems around the world. Although KPD has been successful in increasing kidney donation and transplantation, there are lingering questions about its legality. Donation through KPD is done in exchange for-and with the expectation of-a reciprocal kidney donation and transplantation. It is this reciprocity that has caused concern about whether KPD complies with existing law. Organ donation systems around the world are almost universally structured to legally prohibit the commercial exchange of organs. Australia, Canada, and the United States have accomplished this goal by prohibiting the exchange of an organ for "valuable consideration," which is a legal term that has not historically been limited to monetary exchange. Whether or not KPD programs violate this legislative prohibition will depend on the specific legislative provision being considered, and the legal system and case law of the particular jurisdiction in question. This article compares the experiences of Australia, Canada, and the United States in determining the legality of KPD and highlights the need for legal clarity and flexibility as donation and transplantation systems continue to evolve.
Collapse
|
|
18
|
Kute VB, Prasad N, Shah PR, Modi PR. Kidney exchange transplantation current status, an update and future perspectives. World J Transplant 2018; 8:52-60. [PMID: 29988896 PMCID: PMC6033740 DOI: 10.5500/wjt.v8.i3.52] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/06/2017] [Revised: 01/25/2018] [Accepted: 03/07/2018] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Kidney exchange transplantation is well established modality to increase living donor kidney transplantation. Reasons for joining kidney exchange programs are ABO blood group incompatibility, immunological incompatibility (positive cross match or donor specific antibody), human leukocyte antigen (HLA) incompatibility (poor HLA matching), chronological incompatibility and financial incompatibility. Kidney exchange transplantation has evolved from the traditional simultaneous anonymous 2-way kidney exchange to more complex ways such as 3-way exchange, 4-way exchange, n-way exchange,compatible pair, non-simultaneous kidney exchange,non-simultaneous extended altruistic donor, never ending altruistic donor, kidney exchange combined with desensitization, kidney exchange combined with ABO incompatible kidney transplantation, acceptable mismatch transplant, use of A2 donor to O patients, living donor-deceased donor list exchange, domino chain, non-anonymous kidney exchange, single center, multicenter, regional, National, International and Global kidney exchange. Here we discuss recent advances in kidney exchanges such as International kidney exchange transplantation in a global environment, three categories of advanced donation program, deceased donors as a source of chain initiating kidneys, donor renege myth or reality, pros and cons of anonymity in developed world and (non-) anonymity in developing world, pros and cons of donor travel vs kidney transport, algorithm for management of incompatible donor-recipient pairs and pros and cons of Global kidney exchange. The participating transplant teams and donor-recipient pairs should make the decision by consensus about kidney donor travel vs kidney transport and anonymity vs non-anonymity in allocation as per local resources and logistics. Future of organ transplantation in resource-limited setting will be liver vs kidney exchange, a legitimate hope or utopia?
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vivek B Kute
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Centre, Dr Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences, Ahmedabad 380016, India
| | - Narayan Prasad
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, SGPGI, Lucknow 226014, India
| | - Pankaj R Shah
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Centre, Dr Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences, Ahmedabad 380016, India
| | - Pranjal R Modi
- Department of Urology and transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Centre, Dr Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences, Ahmedabad 380016, India
| |
Collapse
|
|
19
|
Kute VB, Agarwal SK, Sahay M, Kumar A, Rathi M, Prasad N, Sharma RK, Gupta KL, Shroff S, Saxena SK, Shah PR, Modi PR, Billa V, Tripathi LK, Raju S, Bhadauria DS, Jeloka TK, Agarwal D, Krishna A, Perumalla R, Jain M, Guleria S, Rees MA. Kidney-Paired Donation to Increase Living Donor Kidney Transplantation in India: Guidelines of Indian Society of Organ Transplantation - 2017. Indian J Nephrol 2018; 28:1-9. [PMID: 29515294 PMCID: PMC5830802 DOI: 10.4103/ijn.ijn_365_17] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Vivek B. Kute
- Department of Nephrology, Dr. H L Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
| | - Sanjay K. Agarwal
- Department of Nephrology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Artemis Hospital, New Delhi, India
| | - Manisha Sahay
- Department of Nephrology, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
| | - Anant Kumar
- Department of Transplantation Surgery, Max Group of Hospital, New Delhi, India
| | - Manish Rathi
- Department of Nephrology, The Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
| | - Narayan Prasad
- Department of Nephrology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
| | - Rajkumar K. Sharma
- Department of Nephrology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
| | - Krishan L. Gupta
- Department of Nephrology, The Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
| | - Sunil Shroff
- Department of Transplantation Surgery, Madras Medical Mission Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
| | - Sandip K. Saxena
- Department of Nephrology, Apollo Hospital, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India
| | - Pankaj R. Shah
- Department of Nephrology, Dr. H L Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
| | - Pranjal R. Modi
- Department of Transplantation Surgery Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center and Dr. H L Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
| | - Vishwanath Billa
- Department of Nephrology, Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Mumbai, India
| | | | - Sreebhushan Raju
- Department of Nephrology, Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
| | - Dhamedndra S. Bhadauria
- Department of Nephrology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
| | - Tarun K. Jeloka
- Department of Nephrology, Aditya Birla Memorial Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra, India
| | | | - Amresh Krishna
- Department of Nephrology, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Science, Patna, Bihar, India
| | - Rajshekhar Perumalla
- Department of Transplantation Surgery, Kauvery Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
| | - Manoj Jain
- Department of Renal Pathology Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
| | - Sandeep Guleria
- Department of Transplantation Surgery, Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi, India
| | - Michael A. Rees
- Department of Transplantation Surgery, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, Ohio
- CEO, Alliance for Paired Donation, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
20
|
Kute VB, Patel HV, Shah PR, Modi PR, Shah VR, Rizvi SJ, Pal BC, Shah PS, Varyani UT, Wakhare PS, Shinde SG, Ghodela VA, Trivedi VB, Patel MH, Trivedi HL. Seventy-seven kidney paired donation transplantations at a single transplant centre in India led to an increase in living donor kidney transplantations in 2015. Clin Kidney J 2017; 10:709-714. [PMID: 28979784 PMCID: PMC5622902 DOI: 10.1093/ckj/sfx032] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/03/2017] [Accepted: 03/07/2017] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND To ascertain the validity of kidney paired donations (KPDs) as an alternative strategy for increasing living donor kidney transplantations (LDKTs) in an LDKT-dominated transplant programme since directed kidney transplantation, ABO-incompatible or crossmatch-positive pairs are not feasible due to costs and infectious complications. METHODS This was a prospective single-centre study of 77 KPD transplantations (25 two-way, 7 three-way and 1 six-way exchange) from 1 January 2015 to 1 January 2016 of 158 registered donor recipient pairs. During this period, a total of 380 kidney transplantations [71 deceased donor kidney transplantations (DDKTs), 309 LDKTs] were performed. The reasons for opting for KPD were ABO incompatibility (n = 45), sensitization (n = 26) and better matching (n = 6). RESULTS KPD matching was facilitated in 62% (n = 98) of transplants. In all, 48.7% (n = 77) of the transplants were completed in 2015, whereas 13.3% (n = 21) of the matched patients were to undergo transplant surgery in early 2016 after getting legal permission. The waiting time for KPD was shorter compared with DDKT. The death-censored graft survival and patient survival were 98.7% (n = 76) and 93.5% (n = 72), respectively. In all, 14.2% (n = 11) of patients had acute rejection. Match rates among sensitized (n = 60) and O group patients (n = 62) were 58.3% (n = 35) and 41.9% (n = 26), respectively. Of these, 43.3% (n = 26) and 29% (n = 18) of transplants were completed and 15% (n = 9) and 12.9% (n = 8), respectively, are waiting for legal permission. CONCLUSIONS LDKT increased by 25% in 1 year in our single-centre KPD programme. Our key to success was the formation of a KPD registry, awareness and active counselling programs and developing a dedicated team.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vivek B. Kute
- Department of Nephrology and Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Himanshu V. Patel
- Department of Nephrology and Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Pankaj R. Shah
- Department of Nephrology and Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Pranjal R. Modi
- Department of Urology and Transplantation, IKDRC-ITS, Ahmedabad, India
| | - Veena R. Shah
- Department of Anaesthesia, IKDRC-ITS, Ahmedabad, India
| | - Sayyed J. Rizvi
- Department of Urology and Transplantation, IKDRC-ITS, Ahmedabad, India
| | - Bipin C. Pal
- Department of Urology and Transplantation, IKDRC-ITS, Ahmedabad, India
| | - Priya S. Shah
- Department of Nephrology and Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Umesh T. Varyani
- Department of Nephrology and Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Pavan S. Wakhare
- Department of Nephrology and Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Saiprasad G. Shinde
- Department of Nephrology and Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Vijay A. Ghodela
- Department of Nephrology and Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Ahmedabad, India
| | - Varsha B. Trivedi
- Department of Pathology, Laboratory Medicine, Transfusion Services and Immunohaematology, IKDRC-ITS, Ahmedabad, India
| | - Minaxi H. Patel
- Department of Pathology, Laboratory Medicine, Transfusion Services and Immunohaematology, IKDRC-ITS, Ahmedabad, India
| | - Hargovind L. Trivedi
- Department of Nephrology and Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences (IKDRC-ITS), Ahmedabad, India
| |
Collapse
|
|
21
|
Kute VB, Patel HV, Shah PR, Modi PR, Shah VR, Rizvi SJ, Pal BC, Shah PS, Modi MP, Butala BP, Wakhare PS, Varyani UT, Shinde SG, Ghodela VA, Kasat GS, Patil MV, Patel JC, Kumar DP, Trivedi VB, Patel MH, Trivedi HL. Impact of single centre kidney paired donation transplantation to increase donor pool in India: a cohort study. Transpl Int 2017; 30:679-688. [PMID: 28319288 DOI: 10.1111/tri.12956] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2017] [Accepted: 03/15/2017] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
In a living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) dominated transplant programme, kidney paired donation (KPD) may be a cost-effective and valid alternative strategy to increase LDKT in countries with limited resources where deceased donation kidney transplantation (DDKT) is in the initial stages. Here, we report our experience of 300 single-centre KPD transplantations to increase LDKT in India. Between January 2000 and July 2016, 3616 LDKT and 561 DDKT were performed at our transplantation centre, 300 (8.3%) using KPD. The reasons for joining KPD among transplanted patients were ABO incompatibility (n = 222), positive cross-match (n = 59) and better matching (n = 19). A total of 124 two-way (n = 248), 14 three-way (n = 42), one four-way (n = 4) and one six-way exchange (n = 6) yielded 300 KPD transplants. Death-censored graft and patient survival were 96% (n = 288) and 83.3% (n = 250), respectively. The mean serum creatinine was 1.3 mg/dl at a follow-up of 3 ± 3 years. We credit the success of our KPD programme to maintaining a registry of incompatible pairs, counselling on KPD, a high-volume LDKT programme and teamwork. KPD is legal, cost effective and rapidly growing for facilitating LDKT with incompatible donors. This study provides large-scale evidence for the expansion of single-centre LDKT via KPD when national programmes do not exist.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vivek B Kute
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences [IKDRC-ITS], Ahmedabad, India
| | - Himanshu V Patel
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences [IKDRC-ITS], Ahmedabad, India
| | - Pankaj R Shah
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences [IKDRC-ITS], Ahmedabad, India
| | - Pranjal R Modi
- Department of Urology and Transplantation, IKDRC-ITS, Ahmedabad, India
| | - Veena R Shah
- Department of Anesthesia, IKDRC-ITS, Ahmedabad, India
| | - Sayyed J Rizvi
- Department of Urology and Transplantation, IKDRC-ITS, Ahmedabad, India
| | - Bipin C Pal
- Department of Urology and Transplantation, IKDRC-ITS, Ahmedabad, India
| | - Priyadarshini S Shah
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences [IKDRC-ITS], Ahmedabad, India
| | | | | | - Pavan S Wakhare
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences [IKDRC-ITS], Ahmedabad, India
| | - Umesh T Varyani
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences [IKDRC-ITS], Ahmedabad, India
| | - Saiprasad G Shinde
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences [IKDRC-ITS], Ahmedabad, India
| | - Vijay A Ghodela
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences [IKDRC-ITS], Ahmedabad, India
| | - Govind S Kasat
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences [IKDRC-ITS], Ahmedabad, India
| | - Mayur V Patil
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences [IKDRC-ITS], Ahmedabad, India
| | - Jaydeep C Patel
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences [IKDRC-ITS], Ahmedabad, India
| | - Deepk P Kumar
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences [IKDRC-ITS], Ahmedabad, India
| | - Varsha B Trivedi
- Laboratory Medicine, Transfusion Services and Immunohematology, Department of Pathology, IKDRC-ITS, Ahmedabad, India
| | - Minaxi H Patel
- Laboratory Medicine, Transfusion Services and Immunohematology, Department of Pathology, IKDRC-ITS, Ahmedabad, India
| | - Hargovind L Trivedi
- Department of Nephrology and Clinical Transplantation, Institute of Kidney Diseases and Research Center, Dr HL Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences [IKDRC-ITS], Ahmedabad, India
| |
Collapse
|
|
22
|
Providing Better-Matched Donors for HLA Mismatched Compatible Pairs Through Kidney Paired Donation. Transplantation 2017; 101:642-648. [PMID: 27077598 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000001196] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Participation of compatible pairs (CP) in kidney paired donation (KPD) could be attractive to CPs who have a high degree of HLA mismatch, if the CP recipient will gain a better HLA match. Because KPD programs were not designed to help CP, it is important to define allocation metrics that enable CP to receive a better-matched kidney, without disadvantage to incompatible pairs (ICP). METHODS Simulations using 46 ICPs and 11 fully HLA-mismatched CPs were undertaken using the Australian KPD matching algorithm. Allocations were preformed adding 1 CP at a time or all 11 CPs at once, and with and without exclusion of unacceptable antigens selected to give a virtual calculated panel-reactive antibody ranging 70% to 80% to improve HLA matching in CP recipients. RESULTS On average, most CP recipients could be matched and had a lower eplet mismatch (EpMM) with the matched donor (57 ± 15) than with their own donor (78 ± 19, P < 0.02). However, only recipients who had an EpMM to own donor greater than 65 achieved a significant reduction in the EpMM with the matched donor. The gain in EpMM was larger when CPs were listed with unacceptable antigens. Furthermore, inclusion of 1 CP at a time increased matching in ICP by up to 33%, and inclusion of all 11 CPs at once increased ICP matching by 50%. CONCLUSIONS Compatible pair participation in KPD can increase match rates in ICP and can provide a better immunological profile in CP recipients who have a high EpMM to their own donor when using allocation based on virtual crossmatch.
Collapse
|
|
23
|
Kute VB, Patel HV, Shah PR, Modi PR, Shah VR, Rizvi SJ, Pal BC, Modi MP, Shah PS, Varyani UT, Wakhare PS, Shinde SG, Ghodela VA, Patel MH, Trivedi VB, Trivedi HL. Past, present and future of kidney paired donation transplantation in India. World J Transplant 2017; 7:134-143. [PMID: 28507916 PMCID: PMC5409913 DOI: 10.5500/wjt.v7.i2.134] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2016] [Revised: 12/01/2016] [Accepted: 01/03/2017] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
One third of healthy willing living kidney donors are rejected due to ABO blood group incompatibility and donor specific antibody. This increases pre-transplant dialysis duration leading to increased morbidity and mortality on the kidney transplantation waiting list. Over the last decade kidney paired donation is most rapidly increased source of living kidney donors. In a kidney transplantation program dominated by living donor kidney transplantation, kidney paired donation is a legal and valid alternative strategy to increase living donor kidney transplantation. This is more useful in countries with limited resources where ABO incompatible kidney transplantation or desensitization protocol is not feasible because of costs/infectious complications and deceased donor kidney transplantation is in initial stages. The matching allocation, ABO blood type imbalance, reciprocity, simultaneity, geography were the limitation for the expansion of kidney paired donation. Here we describe different successful ways to increase living donor kidney transplantation through kidney paired donation. Compatible pairs, domino chain, combination of kidney paired donation with desensitization or ABO incompatible transplantation, international kidney paired donation, non-simultaneous, extended, altruistic donor chain and list exchange are different ways to expand the donor pool. In absence of national kidney paired donation program, a dedicated kidney paired donation team will increase access to living donor kidney transplantation in individual centres with team work. Use of social networking sites to expand donor pool, HLA based national kidney paired donation program will increase quality and quantity of kidney paired donation transplantation. Transplant centres should remove the barriers to a broader implementation of multicentre, national kidney paired donation program to further optimize potential of kidney paired donation to increase transplantation of O group and sensitized patients. This review assists in the development of similar programs in other developing countries.
Collapse
|
|
24
|
Kute VB, Patel HV, Shah PR, Modi PR, Shah VR, Rizvi SJ, Pal BC, Shah PS, Wakhare PS, Shinde SG, Ghodela VA, Varyani UT, Patel MH, Trivedi VB, Trivedi HL. International kidney paired donation transplantations to increase kidney transplant of O group and highly sensitized patient: First report from India. World J Transplant 2017; 7:64-69. [PMID: 28280697 PMCID: PMC5324030 DOI: 10.5500/wjt.v7.i1.64] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/31/2016] [Revised: 11/16/2016] [Accepted: 12/09/2016] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
AIM To report the first international living related two way kidney paired donation (KPD) transplantation from India which occurred on 17th February 2015 after legal permission from authorization committee.
METHODS Donor recipient pairs were from Portugal and India who were highly sensitized and ABO incompatible with their spouse respectively. The two donor recipient pairs had negative lymphocyte cross-matching, flow cross-match and donor specific antibody in two way kidney exchange with the intended KPD donor. Local KPD options were fully explored for Indian patient prior to embarking on international KPD.
RESULTS Both pairs underwent simultaneous uneventful kidney transplant surgeries and creatinine was 1 mg/dL on tacrolimus based immunosuppression at 11 mo follow up. The uniqueness of these transplantations was that they are first international KPD transplantations in our center.
CONCLUSION International KPD will increases quality and quantity of living donor kidney transplantation. This could be an important step to solving the kidney shortage with additional benefit of reduced costs, improved quality and increased access for difficult to match incompatible pairs like O blood group patient with non-O donor and sensitized patient. To the best of our knowledge this is first international KPD transplantation from India.
Collapse
|
|
25
|
Current status on the evaluation and management of the highly sensitized kidney transplant recipient. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 2016; 24:570-5. [PMID: 26418060 DOI: 10.1097/mnh.0000000000000172] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW In light of the recent changes to the kidney allocation system (KAS) and the observed increase in the rate of transplantation of the highly sensitized kidney transplant candidate, the evaluation and care of this population is a timely topic. RECENT FINDINGS In its first year, the new KAS has already realized one goal of improving the chances of transplanting the most highly sensitized patients in the waiting list. This has brought to the forefront the need for recipient readiness in this special population, as well as the need for histocompatibility labs and kidney transplant programs to align themselves with each other, and also with the requirements of the United Network for Organ Sharing, and increase proficiency in testing and data interpretation. This manuscript is a review of the literature as well as practice patterns as they relate to the changes in KAS and the observed outcome since the activation of the new KAS, with the ultimate goal of aiding in the development of a more unified approach in the care of this specialized population which will allow for interdisciplinary and cross centre dialogue to optimize long term care and outcomes. SUMMARY Here we will review the changes to the KAS as they affect the highly sensitized kidney transplant recipient, and additional considerations in the evaluation and management of these patients.
Collapse
|