Interpersonal Connections Are Important for Virtual Kidney Transplant Educational Program Development.

Introduction: The Living Donor Navigator program is designed to mitigate disparities in living donor kidney transplantation, although geographic disparities in program participation were observed in the initial years of implementation. The purpose of this study was to understand participant perspectives regarding the use of a virtual option/alternative to expand program participation. Methods: Previous participants of the in-person navigator program were purposively sampled. Using the nominal group technique, a well-structured formative methodology to elicit participant perspectives, 2 meetings were conducted among transplant recipients and advocates (N = 13) to identify and prioritize responses to the question "What things would concern you about participating in a virtual and remote Living Donor Navigator program?" Findings: Mean participant age was 59.3 (9.3) years, and participants were 54% male and 62% white. Education levels varied from less than high school to master's degrees. Participants generated 70 unique responses, of which 36 (51.4%) received prioritization. The top 5 ranked responses of each nominal group technique meeting received approximately 50 percent (47.6% vs. 66.7%, respectively) of the total votes and described the potentially limited interpersonal connections, time conflicts, and differing content in a virtual navigator program compared to the in-person model. Discussion: These data suggest that previous participants were concerned with upholding the original design of the program, thus, virtual living donor kidney transplantation programs should aim to maintain interpersonal connections and consistency of content to ensure adequate programmatic engagement. Future research will focus on program fidelity independent of delivery modality.

Greater community vulnerability is associated with poor living donor navigator program fidelity.

BACKGROUND: Community-level factors contribute to living donor kidney transplantation disparities but may also influence the interventions aimed to mitigate these disparities. The Living Donor Navigator Program was designed to separate the advocacy role from the patient in need of transplantation-friends/family are encouraged to participate as the patients' advocates to identify living donors, though some of the patients participate alone as self-advocates. Self-advocates have a lower living donor kidney transplantation likelihood compared to the patients with an advocate. We sought to evaluate the relationship between the patients' community-level vulnerability and living donor navigator self-advocacy as a surrogate for program fidelity. METHODS: This single-center, retrospective study included 110 Living Donor Navigator participants (April 2017-June 2019). Program fidelity was assessed using the participants' advocacy status. Measures of community vulnerability were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index. Modified Poisson regression was used to evaluate the association between community-level vulnerability and living donor navigator self-advocacy. RESULTS: Of the 110 participants, 19% (n = 21) were self-advocates. For every 10% increase in community-level vulnerability, patients had 17% higher risk of self-advocacy (adjusted relative risk 1.17, 95% confidence interval: 1.03-1.32, P = .01). Living in areas with greater unemployment (adjusted relative risk: 1.18, 95% confidence interval: 1.04-1.33, P = .01), single-parent households (adjusted relative risk: 1.23, 95% confidence interval: 1.06-1.42, P = .006), minority population (adjusted relative risk: 1.30, 95% confidence interval: 1.04-1.55, P = .02), or no-vehicle households (adjusted relative risk: 1.17, 95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.35, P = .02) were associated with increased risk of self-advocacy. CONCLUSION: Having a greater community-level vulnerability was associated with poor Living Donor Navigator Program fidelity. The potential barriers identified using the Social Vulnerability Index may direct resource allocation and program refinement to optimize program fidelity and efficacy for all participants.

Enhanced Advocacy and Health Systems Training Through Patient Navigation Increases Access to Living-donor Kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: To date, no living donation program has simultaneously addressed the needs of both transplant candidates and living donors by separating the advocacy role from the candidate and improving potential donor comfort with the evaluation process. We hypothesized that the development of a novel program designed to promote both advocacy and systems training among transplant candidates and their potential living kidney donors would result in sustained increases in living-donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). To this end, we developed and implemented a Living Donor Navigator (LDN) Program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. METHODS: We included adult patients awaiting kidney-only transplant in a retrospective cohort analysis. Using time-varying Cox proportional hazards regression, we explored likelihood of living donor screening and approval by participation in the LDN program. RESULTS: There were 56 LDN participants and 1948 nonparticipants (standard of care). LDN was associated with a 9-fold increased likelihood of living donor screenings (adjusted hazard ratio, 9.27; 95% confidence interval, 5.97-14.41, P < 0.001) and a 7-fold increased likelihood of having an approved living donor (adjusted hazard ratio, 7.74; 95% confidence interval, 3.54-16.93; P < 0.001) compared with the standard of care. Analyses by participant race demonstrated higher likelihood of screened donors and a similar likelihood of having an approved donor among African Americans compared with Caucasians. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that both advocacy and systems training are needed to increase actual LDKT rates, and that LDN programs may mitigate existing racial disparities in access to LDKT.

Donation approval among obese living kidney donor candidates: The impact of metabolic syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The scarcity of organs available for transplantation has increased attempts to augment transplantation by utilizing obese living kidney donors. The literature has suggested that these donors have increased risks postdonation. Not surprising, the threshold for living kidney donor approval among obese persons is typically higher and the process more costly. Therefore, a screening tool to predict the likelihood of approval among obese living kidney donor candidates was created. METHODS: A single-center retrospective study was performed among obese (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2) living kidney donor candidates evaluated in clinic (January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2017). Approved candidates were compared with those not approved using multivariable logistic regression, and a prediction tool was generated. RESULTS: Among 389 obese living kidney donor candidates, there were no significant differences in sex or race and ethnicity by approval status. However, nonapproved candidates had a higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome. In the prediction model, glucose impairment and hypertension were most predictive of nonapproval. CONCLUSION: Among obese living kidney donor candidates, several metabolic syndrome components were associated with decreased odds of approval. This tool may serve as a useful initial screening for obese living kidney donor candidates, permitting more cost-effective evaluation processes. The tool could also be used to promote expeditious interventions in the preclinical setting, including weight management programs, to improve the likelihood of donation and postdonation outcomes.

Mitigating Racial and Sex Disparities in Access to Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: Impact of the Nation's Longest Single-center Kidney Chain.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we sought to assess likelihood of living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) within a single-center kidney transplant waitlist, by race and sex, after implementation of an incompatible program. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Disparities in access to LDKT exist among minority women and may be partially explained by antigen sensitization secondary to prior pregnancies, transplants, or blood transfusions, creating difficulty finding compatible matches. To address these and other obstacles, an incompatible LDKT program, incorporating desensitization and kidney paired donation, was created at our institution. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed among our kidney transplant waitlist candidates (n = 8895). Multivariable Cox regression was utilized, comparing likelihood of LDKT before (era 1: 01/2007-01/2013) and after (era 2: 01/2013-11/2018) implementation of the incompatible program. Candidates were stratified by race [white vs minority (nonwhite)], sex, and breadth of sensitization. RESULTS: Program implementation resulted in the nation's longest single-center kidney chain, and likelihood of LDKT increased by 70% for whites [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.70; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.46-1.99] and more than 100% for minorities (aHR 2.05; 95% CI, 1.60-2.62). Improvement in access to LDKT was greatest among sensitized minority women [calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) 11%-49%: aHR 4.79; 95% CI, 2.27-10.11; cPRA 50%-100%: aHR 4.09; 95% CI, 1.89-8.82]. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an incompatible program, and the resulting nation's longest single-center kidney chain, mitigated disparities in access to LDKT among minorities, specifically sensitized women. Extrapolation of this success on a national level may further serve these vulnerable populations.

Population Health, Ethnicity, and Rate of Living Donor Kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Living donor kidney transplantation has declined in the United States since 2004, but the relationship between population characteristics and rate of living donation is unknown. The goal of our study was to use data on general population health and socioeconomic status to investigate the association with living donation. METHODS: This cross-sectional, ecological study used population health and socioeconomic status data from the CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to investigate the association with living donation. Transplant centers performing 10 or greater kidney transplants reported to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients in 2015 were included. Center rate of living donation was defined as the proportion of all kidney transplants performed at a center that were from living donors. RESULTS: In a linear mixed-effects model, a composite index of health and socioeconomic status factors was negatively associated with living donation, with a rate of living donation that was on average 7.3 percentage points lower among centers in areas with more comorbid disease and poorer socioeconomic status (95% confidence interval, -12.2 to -2.3, P = 0.004). Transplant centers in areas with higher prevalence of minorities had a rate of living donation that was 7.1 percentage points lower than centers with fewer minorities (95% confidence interval, -11.8 to -2.3, P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Center-level variation in living donation was associated with population characteristics and minority prevalence. Further examination of these factors in the context of patient and center-level barriers to living donation is warranted.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy as an alternative to traditional laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy.

The benefits of laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy (LDN) are well described, while similar data on hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy (HALDN) are lacking. We compare hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy with open donor nephrectomy. One hundred consecutive hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy (10/98-8/01) donor/recipient pairs were compared to 50 open donor nephrectomy pairs (8/97-1/00). Mean donor weights were similar (179.6 +/- 40.8 vs. 167.4 +/- 30.3 lb; p = NS), while donor age was greater among hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy (38.2 +/- 9.5 vs. 31.2 +/- 7.8 year; p < 0.01). Right nephrectomies was fewer in hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy [17/100 (17%) vs. 22/50 (44%); p < 0.05]. Operative time for hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy (3.9 +/- 0.7 vs. 2.9 +/- 0.5 h; p < 0.01) was longer; however, return to diet (6.9 +/- 2.8 vs. 25.6 +/- 6.1 h; p < 0.01), narcotics requirement (17.9 +/- 6.3 vs. 56.3 +/- 6.4h; p < 0.01) and length of stay (51.7 +/- 22.2 vs. 129.6 +/- 65.7 h; p < 0.01) were less than open donor nephrectomy. Costs were similar ($11072 vs. 10840). Graft function and 1-week Cr of 1.4 +/- 0.9 vs. 1.6 +/- 1.1 g/dL (p = NS) were similar. With the introduction of HALDN, our laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy program has increased by 20%. Thus, similar to traditional laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, hand-assisted laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy provides advantages over open donor nephrectomy without increasing costs.