Evaluating multiple living kidney donor candidates simultaneously is more cost-effective than sequentially.

When multiple living donor candidates come forward to donate a kidney to the same recipient, some living donor programs evaluate one candidate at a time to avoid unnecessary evaluations. Evaluating multiple candidates concurrently rather than sequentially may be cost-effective from a societal perspective if it reduces the time recipients spend on dialysis. We used a simple decision tree to estimate the cost-effectiveness of evaluating two to four candidates simultaneously rather than sequentially as potential kidney donors for the same intended recipient. Evaluating two donor candidates simultaneously cost $1,266 (CAD) more than if they were evaluated sequentially, but living donation occurred one month earlier. This translated into $6,931 in averted dialysis costs and a total cost-savings of $5,665 per intended recipient. Simultaneous evaluations also resulted in one percent more living donor transplants and overall gains in quality-of-life as recipients spent less time on dialysis. If recipients were free from dialysis at the start of donor candidate evaluations, simultaneous evaluations also reduced the rate of dialysis initiation by two percent. Benefits were also observed in the three- and four-candidate scenarios. Thus, living donor programs should consider evaluating up to four living donor candidates simultaneously when they come forward for the same recipient as health care system costs incurred are more than offset by avoided dialysis costs.

Potential implications of a more timely living kidney donor evaluation.

Living donor kidney transplantation is the most promising way to avoid or minimize the amount of time a recipient spends on dialysis before transplantation. We studied 887 living kidney donors at 5 transplant centers in Ontario, Canada, who started their evaluation and donated between April 2006 and March 2014. Using a series of hypothetical scenarios, we estimated the impact of an earlier living donor evaluation completion and donation on the number pre-emptive transplants, the time spent on dialysis, healthcare cost savings from averted dialysis costs (CAD $2016), and the number of additional transplants. During the study period, if the donor transplants occurred 3 months earlier, the healthcare system would save on average $12 055 (standard deviation [SD] $13 594) per recipient; 21 recipients could have avoided dialysis altogether, and 57 additional transplants (a 26% increase) could have occurred each year. For the 220 living kidney donor transplants performed in Ontario, Canada, each year, this translates to a total annual cost savings of $2.7M. In conclusion, a more timely evaluation of living donor candidates and their intended recipients may increase the supply of kidneys for transplantation. Improved evaluation efficiency may also yield more pre-emptive transplants and substantial healthcare cost savings through averted dialysis costs.

A RAND-Modified Delphi on Key Indicators to Measure the Efficiency of Living Kidney Donor Candidate Evaluations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Many patients, providers, and potential living donors perceive the living kidney donor evaluation process to be lengthy and difficult to navigate. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We sought consensus on key terms and process and outcome indicators that can be used to measure how efficiently a transplant center evaluates persons interested in becoming a living kidney donor. Using a RAND-modified Delphi method, 77 participants (kidney transplant recipients or recipient candidates, living kidney donors or donor candidates, health care providers, and health care administrators) completed an online survey to define the terms and indicators. The definitions were then further refined during an in-person meeting with ten stakeholders. RESULTS: We identified 16 process indicators (e.g., average time to evaluate a donor candidate), eight outcome indicators (e.g., annual number of preemptive living kidney donor transplants), and two measures that can be considered both process and outcome indicators (e.g., average number of times a candidate visited the transplant center for the evaluation). Transplant centers wishing to implement this set of indicators will require 22 unique data elements, all of which are either readily available or easily collected prospectively. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a set of indicators through a consensus-based approach that may be used to monitor and improve the performance of a transplant center in how efficiently it evaluates persons interested in becoming a living kidney donor.

Initiating Maintenance Dialysis Before Living Kidney Donor Transplantation When a Donor Candidate Evaluation Is Well Underway.

BACKGROUND: Preemptive kidney transplants result in better outcomes and patient experiences than transplantation after dialysis onset. It is unknown how often a person initiates maintenance dialysis before living kidney donor transplantation when their donor candidate evaluation is well underway. METHODS: Using healthcare databases, we retrospectively studied 478 living donor kidney transplants from 2004 to 2014 across 5 transplant centers in Ontario, Canada, where the recipients were not receiving dialysis when their donor's evaluation was well underway. We also explored some factors associated with a higher likelihood of dialysis initiation before transplant. RESULTS: A total of 167 (35%) of 478 persons with kidney failure initiated dialysis in a median of 9.7 months (25th-75th percentile, 5.4-18.7 months) after their donor candidate began their evaluation and received dialysis for a median of 8.8 months (3.6-16.9 months) before kidney transplantation. The total cohort's dialysis cost was CAD $8.1 million, and 44 (26%) of 167 recipients initiated their dialysis urgently in hospital. The median total donor evaluation time (time from evaluation start to donation) was 10.6 months (6.4-21.6 months) for preemptive transplants and 22.4 months (13.1-38.7 months) for donors whose recipients started dialysis before transplant. Recipients were more likely to start dialysis if their donor was female, nonwhite, lived in a lower-income neighborhood, and if the transplant center received the recipient referral later. CONCLUSION: One third of persons initiated dialysis before receiving their living kidney donor transplant, despite their donor's evaluation being well underway. Future studies should consider whether some of these events can be prevented by addressing inappropriate delays to improve patient outcomes and reduce healthcare costs.