A National Survey of Practice Patterns for Accepting Living Kidney Donors With Prior COVID-19.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
A critical question facing transplant programs is whether, when, and how to safely accept living kidney donors (LKDs) who have recovered from COVID-19 infection. The purpose of the study is to understand current practices related to accepting these LKDs.Methods
We surveyed US transplant programs from 3 September through 3 November 2020. Center level and participant level responses were analyzed.Results
A total of 174 respondents from 115 unique centers responded, representing 59% of US LKD programs and 72.4% of 2019 and 72.5% of 2020 LKD volume (Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network-OPTN 2021). In all, 48.6% of responding centers had received inquiries from such LKDs, whereas 44.3% were currently evaluating. A total of 98 donors were in the evaluation phase, whereas 27.8% centers had approved 42 such donors to proceed with donation. A total of 50.8% of participants preferred to wait >3 months, and 91% would wait at least 1 month from onset of infection to LD surgery. The most common reason to exclude LDs was evidence of COVID-19-related AKI (59.8%) even if resolved, followed by COVID-19-related pneumonia (28.7%) and hospitalization (21.3%). The most common concern in accepting such donors was kidney health postdonation (59.2%), followed by risk of transmission to the recipient (55.7%), donor perioperative pulmonary risk (41.4%), and donor pulmonary risk in the future (29.9%).Conclusion
Practice patterns for acceptance of COVID-19-recovered LKDs showed considerable variability. Ongoing research and consensus building are needed to guide optimal practices to ensure safety of accepting such donors. Long-term close follow-up of such donors is warranted.
SUBMITTER: Jan MY
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8123405 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network gives priority in kidney allocation to prior live organ donors who require a kidney transplant. In this study, we analyzed the effect of this policy on facilitating access to transplantation for prior donors who were wait-listed for kidney transplantation in the United States. Using 1:1 propensity score-matching methods, we assembled two matched cohorts. The first cohort consisted of prior organ donors and matched nondonors who were wait-listed during the years 1996-2010. The second cohort consisted of prior organ donors and matched nondonors who underwent deceased donor kidney transplantation. During the study period, there were 385,498 listings for kidney transplantation, 252 of which were prior donors. Most prior donors required dialysis by the time of listing (64% versus 69% among matched candidates; P=0.24). Compared with matched nondonors, prior donors had a higher rate of deceased donor transplant (85% versus 33%; P<0.001) and a lower median time to transplantation (145 versus 1607 days; P<0.001). Prior donors received higher-quality allografts (median kidney donor risk index 0.67 versus 0.90 for nondonors; P<0.001) and experienced lower post-transplant mortality (hazard ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.08 to 0.46; P<0.001) than matched nondonors. In conclusion, these data suggest that prior organ donors experience brief waiting time for kidney transplant and receive excellent-quality kidneys, but most need pretransplant dialysis. Individuals who are considering live organ donation should be provided with this information because this allocation priority will remain in place under the new US kidney allocation system.
| S-EPMC4413763 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic brought living donor kidney transplant programs across the United States to a near halt in March 2020. As programs have begun to reopen, potential donor candidates often inquire about their risk of a COVID-19 infection and its potential impact on kidney function after donation. To address their concerns, we surveyed 1740 former live kidney donors at four transplant centers located in New York and Michigan. Of these, 839 (48.2%) donors responded, their mean age was 46 ± 12.5 years, 543 (65%) were females, and 611 (73%) were white. Ninety-two donors (11%) had symptoms suggestive of a COVID-19 infection with fever (48%) and fatigue (43%) being the most common. Among those with symptoms, 42 donors underwent testing and 16 tested positive. Testing was more common among donors with private insurance, and a positive test result was more common among young black donors. Only one donor surveyed required hospitalization and none required dialysis. Fourteen donors have recovered completely and two partially. Our survey highlights that a COVID-19 infection in former donors results in a mild disease with good recovery. These data will be useful for transplant programs to counsel living donors who are considering kidney donation during this pandemic.
| S-EPMC7995102 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors is intended to assist medical professionals who evaluate living kidney donor candidates and provide care before, during and after donation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies that included critical appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations. However, many recommendations, for which there was no evidence or no systematic search for evidence was undertaken by the Evidence Review Team, were issued as ungraded expert opinion recommendations. The guideline work group concluded that a comprehensive approach to risk assessment should replace decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation. Original data analyses were undertaken to produce a "proof-in-concept" risk-prediction model for kidney failure to support a framework for quantitative risk assessment in the donor candidate evaluation and defensible shared decision making. This framework is grounded in the simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics. The processes and framework for the donor candidate evaluation are presented, along with recommendations for optimal care before, during, and after donation. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, especially regarding the lack of definitive prospective studies and clinical outcome trials. Suggestions for future research, including the need for continued refinement of long-term risk prediction and novel approaches to estimating donation-attributable risks, are also provided.In citing this document, the following format should be used: Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Living Kidney Donor Work Group. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors. Transplantation. 2017;101(Suppl 8S):S1-S109.
| S-EPMC5540357 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:No studies using a valid, standardized method to measure post-donation satisfaction levels among living kidney donors (LKDs) have been published. METHODS:Donor satisfaction levels were measured using the Japanese version of the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8 (CSQ-8), a validated, self-report questionnaire. To identify factors related to post-donation satisfaction levels, we compared donors' sociodemographic and psychological characteristics and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), using the Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), as well as recipients' clinical characteristics and SF-36 scores between donors with and without low satisfaction. In addition, donors' perceptions of the donation results and transplant procedure were assessed using measures that we developed. RESULTS:The mean (standard deviation [SD]) CSQ-8 score for the 195 participants was 26.9 (3.4). Twenty-nine (14.9%) respondents with total scores <?1 SD below the mean CSQ-8 score were placed into the low satisfaction group. Multiple logistic regression analysis demonstrated that lower perceptions of receiving adequate information prior to transplantation (odds ratio [OR]?=?0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI]?=?0.079-0.379; p <?0.001), lower optimism according to the Life Orientation Test (OR?=?1.24; 95% CI?=?1.045-1.470; p =?0.014), and increased serum creatinine levels in the paired recipient (OR?=?0.05; 95% CI?=?0.250-1.011; p =?0.054) independently increased the odds of having less satisfaction with donation. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings suggest that careful pre-donation education and more detailed informed consent may be needed, especially in LKDs with low constitutional optimism.
| S-EPMC6815382 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To prevent renal graft thrombosis in kidney transplantation, centres use different perioperative anticoagulant strategies, based on various risk factors. In our centre, patients transplanted preemptively are considered at increased risk of renal graft thrombosis compared to patients who are dialysis-dependent at time of transplantation. Therefore these patients are given a single dose of 5000 IU unfractionated heparin intraoperatively before clamping of the vessels. We questioned whether there is a difference in haemostatic state between preemptively and non-preemptively transplanted patients and whether the distinction in intraoperative heparin administration used in our center is justified. For this analysis, citrate samples of patients participating in the VAPOR-1 trial were used and several haemostatic and fibrinolytic parameters were measured in 29 preemptively and 28 non-preemptively transplanted patients and compared to 37 living kidney donors. Sample points were: induction anaesthesia (T1), 5 minutes after reperfusion (T2) and 2 hours postoperative (T3). At T1, recipient groups showed comparable elevated levels of platelet factor 4 (PF4, indicating platelet activation), prothrombin fragment F1+2 and D-dimer (indicating coagulation activation) and Von Willebrand Factor (indicating endothelial activation) compared to the donors. The Clot Lysis Time (CLT, a measure of fibrinolytic potential) was prolonged in both recipient groups compared to the donors. At T3, F1+2, PF4 and CLT were higher in non-preemptively transplanted recipients compared to preemptively transplanted recipients. Compared to donors, non-preemptive recipients showed a prolonged CLT, but comparable levels of PF4 and D-dimer. In conclusion pre-transplantation, preemptively and non-preemptively transplanted patients show a comparable enhanced haemostatic state. A distinction in intraoperative heparin administration between preemptive and non-preemptive transplantation does not seem justified.
| S-EPMC6047796 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRacial/ethnic disparities in living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) are large, and rates of LDKT may be limited by indirect costs of living donation. A 2019 Executive Order- Advancing American Kidney Health (AAKH)- sought to remove indirect costs through an expanded reimbursement program. We examine how potential living kidney donors in the U.S. believe regulation stemming from the AAKH initiative will impact their living donor evaluation likelihood, how these beliefs vary by minority race/ethnicity and prior willingness to be evaluated, and how differences are explained by ability to benefit or knowledge and attitudes.MethodsData from a 2019 online survey (Families of Renal Patients Survey) were used. Respondents are U.S. adult (> 18 years) members of the Qualtrics Survey Panel who reported having relatives with weak or failing kidneys (N = 590). Respondents' likelihood to be evaluated for living kidney donation are measured by self-report. Prior willingness is measured by past donation-related actions and current attitudes. Ability to benefit is measured by self-reported labor force participation and financial strain. Transplant knowledge is measured by self-report and a knowledge test, and transplant-related attitudes are measured by self-report. Average marginal effects of minority race/ethnicity and prior willingness for response to each provision in fully-adjusted models were estimated. Formal tests of mediation were conducted using the Karlson, Holm, and Breen (KHB) mediation model. Stata/MP 14.2 was used to conduct all analyses.ResultsMajorities of all groups report favorable responses to the provisions stipulated in AAKH regulation. Responses to provisions are significantly associated with race/ethnicity and prior willingness, with racial/ethnic minorities and those not previously willing to be evaluated less likely to report favorable responses to these provisions. Prior willingness differences are partially explained by group differences in ability to benefit and transplant-related knowledge and attitudes, but racial/ethnic differences largely are not.ConclusionsRegulation stemming from the AAKH initiative is likely to effectively promote LDKT, but may also exacerbate racial/ethnic disparities. Therefore, the regulation may need to be supplemented by efforts to address non-financial obstacles to LDKT in racial/ethnic minority communities in order to ensure equitable increases in LDKT rates and living donor support.
| S-EPMC8561865 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBest practice for prevention, diagnosis, and management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unknown due to limited published data in this population.ObjectivesWe aimed to assess current global practice and experience in management of COVID-19-associated coagulopathy to identify information to guide prospective and randomized studies.MethodsPhysicians were queried about their current approach to prophylaxis, diagnosis, and treatment of VTE in patients with COVID-19 using an online survey tool distributed through multiple international organizations between April 10 and 14, 2020.ResultsFive hundred fifteen physicians from 41 countries responded. The majority of respondents (78%) recommended prophylactic anticoagulation for all hospitalized patients with COVID-19, with most recommending use of low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin. Significant practice variation was found regarding the need for dose escalation of anticoagulation outside the setting of confirmed or suspected VTE. Respondents reported the use of bedside testing when unable to perform standard diagnostic imaging for diagnosis of VTE. Two hundred ninety-one respondents reported observing thrombotic complications in their patients, with 64% noting that the complication was pulmonary embolism. Of the 44% of respondents who estimated incidence of thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 in their hospital, estimates ranged widely from 1% to 50%. One hundred seventy-four respondents noted bleeding complications (34% minor bleeding, 14% clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, and 12% major bleeding).ConclusionWell-designed epidemiologic studies are urgently needed to understand the incidence and risk factors of VTE and bleeding complications in patients with COVID-19. Randomized clinical trials addressing use of anticoagulation are also needed.
| S-EPMC7361754 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In 2000, representatives of the transplant community convened for a meeting on living donation in an effort to provide recommendations to promote the welfare of living donors. One key recommendation included in the consensus statement was that all transplant centers which have performed living donor surgeries have an independent living donor advocate (ILDA) "whose only focus is on the best interest of the donor." The aims of this study were to begin to understand the sociodemographic characteristics, selection and training, and clinical practices of ILDAs. All US transplant centers performing living donor surgeries were contacted to identify the ILDA at their center. One hundred and twenty ILDAs completed an anonymous survey. Results indicated considerable variability with regard to the sociodemographic characteristics of ILDAs, how the ILDA was selected and trained, and the ILDAs' clinical practices, particularly ethical challenges encountered by ILDAs. The variability observed may result in differential selection of donors and could have a potential negative impact on the lives of both donors and transplant candidates. The variability in the background, training, and practice of ILDAs suggests the need for strategies, such as practice guidelines, to standardize the interaction between ILDAs and living donors.
| S-EPMC3409345 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) engaged an evidence review team and convened a work group to produce a guideline to evaluate and manage candidates for living kidney donation. The evidence for most guideline recommendations is sparse and many "ungraded" expert consensus recommendations were made to guide the donor candidate evaluation and care before, during, and after donation. The guideline advocates for replacing decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation with a comprehensive approach to risk assessment using the best available evidence. The approach to simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics advances a new framework for assessing donor candidate risk and for defensible shared decision making.
| S-EPMC5542788 | biostudies-other
Project description:Young women wishing to become living kidney donors frequently ask whether nephrectomy will affect their future pregnancies.We conducted a retrospective cohort study of living kidney donors involving 85 women (131 pregnancies after cohort entry) who were matched in a 1:6 ratio with 510 healthy nondonors from the general population (788 pregnancies after cohort entry). Kidney donations occurred between 1992 and 2009 in Ontario, Canada, with follow-up through linked health care databases until March 2013. Donors and nondonors were matched with respect to age, year of cohort entry, residency (urban or rural), income, number of pregnancies before cohort entry, and the time to the first pregnancy after cohort entry. The primary outcome was a hospital diagnosis of gestational hypertension or preeclampsia. Secondary outcomes were each component of the primary outcome examined separately and other maternal and fetal outcomes.Gestational hypertension or preeclampsia was more common among living kidney donors than among nondonors (occurring in 15 of 131 pregnancies [11%] vs. 38 of 788 pregnancies [5%]; odds ratio for donors, 2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 5.0; P=0.01). Each component of the primary outcome was also more common among donors (odds ratio, 2.5 for gestational hypertension and 2.4 for preeclampsia). There were no significant differences between donors and nondonors with respect to rates of preterm birth (8% and 7%, respectively) or low birth weight (6% and 4%, respectively). There were no reports of maternal death, stillbirth, or neonatal death among the donors. Most women had uncomplicated pregnancies after donation.Gestational hypertension or preeclampsia was more likely to be diagnosed in kidney donors than in matched nondonors with similar indicators of baseline health. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others.).
| S-EPMC4362716 | biostudies-literature