Multilevel Intervention to Improve Racial Equity in Access to Kidney Transplant.

BACKGROUND: African Americans (AAs) have reduced access to kidney transplant (KTX). Our center undertook a multilevel quality improvement endeavor to address KTX access barriers, focused on vulnerable populations. This program included dialysis center patient/staff education, embedding telehealth services across South Carolina, partnering with community providers to facilitate testing/procedures, and increased use of high-risk donors. STUDY DESIGN: This was a time series analysis from 2017 to 2021 using autoregression to assess trends in equitable access to KTX for AAs. Equity was measured using a modified version of the Kidney Transplant Equity Index (KTEI), defined as the proportion of AAs in South Carolina with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) vs the proportion of AAs initiating evaluation, completing evaluation, waitlisting, and undergoing KTX. A KTEI of 1.00 is considered complete equity; a KTEI of <1.00 is indicative of disparity. RESULTS: From January 2017 to September 2021, 11,487 ESKD patients (64.7% AA) were referred, 6,748 initiated an evaluation (62.8% AA), 4,109 completed evaluation (59.7% AA), 2,762 were waitlisted (60.0% AA), and 1,229 underwent KTX (55.3% AA). The KTEI for KTX demonstrated significant improvements in equity. The KTEI for initiated evaluations was 0.89 in 2017, improving to 1.00 in 2021 (p = 0.0045). Completed evaluation KTEI improved from 0.85 to 0.95 (p = 0.0230), while waitlist addition KTEI improved from 0.83 to 0.96 (p = 0.0072). The KTEI for KTX also improved from 0.76 to 0.91, which did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.0657). CONCLUSIONS: A multilevel intervention focused on improving access to vulnerable populations was significantly associated with reduced disparities for AAs.

Video Messaging to Increase Vascularized Composite Allograft Donation Willingness in United States Military Veterans.

Expansion of vascularized composite allograft (VCA) transplantation depends on the public's willingness to donate VCA organs, including face, extremities, and genitourinary organs. This study evaluated the effectiveness of video messaging on VCA donation willingness in US military veterans, a key stakeholder in VCA transplantation. Methods: Participants (n = 556) were randomized to 1 of 3 VCA video messaging interventions (informational, testimonial, or blended), a general (non-VCA) organ donation video message, or a control (nondonation) video message. Questionnaires were completed at pre- and postintervention and at 3-wk follow-up. Results: Veterans exposed to any VCA video messaging were more likely to express VCA donation willingness (69%, n = 203/296) than those exposed to general donation messaging (53%, n = 47 of 89; P = 0.006) or No Donation Messaging (37%, n = 36 of 97; P < 0.001). A significantly higher proportion of participants who received Blended VCA Messaging were willing to be VCA donors, compared with the Informational VCA Messaging group (79% versus 61%, P = 0.006). Each VCA messaging video resulted in a significant pre- to postintervention increase in the proportion of participants willing to donate their own face, hands, and legs (P < 0.03). Conclusions: Brief educational videos focused on VCA transplantation can have a demonstrable and verifiable impact on rates of VCA donation willingness in veterans.

Willingness of Kidney and Liver Transplant Candidates to Receive HCV-Infected Organs.

INTRODUCTION: Transplantation of organs exposed to hepatitis C virus (HCV) into uninfected patients has yielded excellent outcomes and more widespread adoption may lead to fewer discarded organs and more transplants. Patient perceptions may shed light on acceptability and likely the uptake of HCV+/HCV- transplantation, gaps in understanding, and perceived benefits/risks. METHODS: We surveyed 435 uninfected kidney and liver transplant candidates at four centers about their attitude towards HCV-infected organs. RESULTS: The percentage of patients willing to accept HCV-infected organs increased from 58% at baseline, to 86% following education about HCV, direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs), and HCV+/HCV- transplantation benefits/risks. More willingness to accept an organ from an intravenous drug user (P < 0.001), age >50 y old (P = 0.02), longer waiting time (P = 0.02), more trust in the transplant system (P = 0.03), and previous awareness of DAAs (P = 0.04) were associated with higher willingness to accept an HCV-infected organ. The most important reasons for accepting an HCV-infected organ were a decrease in waiting time (65%), lower mortality and morbidity risk while on the waiting list (63%), effectiveness of DAAs (54%), and a quicker return to higher functional status (51%). CONCLUSIONS: Presenting patients with information about HCV+/HCV- transplantation in small doses that are calibrated to account for varying levels of health and numerical literacy is recommended.

Evolving Metrics of Quality for Kidney Transplant Candidates: Transplant Center Variability in Delisting and 1-Year Mortality.

BACKGROUND: Management of patients on the kidney transplant waitlist lacks oversight, and transplant centers can delist candidates without consequence. To better understand between-center differences in waitlist management, we examined delisting rates and mortality after delisting within 3 years of removal from the kidney transplant waitlist. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients of adults listed for deceased donor kidney transplant in 2015 and followed until the end of 2018. Patients of interest were those delisted for reasons other than transplant, death, or transfer. Centers were excluded if they had fewer than 20 waitlisted patients per year. We calculated probability of delisting and death after delisting using multivariable competing risk models. RESULTS: During follow-up, 14.2% of patients were delisted. The median probability of delisting within 3 years, adjusted for center-level variability, was 7.0% (interquartile range [IQR]: 3.9% to 10.6%). Median probability of death was 58.2% (IQR: 40% to 73.4%). There was no meaningful correlation between probability of delisting and death (τ = -0.05, p = 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variability in the rate of death after delisting across kidney transplant centers. Likelihood of transplant is extremely important to candidates, and improved data collection efforts are needed to inform whether current delisting practices are successfully removing patients who could not meaningfully benefit from transplant, or whether certain populations may benefit from remaining on the list and maintaining eligibility.

Initial Home Dialysis Is Increased for Rural Patients by Accessing Urban Facilities.

Background: The 240,000 rural patients with end stage kidney disease in the United States have less access to nephrology care and higher mortality than those in urban settings. The Advancing American Kidney Health initiative aims to increase the use of home renal replacement therapy. Little is known about how rural patients access home dialysis and the availability and quality of rural dialysis facilities. Methods: Incident dialysis patients in 2017 and their facilities were identified in the United States Renal Data System. Facility quality and service availability were analyzed with descriptive statistics. We assessed the availability of home dialysis methods, depending on rural versus urban counties, and then we used multivariate logistic regression to identify the likelihood of rural patients with home dialysis as their initial modality and the likelihood of rural patients changing to home dialysis within 90 days. Finally, we assessed mortality after dialysis initiation on the basis of patient home location. Results: Of the 97,930 dialysis initiates, 15,310 (16%) were rural. Rural dialysis facilities were less likely to offer home dialysis (51% versus 54%, P<0.001). Although a greater proportion of rural patients (9% versus 8%, P<0.001) were on home dialysis, this was achieved by traveling to urban facilities to obtain home dialysis (OR=2.74, P<0.001). After adjusting for patient and facility factors, rural patients had a higher risk of mortality (HR=1.06, P=0.004). Conclusions: Despite having fewer facilities that offer home dialysis, rural patients were more often on home dialysis methods because they traveled to urban facilities, representing an access gap. Even if rural patients accessed home dialysis at urban facilities, rural patients still suffered worse mortality. Future dialysis policy should address this access gap to improve care and overall mortality for rural patients.

Apolipoprotein L1 Opinions of African American Living Kidney Donors, Kidney Transplant Patients, and Nonpatients.

INTRODUCTION: The discovery of apolipoprotein L1 (ApoL1) has raised important ethical and clinical questions about genetic testing in the context of living and deceased kidney donation. Largely missing from this discussion are the perspectives of those African Americans (AA) most likely to be impacted by ApoL1 testing. METHODS: We surveyed 331 AA potential and former living kidney donors (LKDs), kidney transplant candidates and recipients, and nonpatients at three United States transplant programs about their ApoL1 testing attitudes. RESULTS: Overall, 72% felt that transplant programs should offer ApoL1 testing to AA potential LKDs. If a potential LKD has the high-risk genotype, 79% felt that the LKD should be allowed to make their own donation decision or participate in shared decision-making with transplant doctors. More than half of the potential LKDs (58%) would undergo ApoL1 testing and 81% of former LKDs would take the test now if offered. Most transplant candidates expressed a low likelihood of accepting a kidney from a LKD (79%) or a deceased donor (67%) with the high-risk genotype. CONCLUSIONS: There is strong support among LKDs and transplant patients for ApoL1 testing when evaluating potential kidney donors of African ancestry. Inclusion of AA stakeholders in developing guidelines and educational programs for ApoL1 testing is critical.

A Dialysis Center Educational Video Intervention Increases Patient Self-Efficacy and Kidney Transplant Evaluations.

Introduction: The optimal treatment for end-stage kidney disease is renal transplant. However, only 1 in 5 (21.5%) patients nationwide receiving dialysis are on a transplant waitlist. Factors associated with patients not initiating a transplant evaluation are complex and include patient specific factors such as transplant knowledge and self-efficacy. Research Question: Can a dialysis center-based educational video intervention increase dialysis patients' transplant knowledge, self-efficacy, and transplant evaluations initiated? Design: Dialysis patients who had not yet completed a transplant evaluation were provided a transplant educational video while receiving hemodialysis. Patients' transplant knowledge, self-efficacy to initiate an evaluation, and dialysis center rates of transplant referral and evaluation were assessed before and after this intervention. Results: Of 340 patients approached at 14 centers, 252 (74%) completed the intervention. The intervention increased transplant knowledge (Likert scale 1 to 5: 2.53 [0.10] vs 4.62 [0.05], P < .001) and transplant self-efficacy (2.55 [0.10] to 4.33 [0.07], P < .001. The incidence rate per 100 patient years of transplant evaluations increased 85% (IRR 1.85 [95% CI: 1.02, 3.35], P = .0422) following the intervention. The incidence rates of referrals also increased 56% (IRR 1.56 [95% CI: 1.03, 2.37], P = .0352), while there was a nonsignificant 47% increase in incidence rates of waitlist entries (IRR 1.47 [95% CI: 0.45, 4.74], P = .5210). Conclusion: This dialysis center-based video intervention provides promising preliminary evidence to conduct a large-scale randomized controlled trial to test its effectiveness in increasing self-efficacy of dialysis patients to initiate a transplant evaluation.

Association of Public Reporting of Medicare Dialysis Facility Quality Ratings With Access to Kidney Transplantation.

Importance: Improving the quality of dialysis care and access to kidney transplantation for patients with end-stage kidney disease is a national clinical and policy priority. The role of dialysis facility quality in increasing access to kidney transplantation is not known. Objective: To determine whether patient, facility, and kidney transplant waitlisting characteristics are associated with variations in dialysis center quality. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study is an analysis of US Renal Data System data and Medicare Dialysis Facility Compare (DFC) data from 2013 to 2018. Participants included all adult (aged ≥18 years) patients in the US Renal Data System beginning long-term dialysis in the US from 2013 to 2017 with follow-up through the end of 2018. Patients with a prior kidney transplant and matched Medicare DFC star ratings to each annual cohort of recipients were excluded. Patients at facilities without a star rating in that year were also excluded. Data analysis was performed from January to April 2021. Exposures: Dialysis center quality, as defined by Medicare DFC star ratings. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients undergoing incident dialysis who were waitlisted within 1 year of dialysis initiation. Secondary outcomes were patient and facility characteristics. Results: Of 507 581 patients beginning long-term dialysis in the US from 2013 to 2017, 291 802 (57.4%) were male, 266 517 (52.5%) were White, and the median (interquartile range) age was 65 (55-75) years. Of 5869 dialysis facilities in 2017, 132 (2.2%) were 1-star, 436 (7.4%) were 2-star, 2047 (34.9%) were 3-star, 1660 (28.3%) were 4-star, and 1594 (27.2%) were 5-star. Higher-quality dialysis facilities were associated with 47% higher odds of transplant waitlisting (odds ratio [OR], 1.47; 95% CI, 1.39-1.57 for 5-star facilities vs 1-star facilities; P < .001). Black patients were less likely than White patients to be waitlisted for transplantation (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.72-0.76). In addition, patients at for-profit (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.74-0.81) and rural (OR, 0.63; 95%, CI 0.58-0.68) facilities were less likely to be waitlisted for transplantation compared with those at nonprofit and urban facilities, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, patients at higher-quality dialysis facilities had higher odds than patients at lower-quality facilities of being waitlisted for kidney transplantation within 1 year. Waitlisting rates for kidney transplantation should be considered for integration into the current Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services DFC star ratings to incentivize dialysis facility referral to transplant centers, inform patient choice, and drive quality improvement by increasing transplant waitlisting rates.

Wait expectations: The impact of delisting as an outcome from the kidney transplant waitlist.

BACKGROUND: While kidney transplantation is optimal for the treatment of end-stage kidney disease, available organs do not meet demand. Little is known about the outcomes of patients who are delisted (removed from the waitlist) and unable to benefit from transplant. We describe patients who are delisted and their life expectancy after delisting. METHODS: Patients ≥ 18 years listed for deceased donor kidney transplant between 01/2003 and 12/2013 were identified in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and followed through 12/2018. A competing risk model was used to measure the association of demographic and clinical factors with waitlist outcomes of delisting, transplant, and death. Multivariate Cox modeling was used to evaluate factors associated with death after delisting. RESULTS: Of 324,582 patients listed, 18.0% were delisted, most common reasons were "too sick" or "other." After delisting, half (49.7%) had died by end of follow-up; time to death after removal was 5 years. Increasing age and public insurance were associated with increased risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one in five patients will be delisted from the kidney transplant waitlist. These patients live a surprisingly long time after removal. Much remains unknown about these patients, which could be improved through data collection. Delisting is an important patient outcome that warrants further exploration.

The Spanish Version of the Fear of Kidney Failure Questionnaire: Validity, Reliability, and Characterization of Living Donors With the Highest Fear of Kidney Failure.

BACKGROUND: Measures of fear of progression or recurrence of illnesses have been criticized for neglecting cross-cultural validity. Therefore, we assessed the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Fear of Kidney Failure Questionnaire (FKFQ), to determine whether postdonation fear of kidney failure (FKF) influenced the donors' psychosocial status, and define variables that characterized donors with high FKFQ scores. METHODS: We included 492 participants (211 donors) in a multicenter, 11-year, retrospective, cross-sectional study. Donors were classified with a Latent Class Analysis of the FKFQ-item scores and characterized with a multivariable logistic regression analysis. We calculated the risk ratio based on predicted marginal probabilities. RESULTS: The Spanish version of the FKFQ showed acceptable psychometric properties. FKF was uncommon among donors, but we detected a small subgroup (n = 21, 9.9%) with high FKF (mean FKFQ score = 14.5, 3.1 SD). Compared with other donors, these donors reported higher anxiety and depression (38% and 29% of potential anxiety and depressive disorders), worse quality of life, and less satisfaction with the donation. Donors with high FKFQ scores were characterized by higher neuroticism combined with postdonation physical symptoms that interfered with daily activities. CONCLUSIONS: The FKFQ was cross-culturally valid, and thus, it may be used to assess the FKF in Spanish-speaking donors. New interventions that promote positive affectivity and evidence-based treatments for worry could be adapted for treating FKF.

Attitudes Toward Organ, Tissue, and Vascularized Composite Allograft (VCA) Donation and Transplantation: A Survey of United States Military Veterans.

BACKGROUND: There are 20 million living US armed forces veterans; however, the organ donation attitudes of veterans have not been examined. METHODS: Over a 17-month period, a convenience sample of 1517 veterans in New England completed a survey to assess attitudes about organ, tissue, and vascularized composite allograft (VCA) donation. RESULTS: Most veterans (96%) supported the donation of organs and tissue for transplantation, and 59% were registered as an organ and tissue donor. Being younger (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.960.970.98; P = 0.01), female (aOR: 1.061.462.03; P = 0.02), non-Hispanic white (aOR: 1.302.073.30; P = 0.01), Hispanic (aOR: 1.282.434.61; P = 0.01), and having more trust that the transplant process is fair and equal (aOR: 1.191.401.65; P = 0.01) were predictive of donor registration. Also, most veterans were willing to donate their face (57%), hands/arms (81%), legs (81%), penis (men: 61%), and uterus (women: 76%) at time of death; donation willingness was higher for upper and lower limbs than for face or genitourinary organs (P < 0.001). Those unwilling to donate VCA organs expressed concerns about identity loss, psychological discomfort of self and others, body integrity, funeral presentation, and religious beliefs. Most (54%) felt that VCA donation should require permission of legal next-of-kin at the time of one's death, even if the decedent was a registered donor. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high level of support for organ, tissue, and VCA transplantation and donation among veterans, despite limited educational campaigns targeting this population. There is high potential among veterans to further increase donor registry enrollment and raise awareness about VCA benefits for severely injured service members.

Opinions of African American adults about the use of apolipoprotein L1 (ApoL1) genetic testing in living kidney donation and transplantation.

Apolipoprotein L1 (ApoL1) predictive genetic testing for kidney disease, and its emerging role in transplantation, remains controversial as it may exacerbate underlying disparities among African Americans (AAs) at increased risk. We conducted an online simulation among AAs (N = 585) about interest in ApoL1 testing and its cofactors, under 2 scenarios: as a potential living donor (PLD), and as a patient awaiting transplantation. Most respondents (61%) expressed high interest in genetic testing as a PLD: age ≥35 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18, 2.60, P = .01), AA identity (aOR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.02, 2.72, P = .04), perceived kidney disease risk following donation (aOR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.03, 2.73, P = .03), interest in genetics (aOR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.95, 4.29, P = .001), and genetics self-efficacy (aOR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.54, 3.67, P = .001) were positively associated with ApoL1 test interest. If awaiting transplantation, most (89%) believed that ApoL1 testing should be done on AA deceased donors, and older age (aOR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.03, 3.32, P = .04) and greater interest in genetics (aOR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.41, 4.81, P = .002) were associated with interest in testing deceased donors. Findings highlight strong support for ApoL1 testing in AAs and the need to examine such opinions among PLDs and transplant patients to enhance patient education efforts.

Implementation, feasibility, and acceptability of quality of life therapy to improve positive emotions among patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) save lives, but often induce significant psychological distress among patients. Positive psychological constructs are associated with improved outcomes among cardiac patients. In this NHLBI-funded randomized controlled trial, one aim was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a positive psychology intervention (Quality of Life Therapy; QOLT, n = 11), compared to a Heart Healthy Education (HHE) control (n = 10), among ICD patients. A majority of participants across groups attended all 12 sessions (71%) and completed homework assignments (80%). Agreement on participant engagement and interventionist protocol adherence were high, with no differences between groups (ps > 0.20). A greater proportion of QOLT participants rated their sessions was "very" helpful compared to HHE participants (63% vs. 10%, p = 0.19). These initial data support the feasibility and acceptability of QOLT. A larger-scale trial using positive psychology interventions among ICD patients is indicated to determine potential mechanisms underlying the relationship between positive psychological constructs and cardiovascular health.

KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Candidates for Kidney Transplantation.

The 2020 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Candidates for Kidney Transplantation is intended to assist health care professionals worldwide who evaluate and manage potential candidates for deceased or living donor kidney transplantation. This guideline addresses general candidacy issues such as access to transplantation, patient demographic and health status factors, and immunological and psychosocial assessment. The roles of various risk factors and comorbid conditions governing an individual's suitability for transplantation such as adherence, tobacco use, diabetes, obesity, perioperative issues, causes of kidney failure, infections, malignancy, pulmonary disease, cardiac and peripheral arterial disease, neurologic disease, gastrointestinal and liver disease, hematologic disease, and bone and mineral disorder are also addressed. This guideline provides recommendations for evaluation of individual aspects of a candidate's profile such that each risk factor and comorbidity are considered separately. The goal is to assist the clinical team to assimilate all data relevant to an individual, consider this within their local health context, and make an overall judgment on candidacy for transplantation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Guideline recommendations are primarily based on systematic reviews of relevant studies and our assessment of the quality of that evidence, and the strengths of recommendations are provided. Limitations of the evidence are discussed with differences from previous guidelines noted and suggestions for future research are also provided.

Summary of the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Candidates for Kidney Transplantation.

The 2020 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Candidates for Kidney Transplantation is intended to assist health care professionals worldwide who evaluate and manage potential candidates for deceased or living donor kidney transplantation. This guideline addresses general candidacy issues such as access to transplantation, patient demographic and health status factors, immunological and psychosocial assessment. The roles of various risk factors and comorbid conditions governing an individual's suitability for transplantation such as adherence, tobacco use, diabetes, obesity, perioperative issues, causes of kidney failure, infections, malignancy, pulmonary disease, cardiac and peripheral arterial disease, neurologic disease, gastrointestinal and liver disease, hematologic disease, and bone and mineral disorder are also addressed. This guideline provides recommendations for evaluation of individual aspects of a candidate's profile such that each risk factor and comorbidity are considered separately. The goal is to assist the clinical team to assimilate all data relevant to an individual, consider this within their local health context, and make an overall judgment on candidacy for transplantation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Guideline recommendations are primarily based on systematic reviews of relevant studies and our assessment of the quality of that evidence. The strengths of recommendations are provided in the full report. Limitations of the evidence are discussed with differences from previous guidelines noted and suggestions for future research are also provided.

Metabolic, cardiovascular, and substance use evaluation of living kidney donor candidates: US practices in 2017.

We surveyed US transplant centers to assess practices regarding the evaluation and selection of living kidney donors based on metabolic, cardiovascular, and substance use risk factors. Our companion article describes renal aspects of the evaluation. Response rate was 31%. Compared with 2005, programs have become more accepting of hypertensive candidates: 65% in 2017% vs 41% in 2005 consider candidates with hypertension well controlled with 1 medication. One notable exception is black hypertensive candidates, who are frequently excluded regardless of severity. The most common body mass index (BMI) cutoff remains 35 kg/m2 , and fewer programs now consider candidates with BMI >40 kg/m2 . A 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test of ≥140 mg/dL remains the most common criterion for exclusion of prediabetic candidates. One quarter to one third of programs exclude based on isolated cardiac abnormalities, such as mild aortic stenosis; a similar proportion consider these candidates only if older than 50 years. Cigarette or marijuana smoking are infrequently criteria for exclusion, although 45% and 37% programs, respectively, require cessation 4 weeks prior to surgery. In addition to providing an overview of current practices in living kidney donor evaluation, our study highlights the importance of research evaluating outcomes with various comorbidities to guide practice.

The kidney evaluation of living kidney donor candidates: US practices in 2017.

We surveyed US transplant programs to assess practices used to assess kidney health in living kidney donor candidates in 2017; the response rate was 31%. In this report, we focus on the kidney; a companion piece focuses on the metabolic and cardiovascular aspects of candidate evaluation. Compared to 2005, programs have become more stringent in accepting younger candidates and less stringent in accepting older candidates. The 24-hour creatinine clearance remains the mainstay for kidney function assessment, with 74% continuing to use a value below 80 mL/min/1.73 m2 for exclusion and 22% using age-based criteria. ApoL1 genotyping is obtained routinely or selectively by 45%, half of which use the high-risk genotype as an absolute exclusion criterion. For history of symptomatic stones, 49% accept if there is no current radiographic evidence of stones and urine profile is low risk, 80%-95% consider candidates with unilateral asymptomatic stones, but only 33%-48% consider if stones are bilateral. In addition, 14% use the risk assessment tool developed by Grams et al routinely for decision-making, and 42% use it sometimes. Also, 57% reported not having yet determined a risk threshold for acceptable postdonation risk above which candidates are excluded. Contemporary practice variation underscores the need for better evidence to guide the donor selection process.

Pain expectancy, prevalence, severity, and patterns following donor nephrectomy: Findings from the KDOC Study.

Postoperative pain is an outcome of importance to potential living kidney donors (LKDs). We prospectively characterized the prevalence, severity, and patterns of acute or chronic postoperative pain in 193 LKDs at six transplant programs. Three pain measurements were obtained from donors on postoperative Day (POD) 1, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 41, 49, and 56. The median pain rating total was highest on POD1 and declined from each assessment to the next until reaching a median pain-free score of 0 on POD49. In generalized linear mixed-model analysis, the mean pain score decreased at each pain assessment compared to the POD3 assessment. Pre-donation history of mood disorder (adjusted ratio of means [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 1.40 [0.99, 1.98]), reporting "severe" on any POD1 pain descriptors (adjusted ratio of means [95% CI]: 1.47 [1.12, 1.93]) and open nephrectomy (adjusted ratio of means [95% CI]: 2.61 [1.03, 6.62]) were associated with higher pain scores across time. Of the 179 LKDs who completed the final pain assessment, 74 (41%) met criteria for chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP), that is, any donation-related pain on POD56. Study findings have potential implications for LKD education, surgical consent, postdonation care, and outcome measurements.