BACKGROUND:

Kidney transplant (KT) recipients of HLA identical siblings (HLAid) have lower immunological risk, but there are no specific recommendations for immunosuppression. Our aim was to analyze evidence about results from HLAid living-donor recipients under different immunosuppression in the current era of immunological risk assessment.

METHODS:

Systematic review of studies describing associations between outcomes of HLAid living-donor KT recipients according to their immunological risk and applied immunosuppression.

RESULTS:

From 1351 studies, 16 (5636 KT recipients) were included in the analysis. All studies were retrospective, ten comparing immunosuppression strategies, and six immunological risk strata. Of those ten, six studies were published in 1990 or earlier and only three included tacrolimus. The evidence is poor, and the inclusion of calcineurin inhibitors does not demonstrate better results. Furthermore, only few studies describe different immunosuppression regimens according to the patient immunological risk and, in general, they do not include the assessment with new solid phase assays.

CONCLUSIONS:

There are no studies analyzing the association of outcomes of HLAid KT recipients with current immunological risk tools. In the absence of evidence, no decision or proposal of immunosuppression adapted to modern immunological risk assessment can be made currently by the Descartes Working Group.

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:

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.

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.

The clinical outcomes of kidney donors with a prior history of nephrolithiasis are poorly defined. We conducted a systematic review assessing the post-donation clinical outcomes of kidney donors with a history of nephrolithiasis. Electronic databases (Ovid and Embase) were searched between 1960 and 2021 using key terms and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) - nephrolithiasis, renal stones, renal transplantation and renal graft. Articles included conference proceedings and journal articles and were not excluded based on patient numbers. Primary outcome was donor stone-related event. Secondary outcomes were renal function upon follow-up or post-operative nephrectomy complications. In summary, 340 articles were identified through database search. We identified 14 studies (16 cohorts) comprising 432 live donors followed up for a median of 26 months post live kidney donation. Six donors donated the stone-free kidney whilst 23 live donors had bilateral stones. Mean stone size was 4.2 ± 1.4 mm (1-16) with average follow up duration of 21.1 months (1-149). Twelve studies provided primary outcome (n = 138 patients) and eight (n = 348) for secondary outcomes. One donor had a stone-related event upon follow up. A total of 195 patients had eGFR <60 upon follow up. However, they were not significantly different when compared to renal function of live donors that didn't have pre-donation nephrolithiasis. Many of the studies couldn't provide long term follow up, coupled with limited data regarding the nature of the pre-donation stone disease. In conclusion, this systematic review shows that we have very limited information upon which to base recommendation regarding pre-donation risk of post-donation complications. Longer term follow up is required and lifelong follow up with live donor registries will aid further understanding.

OBJECTIVES & BACKGROUND:

Anonymous live organ donors or unspecified donors are individuals willing to be organ donors for any transplant recipient with whom they have no biological or antecedent emotional relationship. Despite excellent recipient outcomes and the potential to help address organ scarcity, controversy surrounds the unconditional act of gifting one's organs to an unrelated recipient. This qualitative systematic review provides insights into the first-hand experiences, motivations, and challenges that unspecified donors face.

METHODS:

A systematic search was conducted on Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science database for qualitative literature regarding unspecified living donors' motivations and experiences in liver and kidney transplantation. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted to generate themes and supportive subthemes.

RESULTS:

12 studies were included. The four major themes were (i) motivations, (ii) perception of risks, (iii) donor support, and (iv) benefits of donation. Unspecified donors demonstrated a deep sense of social responsibility but tended to underestimate health risks in favour of benefits for recipients. Despite the lack of emotional support from family and friends, the decision to donate was a resolute personal decision for donors. Majority benefitted emotionally and did not express regret.

CONCLUSION:

This qualitative review bridges the gap in literature on unspecified living donor psychology and provides a comprehensive understanding of the decision-making matrix and experiences of donors.

As living liver transplantation has become a standard treatment method with a high success rate, many studies have investigated the experiences of living liver donors; however, their results have not been integrated. This qualitative meta-synthesis aimed to explore the life experiences of living liver donors to provide an in-depth understanding of meaningful common experiences. A comprehensive search on qualitative studies published in English or Korean was conducted in October 2021. The PRISMA statement was used for reporting each phase of the literature search, and MAXQDA2020 software was used for data analysis. Data synthesis was conducted using the three-step thematic synthesis method suggested by Thomas and Harden. Ten articles met the inclusion criteria. The analysis revealed five main themes: "Becoming an earnest donor," "Transitioning from a potential donor to an actual donor," "Difficulties in returning to normal life," "Re-examining the meaning of donation," and "Wishes for prospective donors." The study emphasizes that living liver donors need medical attention and intervention from multilateral perspectives as well as the need for systematic change in the society to enhance support for donors. This review provides comprehensive insights on how individuals became the living liver donor and the important aspects of living donation and other considerations in an integrated manner. Transplant teams, including nurses and coordinators, should have a comprehensive understanding of physical, psychological, and social experiences of donors ranging from decision-making to post donation health management.

Understanding and communicating the risk of pregnancy complications post-living kidney donation is imperative as the majority of living kidney donors (LKD) are women of childbearing age. We aimed to identify all original research articles examining complications in post-donation pregnancies and compared the quality and consistency of related guidelines. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, society webpages, and guideline registries for English-language publications published up until December 18, 2020. Ninety-three articles were screened from which 16 studies were identified, with a total of 1399 post-donation pregnancies. The outcome of interest, post-donation pregnancy complications, was not calculable, and only a narrative synthesis of the evidence was possible. The absolute risk of pre-eclampsia increased from ~1%-3% pre-donation (lower than the general population) to ~4%-10% post-donation (comparable to the general population). The risks of adverse fetal and neonatal outcomes were no different between post-donation and pre-donation pregnancies. Guidelines and consensus statements were consistent in stating the need to inform LKDs of their post-donation pregnancy risk, however, the depth and scope of this guidance were variable. While the absolute risk of pregnancy complications remains low post-donation, a concerted effort is required to better identify and individualize risk in these women, such that consent to donation is truly informed.

A safe, reproducible and standardized surgical technique for intestinal procurement and transplantation from a living donor (LD) was introduced in 1997 and has been used in the majority of cases since. The key principles are: 1. procurement of 180-200 cm of distal ileum in adults (about 60-150 cm in pediatric recipients depending on age and weight) on a vascular pedicle comprising the LD ileocolic vessels or terminal branches of the superior mesenteric vessels, 2. the terminal ileum (30-40 cm of the most distal ileum), the ileocecal valve and the cecum remain with the donor to not interfere with B12-absorption and bowel transit time, 3. systemic venous drainage with anastomoses between the LD ileocolic vessels and the recipient's infrarenal aorta and vena cava, and 4. restoration of recipient bowel continuity through proximal anastomosis and distal graft ileostomy for biopsy access and graft monitoring. Recipients of a successful LD intestinal transplant become total parenteral nutrition (TPN)-independent within a few weeks posttransplant. LD vs deceased donor (DD) intestinal transplants can be performed in a more timely fashion. Hence, LD (in contrast to DD) intestinal transplants are also pre-emptive procedures in patients with advanced, but still reversible, TPN-induced liver disease and help reduce the wait-list mortality for combined DD intestinal and liver transplants. Life-saving combined LD intestinal and liver transplants, albeit rare, have also been successfully performed either simultaneously or subsequently. There have been no reported deaths or major complications of living intestinal donors. A better metabolic profile has been reported in some donors post-donation. In total, 85 documented LD intestinal transplants have been performed worldwide at over 20 different transplant centers in 12 different countries. In about 70 transplants, the standardized technique was used. There has been no difference in outcome between LD vs DD intestinal transplants. Long-term studies have shown that > 10 year of graft function is not uncommon. Since the introduction of the standardized surgical technique, LD intestinal transplantation has evolved from an experimental to an established and standardized procedure.