IMPORTANCE:

Patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) have the best chance for a longer and healthier life if they receive a kidney transplant. However, many barriers prevent patients from receiving a transplant.

OBJECTIVES:

To evaluate the effect of a multicomponent intervention designed to target several barriers that prevent eligible patients from completing key steps toward receiving a kidney transplant.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:

This pragmatic, 2-arm, parallel-group, open-label, registry-based, superiority, cluster randomized clinical trial included all 26 CKD programs in Ontario, Canada, from November 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. These programs provide care for patients with advanced CKD (patients approaching the need for dialysis or receiving maintenance dialysis).

INTERVENTIONS:

Using stratified, covariate-constrained randomization, allocation of the CKD programs at a 1:1 ratio was used to compare the multicomponent intervention vs usual care for 4.2 years. The intervention had 4 main components, (1) administrative support to establish local quality improvement teams; (2) transplant educational resources; (3) an initiative for transplant recipients and living donors to share stories and experiences; and (4) program-level performance reports and oversight by administrative leaders.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:

The primary outcome was the rate of steps completed toward receiving a kidney transplant. Each patient could complete up to 4 steps: step 1, referred to a transplant center for evaluation; step 2, had a potential living donor contact a transplant center for evaluation; step 3, added to the deceased donor waitlist; and step 4, received a transplant from a living or deceased donor.

RESULTS:

The 26 CKD programs (13 intervention, 13 usual care) during the trial period included 20 375 potentially transplant-eligible patients with advanced CKD (intervention group [n = 9780 patients], usual-care group [n = 10 595 patients]). Despite evidence of intervention uptake, the step completion rate did not significantly differ between the intervention vs usual-care groups: 5334 vs 5638 steps; 24.8 vs 24.1 steps per 100 patient-years; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.87-1.15).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:

This novel multicomponent intervention did not significantly increase the rate of completed steps toward receiving a kidney transplant. Improving access to transplantation remains a global priority that requires substantial effort.

TRIAL REGISTRATION:

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03329521.

We performed a systematic literature review of the psychological impact on donors of living kidney donation. We conducted a literature review in PubMed/Medline according to PRISMA guidelines which included both qualitative (based on interviews) and quantitative studies (based on standardized questionnaire). There were 15 quantitative studies and 8 qualitative studies with 2,732 donors. Given that the methodologies of qualitative and quantitative studies are fundamentally different, we narratively synthetized results of studies according to four axes: quality of life, anxiety/depression, consequences of donation on the donor/recipient relationship, overall satisfaction and regret. The quantitative studies reported that donor quality of life remained unchanged or improved. Donor regret rates were very low and donor-recipient relationships also remained unchanged or improved. Qualitative studies reported more complex donation experiences: one can regret donation and still decide to recommend it as in a social desirability bias. In both study types, donor-recipient relationships were closer but qualitative studies reported that post-donation rebonding was required. The qualitative studies therefore highlighted the psychological complexity of donation for donors, showing that living donation impacts the donor's life whether it is successful or not. A better understanding of the impact of donation on donors could provide better care for donors.

BACKGROUND:

Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the optimal treatment for eligible patients with kidney failure, although it is underutilized. Contextually tailored patient- and family-centered interventions may be effective to increase LDKT.

OBJECTIVE:

We outline a protocol to test the feasibility of the Multidisciplinary Support To Access living donor Kidney Transplant (MuST AKT) intervention designed to increase LDKT.

DESIGN:

Non-blinded single-center pilot randomized controlled trial with a qualitative interview component.

SETTING:

Academic transplant referral center in Northern Alberta Region with a population of more than 2 million in its catchment area.

PATIENTS:

English-speaking patients of the age range 18 to 75 years who are referred for kidney transplantation are eligible to participate.

MEASUREMENTS:

Feasibility will be assessed by indicators of recruitment, retention, and completion rates, treatment fidelity, adherence to intervention, engagement in intervention, and acceptability.

METHODS:

Participants will be randomly assigned 1:1 to either standard care (control) or the experimental group who receive standard care plus the MuST AKT intervention, a person-centered program designed to assist and enable the kidney transplant candidate to achieve what is required to receive an LDKT. The intervention consists of an introductory session and 4 intervention sessions delivered in-person or virtually.

LIMITATIONS:

Inferences cannot be drawn regarding the efficacy/effectiveness of the MuST AKT intervention. This study is non-blinded.

CONCLUSIONS:

This pilot study is the first step in our broader initiative to increase LDKT in our health care jurisdiction. The results of this study will be used to inform the development of a future definitive randomized controlled trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:

NCT04666545.

The transplant community has faced unprecedented challenges balancing risks of performing living donor transplants during the COVID-19 pandemic with harms of temporarily suspending these procedures. Decisions regarding postponement of living donation stem from its designation as an elective procedure, this despite that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services categorise transplant procedures as tier 3b (high medical urgency-do not postpone). In times of severe resource constraints, health systems may be operating under crisis or contingency standards of care. In this manuscript, the United Network for Organ Sharing Ethics Workgroup explores prioritisation of living donation where health systems operate under contingency standards of care and provide a framework with recommendations to the transplant community on how to approach living donation in these circumstances.To guide the transplant community in future decisions, this analysis suggests that: (1) living donor transplants represent an important option for individuals with end-stage liver and kidney disease and should not be suspended uniformly under contingency standards, (2) exposure risk to SARS-CoV-2 should be balanced with other risks, such as exposure risks at dialysis centres. Because many of these risks are not quantifiable, donors and recipients should be included in discussions on what constitutes acceptable risk, (3) transplant hospitals should strive to maintain a critical transplant workforce and avoid diverting expertise, which could negatively impact patient preparedness for transplant, (4) transplant hospitals should consider implementing protocols to ensure early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections and discuss these measures with donors and recipients in a process of shared decision-making.

BACKGROUND:

Recent studies have shown that donor nephrectomy can induce renal function impairment. However, few meta-analysis studies about this have proceeded. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis including all data of recent research studies was to determine whether living donor nephrectomy (LDN) could induce renal function impairment.

METHODS:

By November 2020, comprehensive literature searches were performed on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Inclusion criteria were: (1) observational studies with data about overall end-stage renal disease (ESRD) or chronic kidney disease (CKD) of living kidney donors, (2) control group consisted of people without donor nephrectomy, and (3) outcomes of studies included long-term end-stage renal disease risks after living kidney donation. Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool was used to evaluate our methodological quality.

RESULTS:

The qualitative review included 11 studies and the meta-analysis included 5 studies. In the meta-analysis, the integrated overall ESRD risk was 5.57 (95% CI: 2.03-15.30). Regarding the overall risk of bias using ROBINS-I assessment tool, 0 studies was rated as "Low", 7 studies were rated as "moderate", 2 studies were rated as "Serious", and two studies were rated as "Critical".

CONCLUSIONS:

Our study showed that LDN increased ESRD risk in LDN patients. However, in our meta-analysis, variables in included studies were not uniform and the number of included studies was small. To have a definite conclusion, meta-analyses of well-planned and detailed studies need to be conducted in the future.

OBJECTIVE:

Living kidney donors (LKDs) experience perioperative anxiety. We designed the following study to evaluate the anxiolytic effect of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) during the perioperative period in a group of LKDs undergoing laparotomy nephrectomy.

METHODS:

LKDs were randomly assigned to either the TEAS or control group. Participants in the TEAS group received 30min of intervention (6-15 mA, 2-100 Hz), at Yintang (EX-HN-3), bilateral Taichong (LR3) and Neiguan (PC6) one day before surgery (D0), before induction of anesthesia (D1) and one day after surgery (D2). The participants in the control group received the same placement of electrodes but without electrical stimulation. Venous blood was collected before each intervention. Anxiety levels and recovery profiles were recorded.

RESULTS:

LKDs in the TEAS group had lower anxiety level than those in the control group at D1, D2 and three days after surgery (D3). The percentage differences were: 33.3%, 25.0%, and 22.2%; [95% confidence interval (CI), (-55.1%, -11.6%), (-47.4%, -2.6%), and (-42.3%, -2.2%); P = 0.005, P = 0.034, and P = 0.035; respectively]. LKDs who received TEAS had better sleep quality and short-term recovery profiles than those in the control group. The plasma levels of 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) and melatonin (MT) in the TEAS group were significantly higher than those in the control group at D1 and D2 (5-HT: P = 0.001, and P < 0.001; MT: P = 0.006, and P = 0.001). At the 3-month follow up, fewer LKDs in the TEAS group had incisional pain when compared to the control group (P = 0.032).

CONCLUSIONS:

Perioperative TEAS decreased perioperative anxiety and facilitated postoperative recovery in the LKDs, and potential decreased the development of chronic pain. Trial Registration: Registered at ChiCTR2000029891, http://www.chictr.org.cn/listbycreater.aspx.

The objective of this study was to investigate reasons for or against anonymity that are pertinent to kidney paired donations (KPD). We conducted a systematic review of reasons using PubMed and Google Scholar until May 2022 and through snowballing. Inclusion criteria were publications that: 1) discussed organ donation anonymity; 2) was peer-reviewed; 3) presented at least one reason on anonymity. Exclusion criteria: 1) not published in a scientific journal; 2) grey literature and dissertations. Four researchers independently reviewed and selected papers based on the criteria, extracted text passages and coded them into narrow and broad reason types, selected reasons that were valid for kidney paired donations. 50 articles were included, 62 narrow reasons (n = 24 for; n = 38 against) and 13 broad reasons were coded. Broad reasons were: protection against harm, general benefits, gratitude, curiosity, unrealistic to implement, fundamental rights, respect people's wishes, professional neutrality, timing is important, information disclosure, altruism, reciprocity and donation pool. We did not find reasons that justify legal prohibition of donor-recipient interactions for KPD, if they consented to meet. Professional counselling, follow-up and careful evaluations to prevent potential harm.

BACKGROUND:

The UK's living-donor kidney transplant (LDKT) activity falls behind that of many other countries internationally, with less than 20% of those eligible receiving a LDKT each year. Certain individuals with kidney disease in the UK appear to be particularly disadvantaged in accessing a LDKT; the most socioeconomically deprived people with kidney disease are 60% less likely to receive a LDKT than the least deprived. Improving equity in living-donor kidney transplantation has been highlighted as an international research priority.

METHODS:

This feasibility trial was designed to determine the feasibility of delivery and acceptability of a multicomponent intervention designed to improve access to living-donor kidney transplantation. The intervention comprises three main components: (i) a meeting between a home educator and the transplant candidate for a dedicated discussion about living-donor kidney transplantation, living kidney donation and potential donors; (ii) a standardized letter from a healthcare professional to a candidate's potential donors and (iii) a home-based education and family engagement session including two home educators, the transplant candidate and their family. The primary objectives are to establish the feasibility (i) of delivering the developed intervention in existing care pathways and (ii) of undertaking a randomised controlled trial of the intervention. A mixed-methods parallel process evaluation will investigate the acceptability, implementation and mechanisms of impact of the intervention. The trial is based at two UK hospitals: a transplanting hospital and a non-transplanting referral hospital. Individuals are eligible if they are ≥ 18 years old, are active on the kidney transplant waiting list or have been referred for transplant listing and do not have a potential living-donor undergoing surgical assessment. Randomisation will be undertaken with concealed allocation. Participants will be randomly allocated 1:1 to (i) the intervention or (ii) usual care, stratified by site to ensure a balance in terms of local differences. Minimisation will be used to ensure balance in sex, age group and socioeconomic strata, with probability weighting of 0.8 in order to reduce predictability. The primary outcomes are recruitment (% of those eligible and invited who consent to randomisation) and retention (% of participants completing follow-up).

DISCUSSION:

Findings will inform the design of a future fully powered, randomised controlled trial to formally evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention at improving equitable access to living-donor kidney transplantation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION:

ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN10989132 Applied 30/10/20.

RATIONALE:

Family, and sometimes longstanding friends, have considerable influence over organ donation, through agreeing or disagreeing to the donation of a deceased individual's organs. To date, most research has been undertaken within opt-in systems.

OBJECTIVE:

This study advances on previous research by assessing next-of-kin approval under opt-out legislation. We tested whether next-of-kin approval varies when the deceased is a registered donor (opted-in), registered non-donor (opted-out) or has not registered a decision under an opt-out policy (deemed consent). We also tested if the deceased's wishes influenced next-of-kin approval through relatives anticipating regret for not donating and feelings of uncertainty. Finally, we assessed whether next-of-kin's own beliefs about organ donation influenced whether they followed the deceased's wishes.

METHODS:

Participants (N = 848) living in a country with opt-out legislation (Wales, UK) were asked to imagine a relative had died under an opt-out system and decided if their relatives' organs should be donated. Participants were randomly allocated to imagine the deceased had either (i) opted-in, (ii) opted-out or (iii) not registered a decision (deemed consent). The outcome variable was next-of-kin approval, with uncertainty and anticipated regret as potential mediators and next-of-kin's beliefs about organ donation as moderators.

RESULTS:

Next-of-kin approval was lower when the deceased had opted-out than under deemed consent. This was due to next-of-kin anticipating more regret for not donating under deemed consent than opt-out. Further analyses revealed the deceased's wishes influence next-of-kin approval, via anticipated regret, when next-of-kin did not hold negative beliefs about organ donation.

CONCLUSIONS:

The deceased's wishes were less likely to be followed when next-of-kin had negative beliefs towards donation. Developing large-scale campaigns to improve these beliefs in the general public should make people more likely to follow the deceased's wishes. As a result, these campaigns should improve the availability of donor organs.