Executive summary of the KDIGO 2024 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease: known knowns and known unknowns.

The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) updates the KDIGO 2012 guideline and has been developed with patient partners, clinicians, and researchers around the world, using robust methodology. This update, based on a substantially broader base of evidence than has previously been available, reflects an exciting time in nephrology. New therapies and strategies have been tested in large and diverse populations that help to inform care; however, this guideline is not intended for people receiving dialysis nor those who have a kidney transplant. The document is sensitive to international considerations, CKD across the lifespan, and discusses special considerations in implementation. The scope includes chapters dedicated to the evaluation and risk assessment of people with CKD, management to delay CKD progression and its complications, medication management and drug stewardship in CKD, and optimal models of CKD care. Treatment approaches and actionable guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies and appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations which followed the "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation" (GRADE) approach. The limitations of the evidence are discussed. The guideline also provides practice points, which serve to direct clinical care or activities for which a systematic review was not conducted, and it includes useful infographics and describes an important research agenda for the future. It targets a broad audience of people with CKD and their healthcare, while being mindful of implications for policy and payment.

Challenges in the management of the kidney allograft: from decline to failure: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference.

In March 2022, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) held a virtual Controversies Conference to address the important but rarely examined phase during which the kidney transplant is failing or has failed. In addition to discussing the definition of a failing allograft, 4 broad areas were considered in the context of a declining functioning graft: prognosis and kidney failure trajectory; immunosuppression strategies; management of medical and psychological complications, and patient factors; and choice of kidney replacement therapy or supportive care following graft loss. Identifying and paying special attention to individuals with failing allografts was felt to be important in order to prepare patients psychologically, manage immunosuppression, address complications, prepare for dialysis and/or retransplantation, and transition to supportive care. Accurate prognostication tools, although not yet widely available, were embraced as necessary to define allograft survival trajectories and the likelihood of allograft failure. The decision of whether to withdraw or continue immunosuppression after allograft failure was deemed to be based most appropriately on risk-benefit analysis and likelihood of retransplantation within a few months. Psychological preparation and support was identified as a critical factor in patient adjustment to graft failure, as was early communication. Several models of care were noted that enabled a medically supportive transition back to dialysis or retransplantation. Emphasis was placed on the importance of dialysis-access readiness before initiation of dialysis, in order to avoid use of central venous catheters. The centrality of the patient to all management decisions and discussions was deemed to be paramount. Patient "activation," which can be defined as engaged agency, was seen as the most effective way to achieve success. Unresolved controversies, gaps in knowledge, and areas for research were also stressed in the conference deliberations.

OPTN/SRTR 2021 Annual Data Report: Heart.

The past 5 years have posed challenges to the field of heart transplantation. The 2018 heart allocation policy revision was accompanied by anticipated practice adjustments and increased use of short-term circulatory support, changes that may ultimately serve to advance the field. The COVID-19 pandemic also had an impact on heart transplantation. While the number of heart transplants in the United States continued to increase, the number of new candidates decreased slightly during the pandemic. There were slightly more deaths following removal from the waiting list for reasons other than transplant during 2020, and a decline in transplants among candidates listed as status 1, 2, or 3 compared with the other statuses. Heart transplant rates decreased among pediatric candidates, most notably among those younger than 1 year. Despite this, pretransplant mortality has declined for both pediatric and adult candidates, particularly candidates younger than 1 year. Transplant rates have increased in adults. The prevalence of ventricular assist device use has increased among pediatric heart transplant recipients, while the prevalence of short-term mechanical circulatory support, particularly intra-aortic balloon pump and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, has increased among adult recipients.

OPTN/SRTR 2021 Annual Data Report: Liver.

In 2021, liver transplant volume continued to grow, with a record 9,234 transplants performed in the United States, 8,665 (93.8%) from deceased donors and 569 (6.2%) from living donors. There were 8,733 (94.6%) adult and 501 (5.4%) pediatric liver transplant recipients. An increase in the number of deceased donor livers corresponded to an increase in the overall transplant rate and shorter waiting times, although still 10.0% of livers that were recovered were not transplanted. Alcohol-associated liver disease was the leading indication for both waitlist registration and liver transplant in adults, outpacing nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, while biliary atresia remained the leading indication for children. Related to allocation policy changes implemented in 2019, the proportion of liver transplants performed for hepatocellular carcinoma has decreased. Among adult candidates listed for liver transplant in 2020, 37.7% received a deceased donor liver transplant within 3 months, 43.8% within 6 months, and 53.3% within 1 year. Pretransplant mortality improved for children following implementation of acuity circle-based distribution. Short-term graft and patient survival outcomes up to 1 year worsened for adult deceased and living donor liver transplant recipients, which is a reversal of previous trends and coincided with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020. Longer-term outcomes among adult deceased donor liver transplant recipients were unaffected, with overall posttransplant mortality rates of 13.3% at 3 years, 18.6% at 5 years, and 35.9% at 10 years. Pretransplant mortality improved for children following implementation of acuity circle-based distribution and prioritization of pediatric donors to pediatric recipients in 2020. Pediatric living donor recipients had superior graft and patient survival outcomes compared with deceased donor recipients at all time points.

Stakeholders' perspectives on transplant metrics: the 2022 Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients' consensus conference.

In July 2022, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) hosted an innovative, multistakeholder consensus conference to identify information and metrics desired by stakeholders in the transplantation system, including patients, living donors, caregivers, deceased donor family members, transplant professionals, organ procurement organization professionals, payers, and regulators. Crucially, patients, caregivers, living donors, and deceased donor family members were included in all aspects of this conference, including serving on the planning committee, participating in preconference focus groups and learning sessions, speaking at the conference, moderating conference sessions and breakout groups, and shaping the conclusions. Patients constituted 24% of the meeting participants. In this report, we document the proceedings and enumerate 160 recommendations, 10 of which have been highly prioritized. SRTR will use the recommendations to develop new presentations of information and metrics requested by stakeholders to support informed decision-making.

Factors enabling transplant program participation in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) Living Donor Collective: A national survey.

BACKGROUND: The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) Living Donor Collective (LDC), the first effort to create a lifetime registry for living donor candidates in the United States, requires transplant programs to register donor candidates while the SRTR conducts follow-up. METHODS: To better understand facilitators and barriers to program participation, we conducted a brief electronic survey of U.S. transplant program staff from October 26, 2021 to December 17, 2021. RESULTS: We received 132 responses, with at least one response from 87 living donor programs (46 kidney programs, 33 kidney and liver programs, and eight liver programs alone). We found 86% of program representatives strongly agreed or agreed that funding adequate to cover the cost of data collection would facilitate LDC participation, 92% agreed or strongly agreed with importance of electronic data submission options, and 74% reported that elimination of requirements to submit duplicative pre-operative information to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) would be helpful. Other potentially enabling factors include reduction in duration of OPTN postdonation follow-up requirements, ease-of-use, protection from data use for regulation, adequate data security, and equity in data access. CONCLUSION: This survey identifies potential targets to strengthen participation in the effort to create a national living donor registry in the United States. Collaboration and investment to overcome barriers to LDC participation among transplant programs are vital to generate long-term data on living donation for donor candidates, donors, and patients in need of transplant.

Transplant program evaluations in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Potential regional variations in effects of COVID-19 on federally mandated, program-specific evaluations by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) have been controversial. SRTR January 2022 program evaluations ended transplant follow-up on March 12, 2020, and excluded transplants performed from March 13, 2020 to June 12, 2020 (the "carve-out"). This study examined the carve-out's impact, and the effect of additionally censoring COVID-19 deaths, on first-year posttransplant outcomes for transplants from July 2018 through December 2020. Program-specific hazard ratios (HRs) for graft failure and death estimated under two alternative scenarios were compared with published HRs: (1) the carve-out was removed; (2) the carve-out was retained, but deaths due to COVID-19 were additionally censored. The HRs estimated by censoring COVID-19 deaths were highly correlated with those estimated with the carve-out alone (r2  = .96). Removal of the carve-out resulted in greater variation in HRs while remaining highly correlated (r2  = .82); however, little geographic impact of the carve-out was observed. The carve-out increased average HR in the Northwest by 0.049; carve-out plus censoring reduced average HR in the Midwest by 0.009. Other regions of the country were not significantly affected. Thus, the current COVID-19 carve-out does not appear to impart substantial bias based on the region of the country.

Cancer risk in living kidney donors.

Living kidney donors are screened for transmissible diseases including cancer. Outcomes following donation are excellent, but concern exists regarding development of chronic kidney disease, and cancer risk is unknown. We used linked transplant and cancer registry data to identify incident cancers among 84,357 kidney donors in the United States (1995-2017). We compared risk with the general population using standardized incidence ratios (SIRs). For selected cancers, we used Poisson regression to compare donors with 47,451 Adventist Health Study 2 (AHS-2) participants, who typically have healthy lifestyles. During follow-up, 2843 cancers were diagnosed in donors, representing an overall deficit (SIR 0.79, 95%CI 0.76-0.82). None of 46 specified cancer sites occurred in excess relative to the general population, and 15 showed significant deficits (SIR < 1.00). Compared with AHS-2 participants, donors had similar incidence of liver cancer, melanoma, breast cancer, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma but, starting 7 years after donation, elevated incidence of colorectal cancer (adjusted incidence rate ratio 2.07, 95%CI 1.54-2.79) and kidney cancer (2.97, 1.58-5.58, accounting for the presence of a single kidney in donors). Elevated kidney cancer incidence may reflect adverse processes in donors' remaining kidney. Nonetheless, cancer risk is lower than in the general population, suggesting that enhanced screening is unnecessary.

The Effect of Acuity Circles on Deceased Donor Transplant and Offer Rates Across Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Scores and Exception Statuses.

Acuity circles (AC), the new liver allocation system, was implemented on February 4, 2020. Difference-in-differences analyses estimated the effect of AC on adjusted deceased donor transplant and offer rates across Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease (PELD) and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) categories and types of exception statuses. The offer rates were the number of first offers, top 5 offers, and top 10 offers on the match run per person-year. Each analysis adjusted for candidate characteristics and only used active candidate time on the waiting list. The before-AC period was February 4, 2019, to February 3, 2020, and the after-AC period was February 4, 2020, to February 3, 2021. Candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 to 32 and PELD/MELD scores 33 to 36 had higher transplant rates than candidates with PELD/MELD scores 15 to 28 after AC compared with before AC (transplant rate ratios: PELD/MELD scores 29-32, 2.34 3.324.71 ; PELD/MELD scores 33-36, 1.70 2.513.71 ). Candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 or higher had higher offer rates than candidates with PELD/MELD scores 15 to 28, and candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 to 32 had the largest difference (offer rate ratios [ORR]: first offers, 2.77 3.955.63 ; top 5 offers, 3.90 4.394.95 ; top 10 offers, 4.85 5.305.80 ). Candidates with exceptions had lower offer rates than candidates without exceptions for offers in the top 5 (ORR: hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC], 0.68 0.770.88 ; non-HCC, 0.73 0.810.89 ) and top 10 (ORR: HCC, 0.59 0.650.71 ; non-HCC, 0.69 0.750.81 ). Recipients with PELD/MELD scores 15 to 28 and an HCC exception received a larger proportion of donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors after AC than before AC, although the differences in the liver donor risk index were comparatively small. Thus, candidates with PELD/MELD scores 29 to 34 and no exceptions had better access to transplant after AC, and donor quality did not notably change beyond the proportion of DCD donors.

Toward continuous improvement of Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients performance reporting: Advances following 2012 consensus conference and future consensus building for 2022 consensus conference.

The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) held a consensus conference in 2012 that examined methods used by SRTR for constructing performance metrics and made recommendations on how to improve program-specific reports. That consensus conference provided 25 recommendations categorized as follows: statistical methods, risk adjustment, and outcomes and data. During the subsequent decade, SRTR has implemented most of these recommendations; these are described in this article along with plans for another consensus conference in 2022. With the present article, SRTR aims to create transparency in the field of transplant metrics and guide discussion in the planning of the next consensus conference in 2022. The new conference will revisit the previous topics and have a broader focus to improve the metrics and information that SRTR provides. Readers can provide feedback on topics to be discussed at the next consensus conference as early as possible, by emailing srtr@srtr.org with the subject line "Task 5 Public Comment."

The need for integrated clinical and administrative data models for risk adjustment in assessment of the cost transplant care.

INTRODUCTION: Value-based purchasing requires accurate techniques to appropriately measure both outcomes and cost with robust adjustment for differences in severity of illness. Traditional methods to adjust cost estimates have exclusively used administrative data derived from billing claims to identify comorbidity and complications. Transplantation uniquely has accurate national clinical registry data that can be used to supplement administrative data. METHODS: Administrative claims from the Vizient, Inc, Clinical Data Base (CDB) were linked with clinical records from the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients for 76 liver and 109 kidney transplant programs. Using either or both datasets, we fitted a regression model to the total direct cost of care for 16,649 kidney and 6058 liver transplants. RESULTS: The proportion of variation explained by these risk-adjustment models increased significantly when combined administrative and clinical data were used for kidney (administrative only R2 = .069, clinical only R2 = .047, combined R2 = .14, p < .0001) and liver (administrative only R2 = .28, clinical only R2 = .25, combined R2 = .33, p < .0001). CONCLUSION: Incorporating accurate clinical data into risk-adjustment methodologies can improve risk adjustment methodologies; however, as majority of variation in cost remains unexplained by these risk-adjustment models further work is needed to accuracy assess transplant value.

Mortality among solid organ waitlist candidates during COVID-19 in the United States.

We examined the effects of COVID-19 on solid organ waiting list mortality in the United States and compared effects across patient demographics (e.g., race, age, and sex) and donation service areas. Three separate piecewise exponential survival models estimated for each solid organ the overall, demographic-specific, and donation service area-specific differences in the hazard of waitlist mortality before and after the national emergency declaration on March 13, 2020. Kidney waiting list mortality was higher after than before the national emergency (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.37; 95% CI, 1.23-1.52). The hazard of waitlist mortality was not significantly different before and after COVID-19 for liver (aHR, 0.94), pancreas (aHR, 1.01), lung (aHR, 1.00), and heart (aHR, 0.94). Kidney candidates had notable variability in differences across donation service areas (aHRs, New York City, 2.52; New Jersey, 1.84; and Michigan, 1.56). The only demographic group with increased waiting list mortality were Blacks versus Whites (aHR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.07-1.86) for kidney candidates. The first 10 weeks after the declaration of a national emergency had a heterogeneous effect on waitlist mortality rate, varying by geography and ethnicity. This heterogeneity will complicate comparisons of transplant program performance during COVID-19.

i-IFTA and chronic active T cell-mediated rejection: A tale of 2 (DeKAF) cohorts.

Inflammation in areas of fibrosis (i-IFTA) in posttransplant biopsies is part of the diagnostic criteria for chronic active TCMR (CA TCMR -- i-IFTA ≥ 2, ti ≥ 2, t ≥ 2). We evaluated i-IFTA and CA TCMR in the DeKAF indication biopsy cohorts: prospective (n = 585, mean time to biopsy = 1.7 years); cross-sectional (n = 458, mean time to biopsy = 7.8 years). Grouped by i-IFTA scores, the 3-year postbiopsy DC-GS is similar across cohorts. Although a previous acute rejection episode (AR) was more common in those with i-IFTA on biopsy, the majority of those with i-IFTA had not had previous AR. There was no association between type of previous AR (AMR, TCMR) and presence of i-IFTA. In both cohorts, i-IFTA was associated with markers of both cellular (increased Banff i, t, ti) and humoral (increased g, ptc, C4d, DSA) activity. Biopsies with i-IFTA = 1 and i-IFTA ≥ 2 with concurrent t ≥ 2 and ti ≥ 2 had similar DC-GS. These results suggest that (a) i-IFTA≥1 should be considered a threshold for diagnoses incorporating i-IFTA, ti, and t; (b) given that i-IFTA ≥ 2,t ≥ 2, ti ≥ 2 can occur in the absence of preceding TCMR and that the component histologic scores (i-IFTA,t,ti) each indicate an acute change (albeit i-IFTA on the nonspecific background of IFTA), the diagnostic category "CA TCMR" should be reconsidered.

A New Panel-Estimated GFR, Including ß2-Microglobulin and ß-Trace Protein and Not Including Race, Developed in a Diverse Population.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimation based on creatinine and cystatin C (eGFRcr-cys) is more accurate than estimated GFR (eGFR) based on creatinine or cystatin C alone (eGFRcr or eGFRcys, respectively), but the inclusion of creatinine in eGFRcr-cys requires specification of a person's race. ß2-Microglobulin (B2M) and ß-trace protein (BTP) are alternative filtration markers that appear to be less influenced by race than creatinine is. STUDY DESIGN: Study of diagnostic test accuracy. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Development in a pooled population of 7 studies with 5,017 participants with and without chronic kidney disease. External validation in a pooled population of 7 other studies with 2,245 participants. TESTS COMPARED: Panel eGFR using B2M and BTP in addition to cystatin C (3-marker panel) or creatinine and cystatin C (4-marker panel) with and without age and sex or race. OUTCOMES: GFR measured as the urinary clearance of iothalamate, plasma clearance of iohexol, or plasma clearance of [51Cr]EDTA. RESULTS: Mean measured GFRs were 58.1 and 83.2 mL/min/1.73 m2, and the proportions of Black participants were 38.6% and 24.0%, in the development and validation populations, respectively. In development, addition of age and sex improved the performance of all equations compared with equations without age and sex, but addition of race did not further improve the performance. In validation, the 4-marker panels were more accurate than the 3-marker panels (P < 0.001). The 3-marker panel without race was more accurate than eGFRcys (percentage of estimates greater than 30% different from measured GFR [1 - P30] of 15.6% vs 17.4%; P = 0.01), and the 4-marker panel without race was as accurate as eGFRcr-cys (1 - P30 of 8.6% vs 9.4%; P = 0.2). Results were generally consistent across subgroups. LIMITATIONS: No representation of participants with severe comorbid illness and from geographic areas outside of North America and Europe. CONCLUSIONS: The 4-marker panel eGFR is as accurate as eGFRcr-cys without requiring specification of race. A more accurate race-free eGFR could be an important advance.

Incidence, risk factors, treatment, and consequences of antibody-mediated kidney transplant rejection: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) is a leading cause of kidney allograft failure, but its incidence, risk factors, and outcomes are not well understood. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Scopus from January 2000 to January 2020 to identify published cohorts of ≥500 incident adult or 75 pediatric kidney transplant recipients followed for ≥1 year post-transplant. RESULTS: At least two reviewers screened 5061 articles and abstracts; 28 met inclusion criteria. Incidence of acute AMR was 1.1%-21.5%; most studies reported 3%-12% incidence, usually within the first year post-transplant. Few studies reported chronic AMR incidence, from 7.5%-20.1% up to 10 years. Almost all patients with acute or chronic AMR received corticosteroids and intravenous immunoglobulin; most received plasmapheresis, and approximately half with rituximab. Most studies examining death-censored graft failure identified AMR as an independent risk factor. Few reported refractory AMR rates or outcomes, and none examined costs. Most studies were single-center and varied greatly in design. CONCLUSIONS: Cohort studies of kidney transplant recipients demonstrate that AMR is common and associated with increased risk of death-censored graft failure, but studies vary widely regarding populations, definitions, and reported incidence. Gaps remain in our understanding of refractory AMR, its costs, and resulting quality of life.

Incidence, risk factors, and long-term outcomes associated with antibody-mediated rejection - The long-term Deterioration of Kidney Allograft Function (DeKAF) prospective cohort study.

Major gaps remain in our understanding of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) after kidney transplant. We examined the incidence, risk factors, response to treatment, and effects on outcomes of AMR at seven transplant programs in the long-term Deterioration of Kidney Allograft Function prospective study cohort. Among 3131 kidney recipients, there were 194 observed AMR cases (6.2%) during (mean ± SD) 4.85 ± 1.86 years of follow-up. Time to AMR was 0.97 ± 1.17 (median, 0.48) years. Risk factors for AMR included younger recipient age, human leukocyte antigen DR mismatches, panel-reactive antibody >0%, positive T- or B-cell cross-match, and delayed graft function. Compared with no AMR, the adjusted time-dependent hazard ratio for death-censored graft failure is 10.1 (95% confidence interval, 6.5-15.7) for all AMR patients, 4.0 (2.5, 9.1) for early AMR (<90 days after transplant), and 24.0 (14.0-41.1) for late AMR (≥90 days after transplant). Patients were treated with different therapeutic combinations. Of 194 kidney transplant recipients with AMR, 50 (25.8%) did not respond to treatment, defined as second AMR within 100 days or no improvement in estimated glomerular filtration rate by 42 days. Long-term outcomes after AMR are poor, regardless of the initial response to treatment. Better prevention and new therapeutic strategies are needed to improve long-term allograft survival.

Outcomes of living liver donor candidate evaluations in the Living Donor Collective pilot registry.

BACKGROUND: To gather information on long-term outcomes after living donation, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) conducted a pilot on the feasibility of establishing a comprehensive donor candidate registry. METHODS: A convenience sample of 6 US living liver donor programs evaluated 398 consecutive donor candidates in 2018, ending with the March 12, 2020, COVID-19 emergency. RESULTS: For 333/398 (83.7%), the donor or program decided whether to donate; 166/333 (49.8%) were approved, and 167/333 (50.2%) were not or opted out. Approval rates varied by program, from 27.0% to 63.3% (median, 46%; intraquartile range, 37.3-51.1%). Of those approved, 90.4% were white, 57.2% were women, 83.1% were < 50 years, and 85.5% had more than a high school education. Of 167 candidates, 131 (78.4%) were not approved or opted out because of: medical risk (10.7%); chronic liver disease risk (11.5%); psychosocial reasons (5.3%); candidate declined (6.1%); anatomical reasons increasing recipient risk (26.0%); recipient-related reasons (33.6%); finances (1.5%); or other (5.3%). CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive national registry is feasible and necessary to better understand candidate selection and long-term outcomes. As a result, the US Health Resources and Services Administration asked SRTR to expand the pilot to include all US living donor programs.

Designing a patient-specific search of transplant program performance and outcomes: Feedback from heart transplant candidates and recipients.

BACKGROUND: The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients provides transplant program-specific information, but it is unclear what patients and stakeholders need to know. Acceptance criteria for the candidate waitlist and donor organs vary by program and region, but there is no means to search for programs by the clinical profiles of recipients and donors. METHODS: We examined variability in program-specific characteristics that could influence access to transplantation. We also conducted three interviews and three focus groups with heart transplant candidates and recipients. Participants evaluated prototypes of a patient-specific search tool and its capacity to identify programs tailored to specific patient needs. Patient experiences and feedback influenced the development of tools. RESULTS: The distribution of recipient and donor characteristics influenced access to transplantation, as age and body mass index varied across programs (all with p < .01). Several themes emerged related to decision-making and the perceived usability of the patient-specific search. Perceptions of the prototypes varied, but were positive overall and support making the patient-specific search publicly available. Participants revealed barriers to evaluating transplant programs and suggest that patient-specific search results may optimize the process. CONCLUSIONS: The patient-specific tool (http://transplantcentersearch.org/) is valued by heart transplant patients and is important to maximizing access to transplant.

A prospective controlled study of metabolic and physiologic effects of kidney donation suggests that donors retain stable kidney function over the first nine years.

While there have been numerous studies of living kidney donors, most have been retrospective without suitable controls and have yielded conflicting results. To clarify this we studied 205 living donor candidates and 203 controls having no medical conditions precluding donation. Before and at six months, one, two, three, six, and nine years after donation we measured iohexol glomerular filtration rate, clinic blood pressure, urine protein excretion and metabolic parameters reported to be affected by kidney function. We measured 24 hour ambulatory blood pressure at three, six, and nine years and at six and nine years blood pressure after treadmill exercise, carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity and arterial elasticity. Between six months and nine years, the mean (95% confidence interval) change in glomerular filtration rate was significantly different among 133 donors 0·02 (-0·16-0·20) mL/min/1·73m2/year versus -1·26 (-1·52--1·00) mL/min/1·73m2/year in 113 healthy controls. Blood pressure, urine protein, urine albumin, glucose, hemoglobin A1c, insulin, and lipoproteins were not different in controls versus donors; but parathyroid hormone, homocysteine and uric acid remained higher at nine years. At six and nine years carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity was not different, but the mean small artery elasticity was significantly lower in 141 donors 6·1 mL/mmHg x100, versus 113 controls 7·1 mL/mmHg x100, and 6·1 mL/mmHg x100 in 137 donors versus 7·6 mL/mmHg x100 in 112 controls at six and nine years, respectively [significant adjusted difference of 1·1 mL/mmHg x100]. Thus, donors remain healthy with stable kidney function for the first nine years, but differences in metabolic and vascular parameters could be harbingers of adverse outcomes requiring future interventions.

Posttransplant outcome assessments at listing: Long-term outcomes are more important than short-term outcomes.

Posttransplant outcome assessments are publicly reported for patient and regulatory use. However, the currently reported 1-year posttransplant graft survival assessments are commonly criticized for not identifying clinically meaningful differences between programs, and not providing information about longer-term posttransplant outcomes. We investigated the association of different posttransplant outcome assessments available to patients at the time of listing with subsequent posttransplant graft survival. The posttransplant assessments were from period prevalent, rather than incident, cohorts with more timely 1-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up and 6-, 12-, 18-, 24-, and 30-month cohort windows. The association of these assessments at listing with subsequent posttransplant graft survival included candidates listed between July 12, 2011, and December 15, 2015, who subsequently underwent transplant before December 31, 2018. The assessments with 1-year follow-up had uniformly weaker associations than the assessments with 3- and 5-year follow-up. The assessments with 5-year follow-up had the strongest association in kidney and liver transplantation. For kidney, liver, and lung transplantation, assessment windows of at least 18 months typically had the strongest associations with subsequent graft survival. Posttransplant assessments with 5-year follow-up and 18-30-month cohort windows are better than the current posttransplant assessment with 1-year follow-up, particularly at the time of listing.