Psychosocial characteristics of potential and actual living kidney donors.

The psychosocial assessment is an essential component of the living kidney donor (LKD) evaluation. However, it remains uncertain how specific psychosocial factors impact LKD eligibility. We performed a retrospective chart review of LKD candidates who initiated the evaluation process and who had completed a required, in-person licensed social work (LSW) visit. LSW notes were reviewed for frequency of psychosocial factors that may impact the success of LKD candidate approval by the selection committee. 325 LKD candidates were included in the study: 104 not-approved and 221 approved. Not-approved LKD candidates were more likely to receive a negative family reaction to wanting to donate than approved LKD candidates (8.7% vs 1.4%, p < 0.01). On multivariate analysis, Black race, history of psychiatric illness, highest level of education being high school, and high psychosocial risk score assignment were all associated with a lower odds ratio of being approved. The majority of not-approved LKD candidates were disqualified for medical reasons (N = 76, 73.1%). In conclusion, psychosocial factors impact donation even after LKD candidates make it to an in-person evaluation.

Self-reported marijuana use and its effects on overall approval in potential living kidney donors.

BACKGROUND: Past and present substance use is an important part of the psychosocial evaluation of potential living kidney donors (LKDs). Increasing state legalizations and social acceptance of marijuana (MJ) use can create challenges for transplant centers. METHODS: We investigated the frequency of reporting MJ use, and its effect on the LKD evaluation. A retrospective chart review was performed on all living donor candidates from December 2016 to December 2019 for reports of MJ use, both on an electronic intake form and during clinical evaluation with a licensed social worker (SW). Active MJ use was defined as current use or use within 1 year of evaluation. Baseline characteristics between MJ users and non-users were compared at each step of donor evaluation. We explored variables associated with MJ use including additional consults and testing during the donor evaluation. Overall approval and donation rates for living donors with active MJ use were compared to non-users. Additionally, 1-year donor follow-up was compared between the two groups. Results of 1818 living donor candidates who completed the intake form, 132 admitted to active MJ use. Compared to non-users, MJ users were more likely to be younger, male, single, renting a home, and with a lower level of education. Thirty three out of 338 candidates who completed a social work evaluation reported MJ use. Compared to non-users, MJ users were more frequently classified as moderate or high risk on SW evaluation, and often required a toxicology screen or psychiatry visit for clearance to donate. Altogether 24.2% of MJ users versus 9.5% of non-users discontinued their evaluation (p < .01). Altogether 42.4% of MJ users versus 56.1% of non-users donated their kidney (p = .13). For those who donated, MJ users were less likely than non-users to follow up at 1 year (57.1% vs. 83.0, p-value .02). CONCLUSION: MJ users were often asked to complete additional steps in their evaluation before an approval decision was made, which may have led to the higher rate of donor drop out observed in this group. Further research is needed to assess the effects of MJ use on living donor candidacy, as well as any effects of MJ use on long-term donor outcomes.

Characteristics of Potential and Actual Living Kidney Donors: A Single-center Experience.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data and no national capture of barriers associated with initiating and completing the donation process for potential living kidney donors (LKDs). METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 3001 intake forms completed by prospective LKDs from 2016 to 2019 at a single transplant center. We analyzed data from all potential donors who completed the intake until they became ineligible or withdrew or donation was complete. We used univariate and multivariate models to evaluate independent factors associated with donation at various stages in the donation process. RESULTS: The donation process was deconstructed into 5 steps: intake form, immunologic compatibility testing, clinic evaluation, selection committee review, and donation. The highest percentage of potential donors dropped out after completing the intake form, primarily because of not responding to the follow-up phone call (22.6%). Of 455 potential LKDs that completed immunologic compatibility testing, 36% were ABO or crossmatch incompatible. One-hundred eighty-eight (7.5%) of all LKD applicants reached donation, the majority of whom were White (91.0%) and female (63.8%). CONCLUSIONS: A minority of LKD applicants make it to donation. Our ability to track all potential LKDs from the initial touch point to the transplant center will help us develop interventions to address barriers to a successful donation.