Differences Between Centers in Psychosocial Evaluations for Living Kidney Donors Do Not Influence Outcome: Results From an Observational Multicenter Study.

Rather little is known about how psychosocial evaluations for living kidney donation (LKD) are performed. We aimed to explore whether Swiss transplant centers (STCs) vary regarding the rate of living kidney donors refused for psychosocial reasons, the psychosocial evaluation process, and the characteristics of the donors. Methods: We investigated 310 consecutive candidates for LKD in 4 of 6 existing STC during mandatory psychosocial evaluations. We registered (i) sociodemographic data, (ii) the type of the decision-making process regarding LKD (ie, snap decision, postponed, deliberate, other), (iii) the evaluator's perception of the donor's emotional bonding and his/her conflicts with the recipient, (iv) the donor's prognosis from a psychosocial perspective, (v) time taken for the psychosocial evaluation, and (vi) its result (eligible, eligible with additional requirements, not eligible). Results: Centers had comparable proportions of noneligible donors (2.9%-6.0%) but differed significantly in the percentage of donors accepted with additional requirements (3.4%-66%, P < 0.001). Significant differences emerged between centers regarding the time needed for evaluation (75-160 min [interquartile range (IQR) 75-180 min] per single exploration, P < 0.001), the perception of the donor's emotional bonding (visual analogue scale [VAS] 8-9 [IQR 6-10], P < 0.001), his/her conflicts with the recipient (VAS 1.5-2 [IQR 0-3], P = 0.006), the donor's psychosocial prognosis (VAS 8-9 [IQR 7-10], P < 0.001), and the type of decision concerning LKD (59%-82% with snap decision "yes," P = 0.008). However, despite differences in the psychosocial evaluation process, the rates of patients accepted for transplantation (eligible and eligible with additional requirements versus noneligible) were comparable across STC (P = 0.72). Conclusions: Our results emphasize that it is more important to establish clear guidelines to identify potential psychosocial risks than to stringently standardize the procedure for psychosocial evaluation of living kidney donors.

Outcome of Husband-to-Wife Kidney Transplantation With Mutual Children: Single Center Experience Using T Cell-Depleting Induction and Review of the Literature.

Few data on husband-to-wife transplantations with mutual children (H2W) exist in the current era. We investigated the outcome of H2W transplantations (n = 25) treated with T cell-depleting induction compared to women with prior pregnancies also receiving their first HLA-mismatched kidney transplant, but from a different donor source: (i) other living donor (n = 52) and (ii) deceased donor (n = 120). Seventy-four percent of the women had ≥2 pregnancies; median follow-up time was 5 years. Death-censored allograft survival was significantly lower in the H2W group compared to the other two groups (p = 0.03). Three of four graft losses in the H2W group were due to rejection. 5-year patient survival in the H2W group was high and similar compared to the other living donor group (100 vs. 98%; p = 0.28). The incidence of (sub)clinical antibody-mediated rejection was higher in the H2W group (36 vs. 20 vs. 18%) (p = 0.10). The frequency of infections was similar among the three groups. No immunological parameter was predictive for rejection or graft loss in H2W transplantations. In conclusion, H2W transplantation is a valuable option, but associated with a higher risk for allograft loss due to rejection despite T cell-depleting induction. Further research is required for better risk prediction on an individual patient level.