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

Interest in anonymous nondirected living organ donation is increasing in the United States and a small number of transplantation centers are accumulating an experience regarding nondirected donation in living donor liver transplantation. Herein, we review current transplant policy, discuss emerging data, draw parallels from nondirected kidney donation, and examine relevant considerations in nondirected living liver donation. We aim to provide a consensus guidance to ensure safe evaluation and selection of nondirected living liver donors and a schema for just allocation of nondirected grafts.

OBJECTIVES:

To understand the barriers towards deceased organ donation among Indians living globally.

DESIGN:

Integrative systematic review using narrative synthesis.

DATA SOURCES:

CINAHL, Medline full-text, PsycInfo, Scopus, Global Health, Web of Science, and PubMed Central, Indian Journal of Transplantation and Google Scholar.

TIME PERIOD:

1 January 1994 to 31 December 2021.

PARTICIPANTS:

Individuals of Indian origin living globally.

RESULTS:

Eighty-nine studies were included with more than 29 000 participants and quality of the studies were assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal tool. Though majority of the participants had knowledge toward organ donation with a positive influence on willingness, the gap between knowledge and willingness was huge, with minimal registration influenced by the complex sociocultural constructs. Various sociocultural constructs such as family, fear and mistrust, religion, and bodily issues play a vital role. Differences were identified in willingness to donate and register between southern and other regions of India. Indian's organ donation behaviour in other geographical locations differed based on the socioreligious background of the country they lived in such as in Malaysia, Canada and the UK. However, they were collective in decision-making and had complex sociocultural interference irrespective of the country the individual lived which differed only in their next generations.

CONCLUSION:

Though this study showed the complex relationship, and its influences on organ donation behaviour, lacunae were identified to further understand how such complex interactions determine or inform the behaviour. Also, methodological issues were identified, where this particular population outside India were collectively studied with their neighbouring population which are not homogenous. Studies in India majorly addressed a similar aim using similar methods which produced repetition of studies leading to lack of diversified, wider and in-depth research. Therefore, while this systematic review addressed the barriers toward organ donation among Indians living globally, it also informs various gaps in research and also methodological issues.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:

CRD42019155274.

OBJECTIVE:

To identify and critically appraise risk prediction models for living donor solid organ transplant counselling.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:

We systematically reviewed articles describing the development or validation of prognostic risk prediction models about living donor solid organ (kidney and liver) transplantation indexed in Medline until April 4, 2021. Models were eligible if intended to predict, at transplant counselling, any outcome occurring after transplantation or donation in recipients or donors. Duplicate study selection, data extraction, assessment for risk of bias and quality of reporting was done using the CHARMS checklist, PRISMA recommendations, PROBAST tool, and TRIPOD Statement.

RESULTS:

We screened 4691 titles and included 49 studies describing 68 models (35 kidney, 33 liver transplantation). We identified 49 new risk prediction models and 19 external validations of existing models. Most models predicted recipients outcomes (n = 38, 75%), e.g., kidney graft loss (29%), or mortality of liver transplant recipients (55%). Many new models (n = 46, 94%) and external validations (n = 17, 89%) had a high risk of bias because of methodological weaknesses. The quality of reporting was generally poor.

CONCLUSION:

We advise against applying poorly developed, reported, or validated prediction models. Future studies could validate or update the few identified methodologically appropriate models.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS:

Living donor kidneys are considered the best quality organs. In the attempt to expand the donor pool, the donor's age, sex and body mass index (BMI) might be considered as potential determinants of the kidney transplant outcomes, and thus guide recipient selection. We aimed to investigate the effects of donor demographics on kidney function, graft and recipient survival, delayed graft function (DGF) and acute rejection (AR).

METHODS:

Systematic review and meta-analysis. EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, BIOSIS, CABI, SciELO and Cochrane were searched using algorithms. NHBLI tools were used for risk of bias assessment. Mean difference (MD), standardized mean difference (SMD), and risk ratio (RR) were calculated in Revman 5.4 RESULTS: Altogether, 5129 studies were identified by the search algorithm; 47 studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. No significant difference in recipient 1-year survival was found between recipients of donors aged < 50 vs donors aged > 50 (RR = 0.65 95% CI: 0.1-4.1), and recipients of donors aged < 60 vs donors aged > 60 (RR = 0.81 95% CI: 0.3-2.3). Graft survival was significantly higher in recipients of grafts from donors aged < 60. Risk of AR (RR = 0.62 95% CI: 0.5-0.8) and DGF (RR = 0.28 95% CI: 0.1-0.9) were significantly lower in recipients of grafts from donors aged < 60. One-year serum creatinine was significantly lower in recipients from donors aged < 60 years compared to donors aged > 60 years (MD = 0.3 mg/dl 95% CI: 0.1-0.9), although there was high heterogeneity. Recipients of grafts from male donors had lower 1-year serum creatinine (MD = 0.12 mg/dl 95% CI: 0.2-0.1) and higher eGFR compared to recipients of female donors (p < 0.00001). Donor obesity increased the incidence of delayed graft function but not acute rejection (RR = 0.66 95% CI: 0.32-1.34).

CONCLUSIONS:

Older donor age was associated with worse post-transplant outcomes and recipients of male donors had better 1-year eGFR. Donor obesity affects the incidence of delayed graft function, but not the incidence of acute rejection in recipients.

BACKGROUND:

Many patients who would benefit from a kidney transplant never receive one. The Enhance Access to Kidney Transplantation and Living Kidney Donation (EnAKT LKD) pragmatic, cluster-randomized clinical trial is testing whether a multi-component quality improvement intervention, provided in chronic kidney disease (CKD) programs (vs. usual care), can help patients with CKD with no recorded contraindications to kidney transplant complete more steps toward receiving a transplant (primary outcome of the trial). The EnAKT LKD intervention has 4 components: (1) quality Improvement teams and administrative support, (2) improved transplant education for patients and healthcare providers, (3) access to support and (4) program-level performance monitoring.

OBJECTIVE:

To conduct a process evaluation of the EnAKT LKD quality improvement intervention to determine if the components were delivered, received, and enacted as designed (fidelity), and if the intervention addressed intended barriers (mechanisms of change).

DESIGN:

A mixed-methods process evaluation informed by new practice implementation and theories of behavior change.

SETTING:

Chronic kidney disease programs in Ontario, Canada, began receiving the EnAKT LKD intervention on November 1, 2017 and will continue to receive it until December 31, 2021. The process evaluation (interviews and surveys) will occur alongside the trial, between December 2020 to May 2021.

PARTICIPANTS:

Healthcare providers (eg, dialysis nurses, nephrologists, members of the multi-care kidney clinic team) at Ontario's 27 CKD programs.

METHODS:

We will survey and interview healthcare providers at each CKD program, and complete an intervention implementation checklist. Quantitative data from the surveys and the intervention implementation checklist will assess fidelity to the intervention, while quantitative and qualitative data from surveys and interviews will provide insight into the mechanisms of change.

LIMITATIONS:

The long trial period may result in poor participant recall.

CONCLUSION:

This process evaluation will enhance interpretation of the trial findings, guide improvements in the intervention components, and inform future implementation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION:

Clinicaltrials.gov; identifier: NCT03329521.

Living kidney donation is associated with glomerular hyperfiltration, predisposing for the development of chronic kidney disease. The present meta-analysis aims to gather current evidence and clarify whether kidney donors are at increased risk of future pregnancy complications. Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, CENTRAL and Google Scholar were systematically searched from inception to August 29, 2021. Observational studies comparing the rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes among kidney donors and non-donors were selected. Random-effects models were fitted to provide meta-analysis estimates, while the quality of evidence was appraised with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Five studies were included, comprising 430 donors and 23,540 non-donors. Living kidney donation was associated with significantly higher risk of preeclampsia (OR: 2.86, 95% CI: 1.62-5.05, moderate quality of evidence), gestational hypertension (OR: 2.53, 95% CI: 1.11-5.74, low quality of evidence) and preterm birth (OR: 1.32, 95% CI: 1.01-1.74, moderate quality of evidence). The anticipated absolute rates of preeclampsia, gestational hypertension and preterm birth were 7.4%, 5.4% and 8.3%, respectively. The risk of gestational diabetes, cesarean delivery, low birthweight and fetal death was similar between the two groups (low quality of evidence). In conclusion, women with history of kidney donation are at significantly increased risk of preeclampsia, gestational hypertension and preterm birth in subsequent pregnancies, although the absolute rate of complications remains below 10%. Future studies should confirm these effects and improve potential donor counseling by individualizing the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes.

The 2017 version of the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guidelines is the most recent international framework for the evaluation and care of living kidneys donors. Along with the call for an integrative approach evaluating the long-term end-stage kidney disease risk for the future potential donor, several recommendations are formulated regarding the pre-donation glomerular filtration rate (GFR) adequacy with no or little consideration for the donor candidate's age or for the importance of using reference methods of GFR measurements. Herein, we question the position of the KDIGO guidelines and discuss the rationale and modalities for a more basic, but no less demanding GFR evaluation enabling a more efficient selection of potential kidney donors.

PURPOSE:

To present the response of the Israel National Transplantation Center (NTC) to the evolving challenge of COVID-19, the impact on deceased organ donation and living organ kidney donation during 2020, and resultant policy and ethical implications.

METHODS:

Data collected included (i) for deceased donors, the total number of potential organ donors, if hospitalized in ICU or general ward, cause of death, number of family authorizations and refusals, number of actual donors, number of organs transplanted/donor and total number of transplants performed; (ii) for living-kidney-donors (related or altruistic), the number of procedures performed; and (iii) the number of patients registered on the national organ waiting-list.

RESULTS:

Following the first case (February 2020), deceased organ donation continued uninterrupted. The total number of potential donors was similar to 2019 (181 vs. 189). However, the number of families approached for donation decreased significantly (P = 0.02). This may be attributed to COVID-19-imposed limitations including fewer brain death determinations due to limited possibilities for face-to-face donor coordinator-donor family interactions providing emotional support and visual explanations of the medical situation. Fewer donors were admitted to ICU (P = 0.1) and the number of organs retrieved/donor decreased (3.8/donor to 3.4/donor). The overall result was a decrease of 24.2% in the number of transplant procedures (306 vs. 232). Living kidney donation, initially halted, resumed in May and the total number of procedures increased compared to 2019 due to a significant increase in altruistic donations (P < 0.0001), while the number of related-living donations decreased.

CONCLUSION:

This study of organ donation during a crisis has informed the introduction of policy changes in the NTC including the necessity to mobilize rapidly a "war room", the use of innovative virtual tools for contact-less communication, and the importance of cooperation with hospital authorities in allocating scarce health-care resources. Finally, the pandemic highlighted and intensified ethical considerations, such as under what circumstances living kidney donation be continued in the face of uncertainty, and what information to provide to altruistic donors regarding a prospective recipient, in particular whether all options for related living donation have been exhausted. These should be addressed now.