Why Altruistic Organ Donations Are Not Meeting Demands.

Solid-organ transplantation remains the optimal therapeutic option for end-stage organ disease. Altruistic donation represents the ultimate sign of generosity and the most important gift of life. Currently, <10% of the global needs for transplant are fulfilled. Organ shortages result from an inability to provide an adequate organ supply to match demands. The recently observed stagnation in living kidney donations in the United States is related to a drop in all types of organ donations from living related donors, which has been paralleled with a steady and continuous increase in all living unrelated donations. Some forms of living unrelated donation represent a financially driven survival system within which wealthy recipients exploit poor donors. Low rates of altruistic donation are related to cultural barriers, religious obstacles, fear, and consequent distrust in the system. The low rate indicates a state of lack of societal solidarity, a consequence of the state of subconsciousness at the individual and collective levels that humanity is living in. Human domestication, the conditioning process that humans go through since birth and the primary facilitator of this subconscious state, is guarded through familial, social, cultural, religious, political, and mass media organizations, which are all under the influence of the monetary establishment. Acquired beliefs, mainly during the domestication process, influence our perception of the environment, our values, and ultimately our way of life. Unfortunately, this conditioning process is negatively enforced, leading to a stressful state. The powerful subconscious mind places humans in a permanent survival mode, resulting in loss of intelligence, indispensable for well-being and happiness. Altruistic donation requires a close cooperation between all parties involved in the donation process and necessitates a positive reprograming of our subconscious based on sharing, generosity, satisfaction, gratitude, trust, inner peace, and ultimately happiness, well-known constituents of unconditional love, which represents the peak of consciousness.

Organ Donation in Syria.

The first living donor kidney transplant in Syria was performed 44 years ago; by the end of 2022, 6265 renal transplants had been performed in Syria. Kidney, bone marrow, cornea, and stem cells are the only organs or tissues that can be transplanted in Syria. Although 3 heart transplants from deceased donors were performed in the late 1980s, cardiac transplant activities have since discontinued. In 2003, national Syrian legislation was enacted authorizing the use of organs from living unrelated and deceased donors. This important law was preceded by another big stride: the acceptance by the higher Islamic religious authorities in Syria in 2001 of the principle of procurement of organs from deceased donors, provided that consent is given by a first- or second-degree relative. After the law was enacted, kidney transplant rates increased from 7 per million population in 2002 to 17 per million population in 2007. Kidney transplants performed abroad for Syrian patients declined from 25% in 2002 to <2% in 2007. Rates plateaued through 2010, before the political crisis started in 2011. Forty-four years after the first successful kidney transplant in Syria, patients needing an organ transplant rely on living donors only. Moreover, 20 years after the law authorizing use of organs from deceased donors, a program is still not in place in Syria. The war, limited resources, and lack of public awareness about the importance of organ donation and transplant appear to be factors inhibiting initiation of a deceased donor program in Syria. A concerted and ongoing education campaign is needed to increase awareness of organ donation, change negative public attitudes, and gain societal acceptance. Every effort must be made to initiate a deceased donor program to lessen the burden on living donors and to enable national self-sufficiency in organs for transplant.

Public Opinions on Removing Disincentives and Introducing Incentives for Organ Donation: Proposing a European Research Agenda.

The shortage of organs for transplantations is increasing in Europe as well as globally. Many initiatives to the organ shortage, such as opt-out systems for deceased donation and expanding living donation, have been insufficient to meet the rising demand for organs. In recurrent discussions on how to reduce organ shortage, financial incentives and removal of disincentives, have been proposed to stimulate living organ donation and increase the pool of available donor organs. It is important to understand not only the ethical acceptability of (dis)incentives for organ donation, but also its societal acceptance. In this review, we propose a research agenda to help guide future empirical studies on public preferences in Europe towards the removal of disincentives and introduction of incentives for organ donation. We first present a systematic literature review on public opinions concerning (financial) (dis)incentives for organ donation in European countries. Next, we describe the results of a randomized survey experiment conducted in the United States. This experiment is crucial because it suggests that societal support for incentivizing organ donation depends on the specific features and institutional design of the proposed incentive scheme. We conclude by proposing this experiment's framework as a blueprint for European research on this topic.

Expanding the access to kidney transplantation: Strategies for kidney transplant programs.

Kidney transplantation is the most successful kidney replacement therapy available, resulting in improved recipient survival and societal cost savings. Yet, nearly 70 years after the first successful kidney transplant, there are still numerous barriers and untapped opportunities that constrain the access to transplant. The literature describing these barriers is extensive, but the practices and processes to solve them are less clear. Solutions must be multidisciplinary and be the product of strong partnerships among patients, their networks, health care providers, and transplant programs. Transparency in the referral, evaluation, and listing process as well as organ selection are paramount to build such partnerships. Providing early culturally congruent and patient-centered education as well as maximizing the use of local resources to facilitate the transplant work up should be prioritized. Every opportunity to facilitate pre-emptive kidney transplantation and living donation must be taken. Promoting the use of telemedicine and kidney paired donation as standards of care can positively impact the work up completion and maximize the chances of a living donor kidney transplant.

Outcomes and Cost Comparison of 3 Different Laparoscopic Approach for Living Donor Nephrectomy: A Retrospective, Single-Center, Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Analysis of 551 Cases.

BACKGROUND: At our institution, we switched from hand-assisted retroperitoneal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HRN) to hand-assisted transperitoneal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HTN); we later switched to standard retroperitoneal laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (SRN). This study was performed to evaluate outcomes and hospital costs among the 3 techniques. METHODS: This retrospective, observational, single-center, inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis study compared the outcomes among 551 cases of living donor kidney transplantation between 2014 and 2022. RESULTS: After the inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis, there were 114 cases in the HRN group, 204 cases in the HTN group, and 213 cases in the SRN group. Donor complication rates were lowest in the SRN group but did not differ between the HRN and HTN groups (1.1 vs 4.4 and 5.9%, P = .021). Donors in the SRN group had the lowest serum C-reactive protein concentrations on postoperative day 1 (4.3 vs 10.5 and 7.8 mg/dL, P < .001) and the shortest postoperative stay (4.3 vs 7.4 and 8.4 days, P < .001). Donors in the SRN group had the lowest total cost among the 3 groups (8868 vs 9709 and 10,592 USD, P < .0001). Donors in the SRN group also had the lowest costs in terms of "basic medical fees," "medication and injection fees," "Intraoperative drug and material costs," and "testing fees." Furthermore, the presence of complications was significantly correlated with higher total hospital costs (P < .001). CONCLUSION: SRN appeared to have the least invasive and complication, and a potential cost savings compared with the HRN and HTN.

Incidental findings during donor liver assessment: Single center experience.

Intraoperative consultation of donor liver is an important part of transplant evaluation and determination of liver eligibility. In this study, we describe incidental pathologic findings discovered during the pretransplant evaluation of liver donors in our Institution from 1/2010 to 12/2022. During this 13-year period 369 intraoperative consultations from 262 liver donors were performed. Of those cases, incidental findings were identified in 22 cases (5.9 %) from 19 donors (7.3 %); two donors had more than one lesion. The median age of this subset of patients was 53 years (range: 18-70) and females predominated (63 %). Sixteen of the donors had abnormal findings in the liver: 6 bile duct hamartoma (BDH), 5 hyalinized nodule with Histoplasma capsulatum, 5 focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH), 2 bile duct adenomas (BDA), 1 biliary cyst and 1 hemangioma. One donor had both FNH and a BDH. One BDH and 1 BDA case was misdiagnosed as malignancy during the frozen section evaluation. Three donors had extrahepatic pathologies: a pancreatic tail schwannoma, a low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm, and a lymph node with metastatic endometrial endometrioid adenocarcinoma. Of the 19 livers, the final organ disposition was available for 9: 6 were transplanted (67 %) and 3 were discarded (33 %). Two of the 3 discarded organs were misdiagnosed BDH and BDA cases, and one was incorrectly reported as having 90 % microvesicular steatosis during the frozen assessment. We present the clinicopathologic characteristics of liver donors with incidental findings during the pre-transplant evaluation which could lead to unwarranted graft dismissal if misdiagnosed. Additionally, incidental fungal infections can have implications for immunosuppressive therapy and the decision to use or reject the graft.

Improving Health Equity in Living Donor Kidney Transplant: Application of an Implementation Science Framework.

BACKGROUND: Interventions to improve racial equity in access to living donor kidney transplants (LDKT) have focused primarily on patients, ignoring the contributions of clinicians, transplant centers, and health system factors. Obtaining access to LDKT is a complex, multi-step process involving patients, their families, clinicians, and health system functions. An implementation science framework can help elucidate multi-level barriers to achieving racial equity in LDKT and guide the implementation of interventions targeted at all levels. METHODS: We adopted the Pragmatic Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM), an implementation science framework for racial equity in LDKT. The purpose was to provide a guide for assessment, inform intervention design, and support planning for the implementation of interventions. RESULTS: We applied 4 main PRISM domains to racial equity in LDKT: Organizational Characteristics, Program Components, External Environment, and Patient Characteristics. We specified elements within each domain that consider perspectives of the health system, transplant center, clinical staff, and patients. CONCLUSION: The applied PRISM framework provides a foundation for the examination of multi-level influences across the entirety of LDKT care. Researchers, quality improvement staff, and clinicians can use the applied PRISM framework to guide the assessment of inequities, support collaborative intervention development, monitor intervention implementation, and inform resource allocation to improve equity in access to LDKT.

Navigating Living Kidney Donation and Transplantation Among South Asian Canadians: The ACTION Project.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: South Asian (SA) Canadians with kidney failure have a 50%-77% lower likelihood of kidney transplant and are less likely to identify potential living donors (LDs). This study aimed to identify health system-, patient-, and community-level barriers and facilitators for accessing LD kidney transplantation in the SA community to inform the development of health system- and community-level interventions to address barriers. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 20 SA recipients of an LD or deceased-donor kidney transplant, 10 SA LDs, and 41 general SA community members. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: In-depth multilingual interviews were conducted with recipients and LDs. Gender-, language-, and age-stratified focus groups were conducted with general SA community members. Summative content analysis was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Hesitancy in approaching potential donors, fear about the health of potential LDs, information gaps, language barriers, and challenges evaluating out-of-country donors were highlighted as significant barriers by recipients, and financial concerns and information gaps were identified by donors. Cultural barriers in the SA community were highlighted by donors, recipients, and community members as critical factors when considering donation and transplant; women and elderly SA Canadians highlighted nuanced challenges. Participants reported generally a favorable perception of their health care teams, citing SA representation in the teams as important to providing culturally and linguistically sensitive care. LIMITATIONS: Limited geographic, race, and cultural representation and reliance on virtual data collection. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights several culturally relevant barriers to donation and transplant that are potentially modifiable through patient-, health system-, and community-focused engagement and education.

Reviewing Racial Disparities in Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: a Socioecological Approach.

Despite kidney transplantation having superior outcomes to dialytic therapies, disparities continue to exist among rates of kidney transplantation between Black and non-Hispanic White patients, which cannot be explained by differences in individual characteristics. To better evaluate the persistent Black/White disparities in living kidney transplantation, we review the extant literature and include the critical factors and recent development in living kidney transplantation in the socioecological approach. We also emphasize the potential vertical and hierarchical associations among factors in the socioecological model. Specifically, this review explores the possibility that the relatively low living kidney transplantation among Blacks may be a consequence of individual, interpersonal, and structural inequalities in various social and cultural dimensions. At the individual level, the Black/White differences in socioeconomic conditions and transplant knowledge may account for the low transplantation rates among Blacks. Interpersonally, the relatively weak social support and poor communication between Black patients and their providers may contribute to disparities. At the structural level, the race-based glomerular filtration rate (GFR) calculation that is widely used to screen Black donors is a barrier to receiving living kidney transplantation. This factor is directly related to structural racism in the health care system but its potential impact on living donor transplantation is underexplored. Finally, this literature review emphasizes the current perspective that a race-free GFR should be considered and a multidisciplinary and interprofessional perspective is necessary to devise strategies and interventions to reduce the Black/White disparities in living donor kidney transplantation in the U.S.

Assessment of large droplet fat in frozen sections of donor liver biopsies: utility and interobserver variability of the newly described Banff method compared to a simplified Average of Fields method.

AIMS: There is great variability in the assessment and reporting of fat in frozen sections of donor liver biopsies. The Banff Working Group has proposed a novel method and definition for scoring large droplet fat (LDF) in donor liver biopsies. This study compares the Banff method with a simpler Average of Fields (AF) method and evaluates the impact of different LDF definitions. METHODS: Three pathologists assessed percentage of LDF (LDF%) in 10 donor liver biopsies using Banff and AF methods, applying the Banff LDF definition (cell distention with a single droplet larger than adjacent hepatocytes). Additionally, LDF% by the AF method was compared using two LDF definitions: Banff definition versus LDF definition 2 (single fat droplet occupying greater than half of a hepatocyte with nuclear displacement). RESULTS: Intraobserver concordance between the Banff and AF methods was similar for all three pathologists (kappa 0.76-1). Both methods exhibited 70% interobserver concordance, and there was substantial agreement (kappa 0.68) in the LDF% among the three pathologists for both methods. Comparing the two LDF definitions, results were significantly lower with the Banff definition; LDF >50% was observed in four cases with LDF definition 2 but none of the cases with the Banff definition. CONCLUSIONS: There is high interobserver and intraobserver concordance of LDF% between the Banff and AF methods. LDF% determined by the Banff definition was lower than with LDF definition 2, and needs to be validated based on graft outcome before it can be recommended for clinical use.

Post-transplant outcomes and financial burden of donation after circulatory death donor liver transplant after the implementation of acuity circle policy.

BACKGROUND: After implementation of the Acuity Circles (AC) allocation policy, use of DCD liver grafts has increased in the United States. METHODS: We evaluated the impact of AC on rates of DCD-liver transplants (LT), their outcomes, and medical costs in a single practice. Adult LT patients were classified into three eras: Era 1 (pre-AC, 1/01/2015-12/31/2017); Era 2 (late pre-AC era, 1/01/2018-02/03/2020); and Era 3 (AC era, 05/10/2020-09/30/2021). RESULTS: A total of 520 eligible LTs were performed; 87 were DCD, and 433 were DBD. With each successive era, the proportion of DCD increased (Era 1: 11%; Era 2: 20%; Era 3: 24%; p < .001). DCD recipients had longer ICU stays, higher re-admission/re-operation rates, and higher incidence of ischemic cholangiopathy compared to those with DBD. Direct, surgical, and ICU costs during first admission were higher with DCD than DBD (+8.0%, p < .001; +4.2%, p < .001; and +33.3%, p = .001). DCD-related costs increased after Era 1 (Direct: +4.9% [Era 2 vs. 1] and +12.4% [Era 3 vs. 1], p = .04; Surgical: +17.7% and +21.7%, p < .001). In the AC era, there was a significantly higher proportion of donors ≥50 years, and more national organ sharing. Compared to DCD from donors <50 years, DCD from donors ≥50 years was associated with significantly higher total direct, surgical, and ICU costs (+12.6%, p = .01; +9.5%, p = .01; +84.6%, p = .03). CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of DCD-LT, especially from older donors, has increased after the implementation of AC policies. These changes are likely to be associated with higher costs in the AC era.

Improved assessment of donor liver steatosis using Banff consensus recommendations and deep learning algorithms.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The Banff Liver Working Group recently published consensus recommendations for steatosis assessment in donor liver biopsy, but few studies reported their use and no automated deep-learning algorithms based on the proposed criteria have been developed so far. We evaluated Banff recommendations on a large monocentric series of donor liver needle biopsies by comparing pathologists' scores with those generated by convolutional neural networks (CNNs) we specifically developed for automated steatosis assessment. METHODS: We retrospectively retrieved 292 allograft liver needle biopsies collected between January 2016 and January 2020 and performed steatosis assessment using a former intra-institution method (pre-Banff method) and the newly introduced Banff recommendations. Scores provided by pathologists and CNN models were then compared, and the degree of agreement was measured with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Regarding the pre-Banff method, poor agreement was observed between the pathologist and CNN models for small droplet macrovesicular steatosis (ICC: 0.38), large droplet macrovesicular steatosis (ICC: 0.08), and the final combined score (ICC: 0.16) evaluation, but none of these reached statistically significance. Interestingly, significantly improved agreement was observed using the Banff approach: ICC was 0.93 for the low-power score (p <0.001), 0.89 for the high-power score (p <0.001), and 0.93 for the final score (p <0.001). Comparing the pre-Banff method with the Banff approach on the same biopsy, pathologist and CNN model assessment showed a mean (±SD) percentage of discrepancy of 26.89 (±22.16) and 1.20 (±5.58), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the use of Banff recommendations in daily practice and highlight the need for a granular analysis of their effect on liver transplantation outcomes. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: We developed and validated the first automated deep-learning algorithms for standardized steatosis assessment based on the Banff Liver Working Group consensus recommendations. Our algorithm provides an unbiased automated evaluation of steatosis, which will lay the groundwork for granular analysis of steatosis's short- and long-term effects on organ viability, enabling the identification of clinically relevant steatosis cut-offs for donor organ acceptance. Implementing our algorithm in daily clinical practice will allow for a more efficient and safe allocation of donor organs, improving the post-transplant outcomes of patients.

Bariatric surgery in prospective obese living kidney donors: scoping review and management decision algorithm.

INTRODUCTION: Global chronic kidney disease is now epidemic, with substantial health and economic consequences. While scientific support for living donor renal transplants (LDRT) is strong, donor shortages necessitate consideration of expanded criteria, including obese individuals. Bariatric surgery (BS) may mitigate obesity-related risks, but research on living donor candidates is scarce. Our scoping review aims to compile evidence, identify gaps, and formulate an algorithm to guide healthcare professionals in evaluating BS for obese living donors. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We did a systematic search of studies on living kidney donors and obesity. We searched the MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, CENTRAL and Web of Science databases for studies from database inception to March 30, 2023. All English-language articles available in full text have been considered. Excluded are commentaries, editorials, letters, and abstracts. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Obesity in LDRT raises long-term ESRD risk. Current high BMI donor admission raises ethical and clinical concerns. Encouraging timely weight loss can make obese candidates suitable donors, reducing risks. Sleeve gastrectomy is the most reported and preferable approach, since it minimizes hyperoxaluria risk. Re-evaluation for donation is possible 6-12 months post-BS, with BMI<35 for three months. Cost-benefit analysis favors BS over nephrectomy in obese donors (cost-benefit ratio: 3.64) when graft survival is equal. CONCLUSIONS: BS shows promise with short-term effectiveness and potential long-term outcomes. However, it should not be perceived as a means to expand the donor pool but rather as a personalized approach to address obesity and improve individuals' health.

Neighborhood-level social determinants of health measures independently predict receipt of living donor liver transplantation in the United States.

Disparities exist in the access to living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in the United States. However, the association of neighborhood-level social determinants of health (SDoH) on the receipt of LDLT is not well-established. This was a retrospective cohort study of adult liver transplant recipients between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2021 at centers performing LDLT using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, which was linked through patients' ZIP code to a set of 24 neighborhood-level SDoH measures from different data sources. Temporal trends and center differences in neighborhood Social Deprivation Index (SDI), a validated scale of socioeconomic deprivation ranging from 0 to 100 (0=least disadvantaged), were assessed by transplant type. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the association of increasing SDI on receipt of LDLT [vs. deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT)]. There were 51,721 DDLT and 4026 LDLT recipients at 59 LDLT-performing centers during the study period. Of the 24 neighborhood-level SDoH measures studied, the SDI was most different between the 2 transplant types, with LDLT recipients having lower SDI (ie, less socioeconomic disadvantage) than DDLT recipients (median SDI 37 vs. 47; p < 0.001). The median difference in SDI between the LDLT and DDLT groups significantly decreased from 13 in 2005 to 3 in 2021 ( p = 0.003). In the final model, the SDI quintile was independently associated with transplant type ( p < 0.001) with a threshold SDI of ~40, above which increasing SDI was significantly associated with reduced odds of LDLT (vs. reference SDI 1-20). As a neighborhood-level SDoH measure, SDI is useful for evaluating disparities in the context of LDLT. Center outreach efforts that aim to reduce disparities in LDLT could preferentially target US ZIP codes with SDI > 40.

Racial Equity in Living Donor Kidney Transplant Centers, 2008-2018.

Importance: It is unclear whether center-level factors are associated with racial equity in living donor kidney transplant (LDKT). Objective: To evaluate center-level factors and racial equity in LDKT during an 11-year time period. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort longitudinal study was completed in February 2023, of US transplant centers with at least 12 annual LDKTs from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2018, identified in the Health Resources Services Administration database and linked to the US Renal Data System and the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Main Outcomes and Measures: Observed and model-based estimated Black-White mean LDKT rate ratios (RRs), where an RR of 1 indicates racial equity and values less than 1 indicate a lower rate of LDKT of Black patients compared with White patients. Estimated yearly best-case center-specific LDKT RRs between Black and White individuals, where modifiable center characteristics were set to values that would facilitate access to LDKT. Results: The final cohorts of patients included 394 625 waitlisted adults, of whom 33.1% were Black and 66.9% were White, and 57 222 adult LDKT recipients, of whom 14.1% were Black and 85.9% were White. Among 89 transplant centers, estimated yearly center-level RRs between Black and White individuals accounting for center and population characteristics ranged from 0.0557 in 2008 to 0.771 in 2018. The yearly median RRs ranged from 0.216 in 2016 to 0.285 in 2010. Model-based estimations for the hypothetical best-case scenario resulted in little change in the minimum RR (from 0.0557 to 0.0549), but a greater positive shift in the maximum RR from 0.771 to 0.895. Relative to the observed 582 LDKT in Black patients and 3837 in White patients, the 2018 hypothetical model estimated an increase of 423 (a 72.7% increase) LDKTs for Black patients and of 1838 (a 47.9% increase) LDKTs for White patients. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with kidney failure, no substantial improvement occurred over time either in the observed or the covariate-adjusted estimated RRs. Under the best-case hypothetical estimations, modifying centers' participation in the paired exchange and voucher programs and increased access to public insurance may contribute to improved racial equity in LDKT. Additional work is needed to identify center-level and program-specific strategies to improve racial equity in access to LDKT.

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.