VCA Deceased Donors in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Vascularized composite allograft (VCA) transplants include diverse organ types and are made possible primarily by deceased donors. METHODS: We used Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data to characterize VCA deceased donors (n = 66 of 70) in the United States from 1998 to 2017 and compare their characteristics with those of kidney donors in 2017. RESULTS: Through December 31, 2017, 20 transplant programs performed 72 deceased-donor VCA transplants, with organs donated by 70 donors, including 30 upper limb (17 unilateral and 13 bilateral) and 11 face donors. Other donors donated both upper limbs and face (n = 2), uterus (n = 4), abdominal wall (n = 19), larynx (n = 2), penis (n = 1), and scalp (n = 1). About a third of VCA donors were female, and the majority (86.4%) were white. Almost half (45.5%) were between the ages 18 and 34 years. Smaller proportions were younger than 18 years (19.7%), 35 to 44 years (15.2%), 45 to 54 years (13.6%), and older than 55 years (6.1%). Median body mass index for all VCA donors was 24.9 and varied widely, especially for upper limb and face donors. There was considerable variation in Kidney Donor Profile Index among VCA donors (median, 27.5; interquartile range, 11-59). Donor causes of death included head trauma (39.4%), cerebrovascular/stroke (25.8%), and anoxia (31.8%). VCA donors also donated solid organs that were transplanted, including 87.1% of kidneys, 93.9% of livers, 40.2% of lungs, and 56.1% of hearts. CONCLUSIONS: donors are a demographically and clinically diverse group. Understanding this diversity and future trends in VCA donor characteristics is critical in supporting this life-changing field of transplantation.

OPTN Vascularized Composite Allograft Waiting List: Current Status and Trends in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Vascularized composite allograft (VCA) transplantation is a developing area in the field of transplantation. METHODS: This study used Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) VCA waiting list and transplant data from July 3, 2014 through February 28, 2018, to characterize the OPTN VCA waiting list in terms of composition, removal patterns, waiting time, resulting transplants, and trends over time. RESULTS: Between implementation of the OPTN VCA waiting list on July 3, 2014 and February 28, 2018, 54 candidates-53.7% were male, 79.6% were white, and 70.4% aged 18 to 44 years-were added to the OPTN VCA waiting list. Of these, 22 received deceased donor VCA transplants (6 bilateral upper limb, 4 unilateral upper limb, 5 craniofacial, 1 scalp, 1 abdominal wall, 1 penile, and 4 uterine), and 6 received living donor uterine transplants. Registrations increased in 2016 after uterine and penile transplants were introduced in the United States, resulting in a large shift in the composition of the VCA waiting list. Waiting times for VCA candidates vary greatly, with some VCA candidates receiving deceased donor transplants quickly and others waiting more than 3 years before transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: The field of VCA transplantation and the composition of the OPTN VCA waiting list are evolving rapidly. Additional research is needed to understand these changes and investigate whether differences in need or differences in access have resulted in the variation seen on the VCA waiting list.

Risk of ESRD in prior living kidney donors.

We studied End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) in living kidney donors (LKDs) who donated in the United States between 1994 and 2016 (n = 123 526), using Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data. Two hundred eighteen LKDs developed ESRD, with a median of 11.1 years between donation and ESRD. Absolute 20-year risk was low but not uniform, with risk associated with race, age, and sex and increasing exponentially over time. LKDs had increased risk of ESRD if they were male (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.75, 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 1.33-2.31), had higher BMI (aHR: 1.34 per 5 kg/m2 , 95%CI: 1.10-1.64) or lower estimated GFR (aHR: 0.89 per 10 mL/min, 95% CI: 0.80-0.99), were first-degree relatives of the recipient (parent: [aHR: 2.01, 95% CI: 1.26-3.21]; full sibling [aHR: 1.87, 95%CI: 1.23-2.84]; identical twin [aHR: 19.79, 95%CI: 7.65-51.24]), or lived in lower socioeconomic status neighborhoods at donation (aHR: 0.87 per $10k increase; 95%CI: 0.77-0.99). We found a significant interaction between donation age and race, with higher risk at older ages for white LKDs (aHR: 1.26 per decade, 95%CI: 1.04-1.54), but higher risk at younger ages for black LKDs (aHR: 0.75 per decade, 95%CI: 0.57-0.99). These findings further inform risk assessment of potential LKDs.

Delays in Prior Living Kidney Donors Receiving Priority on the Transplant Waiting List.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Prior living donors (PLDs) receive very high priority on the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) kidney waiting list. Program delays in adding PLDs to the waiting list, setting their status to active, and submitting requests for PLD priority can affect timely access to transplantation. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We used the OPTN and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data to examine timing of (1) listing relative to start of dialysis, (2) activation on the waiting list, and (3) requests for PLD priority relative to listing date. There were 210 PLDs (221 registrations) added to the OPTN kidney waiting list between January 1, 2010 and July 31, 2015. RESULTS: As of September 4, 2015, 167 of the 210 PLDs received deceased donor transplants, six received living donor transplants, two died, five were too sick to transplant, and 29 were still waiting. Median waiting time to deceased donor transplant for PLDs was 98 days. Only 40.7% of 221 PLD registrations (n=90) were listed before they began dialysis; 68.3% were in inactive status for <90 days, 17.6% were in inactive status for 90-365 days, 8.6% were in inactive status for 1-2 years, and 5.4% were in inactive status for >2 years. Median time of PLDs waiting in active status before receiving PLD priority was 2 days (range =0-1450); 67.4% of PLDs received PLD priority within 7 days after activation, but 15.4% waited 8-30 days, 8.1% waited 1-3 months, 4.1% waited 3-12 months, and 5.0% waited >1 year in active status for PLD priority. After receiving priority, most were transplanted quickly. Median time in active status with PLD priority before deceased donor transplant was 23 days. CONCLUSIONS: Fewer than one half of listed PLDs were listed before starting dialysis. Most listed PLDs are immediately set to active status and receive PLD priority quickly, but a substantial number spends time in active status without PLD priority or a large amount of time in inactive status, which affects access to timely transplants.

Risk of end-stage renal disease following live kidney donation.

IMPORTANCE: Risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in kidney donors has been compared with risk faced by the general population, but the general population represents an unscreened, high-risk comparator. A comparison to similarly screened healthy nondonors would more properly estimate the sequelae of kidney donation. OBJECTIVES: To compare the risk of ESRD in kidney donors with that of a healthy cohort of nondonors who are at equally low risk of renal disease and free of contraindications to live donation and to stratify these comparisons by patient demographics. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of 96,217 kidney donors in the United States between April 1994 and November 2011 and a cohort of 20,024 participants of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) were linked to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data to ascertain development of ESRD, which was defined as the initiation of maintenance dialysis, placement on the waiting list, or receipt of a living or deceased donor kidney transplant, whichever was identified first. Maximum follow-up was 15.0 years; median follow-up was 7.6 years (interquartile range [IQR], 3.9-11.5 years) for kidney donors and 15.0 years (IQR, 13.7-15.0 years) for matched healthy nondonors. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Cumulative incidence and lifetime risk of ESRD. RESULTS: Among live donors, with median follow-up of 7.6 years (maximum, 15.0), ESRD developed in 99 individuals in a mean (SD) of 8.6 (3.6) years after donation. Among matched healthy nondonors, with median follow-up of 15.0 years (maximum, 15.0), ESRD developed in 36 nondonors in 10.7 (3.2) years, drawn from 17 ESRD events in the unmatched healthy nondonor pool of 9364. Estimated risk of ESRD at 15 years after donation was 30.8 per 10,000 (95% CI, 24.3-38.5) in kidney donors and 3.9 per 10,000 (95% CI, 0.8-8.9) in their matched healthy nondonor counterparts (P < .001). This difference was observed in both black and white individuals, with an estimated risk of 74.7 per 10,000 black donors (95% CI, 47.8-105.8) vs 23.9 per 10,000 black nondonors (95% CI, 1.6-62.4; P < .001) and an estimated risk of 22.7 per 10,000 white donors (95% CI, 15.6-30.1) vs 0.0 white nondonors (P < .001). Estimated lifetime risk of ESRD was 90 per 10,000 donors, 326 per 10,000 unscreened nondonors (general population), and 14 per 10,000 healthy nondonors. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Compared with matched healthy nondonors, kidney donors had an increased risk of ESRD over a median of 7.6 years; however, the magnitude of the absolute risk increase was small. These findings may help inform discussions with persons considering live kidney donation.

Living-donor follow-up attitudes and practices in U.S. kidney and liver donor programs.

BACKGROUND: Although U.S. transplantation programs must submit living-donor follow-up data through 2 years after donation, the submissions have high rates of incomplete or missing data. It is important to understand barriers programs face in collecting follow-up information. METHODS: Two hundred thirty-one programs performing living kidney donor (LKD) and/or living liver donor (LLD) transplantation were contacted to complete a survey about program attitudes concerning donor follow-up, follow-up practices, and barriers to success. RESULTS: Respondents representing 147 programs (111 with only LKD and 36 with both LKD and LLD) participated. Sixty-eight percent of LKD and 83% of LLD respondents said that achieving follow-up was a high priority. The majority agreed that donors should be followed at least 2 years (61% LKD programs and 73% LLD programs), and sizeable percentages (31% LKD and 37% LLD) endorsed 5 years of follow-up. However, approximately 40% of programs lost contact with more than 75% of their donors by 2 years after donation. Follow-up barriers included donors not wanting to return to the program (87%), out-of-date contact information (73%), and lack of program (54%) or donor (49%) reimbursement for follow-up costs. Whereas 92% of LKD and 96% of LLD programs inform potential donors about follow-up requirements, fewer (67% LKD and 78% LLD) develop plans with donors to achieve follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents agree that donor follow-up is important, but they report difficulty achieving it. Improvements may occur if programs work with donors to develop plans to achieve follow-up, programmatic standards are set for completeness in follow-up data reporting, and sufficient staff resources are available to ensure ongoing post-donation contact.

An analysis of the lack of donor pancreas utilization from younger adult organ donors.

Donor pancreas utilization rates for whole organ transplant have remained low and have decreased over time. To identify the reasons for nonuse of pancreas from donors who meet common baseline acceptance criteria, we examined Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data from 2005 to 2007 and identified a subgroup of 1763 "potential pancreas donors" defined by age (19-40 years), body mass index (<30 kg/m), successful liver donation, and negative viral serology testing, which were not used. We characterize this cohort of potential donors including reasons for refusal, factors that may contribute to pancreas acceptance and function, and potential explanations for the lack of growth in pancreas organ utilization.

Peer relations among adolescents with female same-sex parents.

This study examined associations among family type (same-sex vs. opposite-sex parents), adolescent gender, family and relationship variables, and the peer relations of adolescents. Participants included 44 adolescents parented by same-sex female couples and 44 adolescents parented by opposite-sex couples, matched on demographic characteristics and drawn from a national sample. On both self-reported and peer-reported measures of relations with peers, adolescents were functioning well, and the quality of their peer relations was not associated with family type. Regardless of family type, adolescents whose parents described closer relationships with them reported higher quality peer relations and more friends in school and were rated as more central in their friendship networks.

Delinquency, victimization, and substance use among adolescents with female same-sex parents.

The question of whether parental sexual orientation has an impact on human development has important implications for psychological theories and for legal policy. This study examined associations among family type (same-sex vs. different-sex parents), family and relationship variables, substance use, delinquency, and victimization of adolescents. Participants included 44 adolescents living with female same-sex couples and 44 adolescents living with different-sex couples, matched on demographic characteristics and drawn from a national sample. Analyses indicated that adolescents were functioning well and that their adjustment was not associated with family type. Adolescents whose parents described closer relationships with them reported less delinquent behavior and substance use, suggesting that the quality of parent-adolescent relationships better predicts adolescent outcomes than does family type.

Psychosocial adjustment, school outcomes, and romantic relationships of adolescents with same-sex parents.

This study examined associations among family type (same-sex vs. opposite-sex parents); family and relationship variables; and the psychosocial adjustment, school outcomes, and romantic attractions and behaviors of adolescents. Participants included 44 12- to 18-year-old adolescents parented by same-sex couples and 44 same-aged adolescents parented by opposite-sex couples, matched on demographic characteristics and drawn from a national sample. Normative analyses indicated that, on measures of psychosocial adjustment and school outcomes, adolescents were functioning well, and their adjustment was not generally associated with family type. Assessments of romantic relationships and sexual behavior were not associated with family type. Regardless of family type, adolescents whose parents described closer relationships with them reported better school adjustment.