KDIGO clinical practice guideline on the evaluation and care of living kidney donors

The 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors is intended to assist medical professionals who evaluate living kidney donor candidates and provide care before, during and after donation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies that included critical appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations. However, many recommendations, for which there was no evidence or no systematic search for evidence was undertaken by the Evidence Review Team, were issued as ungraded expert opinion recommendations. The guideline work group concluded that a comprehensive approach to risk assessment should replace decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation. Original data analyses were undertaken to produce a "proof-in-concept" risk-prediction model for kidney failure to support a framework for quantitative risk assessment in the donor candidate evaluation and defensible shared decision making. This framework is grounded in the simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics. The processes and framework for the donor candidate evaluation are presented, along with recommendations for optimal care before, during, and after donation. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, especially regarding the lack of definitive prospective studies and clinical outcome trials. Suggestions for future research, including the need for continued refinement of long-term risk prediction and novel approaches to estimating donation-attributable risks, are also provided.

KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors.

The 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors is intended to assist medical professionals who evaluate living kidney donor candidates and provide care before, during and after donation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies that included critical appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations. However, many recommendations, for which there was no evidence or no systematic search for evidence was undertaken by the Evidence Review Team, were issued as ungraded expert opinion recommendations. The guideline work group concluded that a comprehensive approach to risk assessment should replace decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation. Original data analyses were undertaken to produce a "proof-in-concept" risk-prediction model for kidney failure to support a framework for quantitative risk assessment in the donor candidate evaluation and defensible shared decision making. This framework is grounded in the simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics. The processes and framework for the donor candidate evaluation are presented, along with recommendations for optimal care before, during, and after donation. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, especially regarding the lack of definitive prospective studies and clinical outcome trials. Suggestions for future research, including the need for continued refinement of long-term risk prediction and novel approaches to estimating donation-attributable risks, are also provided.In citing this document, the following format should be used: Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Living Kidney Donor Work Group. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors. Transplantation. 2017;101(Suppl 8S):S1-S109.

Summary of Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors.

Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) engaged an evidence review team and convened a work group to produce a guideline to evaluate and manage candidates for living kidney donation. The evidence for most guideline recommendations is sparse and many "ungraded" expert consensus recommendations were made to guide the donor candidate evaluation and care before, during, and after donation. The guideline advocates for replacing decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation with a comprehensive approach to risk assessment using the best available evidence. The approach to simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics advances a new framework for assessing donor candidate risk and for defensible shared decision making.

Financial Burden Borne by Laparoscopic Living Kidney Donors.

BACKGROUND: Living kidney donors have donation-related out-of-pocket costs (direct costs) and/or ongoing daily expenses while losing income (indirect costs). Yet there is little information about how much of a subjective burden these constitute for the donors. METHODS: From December 2003 through December 2014, we surveyed donors 6 months postdonation to determine their financial burden related to donation (on a scale of 1 to 10) and what resources were used to cover expenses. RESULTS: Of 1136 surveyed, 796 (70%) responded. Among respondents, mean age at donation was 43.6 ± 10.6 years, 64% were women, 96% were white, and 53% were related by blood to their recipient. Overall, 26% scored their financial burden as 5 or higher; 8% scored it as 8 or higher. Increased expenses were associated with a higher reported burden; however, significant burden was reported by some with no out-of-pocket expenses (presumably due to lost wages and continuing expenses). The burden was scored as 5 or higher by 27% of those employed outside the home (n = 660), 15% homemakers, 13% retirees, 40% students; 28% unemployed; and 26% whose occupation was unknown. Over half (51%) of those receiving a local or (means-tested) national grant still reported moderate to severe burden. Besides grants, donors used a variety of sources to help offset expenses: dipped into savings, borrowed from friends or family, took out a loan, and/or had a fundraiser. Those with the highest burden reported using the most additional sources. CONCLUSIONS: Donors should not have to incur costs or a financial burden to donate; the transplant community should strive to make donation financially neutral.

The Right Organ for the Right Recipient: the Ninth Annual American Society of Transplant Surgeons' State-of-the-Art Winter Symposium.

With an increasing number of individuals with end-stage organ disease and the increasing success of organ transplantation, the demand for transplants has steadily increased. This growth has led to a greater need to utilize organs from as many donors as possible. As selection criteria have become less stringent to accommodate increasing demand, transplant outcomes are more strongly influenced by recipient and donor factors; thus, finding the right organ for the right recipient is more important than ever. The Ninth Annual American Society of Transplant Surgeons (ASTS) State-of-the-Art Winter Symposium, entitled "The Right Organ for the Right Recipient," addressed the matching of donor organs to appropriate recipients. Representative dilemmas in the matching of donor organs with recipients were discussed. These included the following: matching by donor and recipient risk characteristics; use of organs with risk for disease transmission; biologic incompatibility; use of organs from donors after cardiac death; the justification for combined organ transplants like liver-kidney and kidney-pancreas; and the role of allocation in facilitating the matching of donors and recipients. Regardless of the particular issue, decisions about donor-recipient matching should be evidence-based, practical, and made with the goal of maximizing organ utilization while still protecting individual patient interests.

Media appeals by pediatric patients for living donors and the impact on a transplant center.

Little is published regarding the effect of advertising for kidney donors on transplant centers. At our center, families of nine children used media appeals. Per candidate, there were 8 to 260 potential donor calls, 92 (11.6%) were medically ineligible, 326 (41.1%) voluntarily did not proceed or an alternate donor had been approved, 38 (4.8%) were ABO incompatible, and 327 (41.1%) had positive crossmatch or unsuitable human leukocyte antigens. Media appeals resulted in four living donor transplants and five nondirected donors to other candidates, and we made directed changes in our center. The ethical debate of advertising for organ donors continues.

KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the care of kidney transplant recipients: a summary.

The 2009 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline on the monitoring, management, and treatment of kidney transplant recipients is intended to assist the practitioner caring for adults and children after kidney transplantation. The guideline development process followed an evidence-based approach, and management recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant treatment trials. Critical appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The guideline makes recommendations for immunosuppression and graft monitoring, as well as prevention and treatment of infection, cardiovascular disease, malignancy, and other complications that are common in kidney transplant recipients, including hematological and bone disorders. Limitations of the evidence, especially the lack of definitive clinical outcome trials, are discussed and suggestions are provided for future research. This summary includes a brief description of methodology and the complete guideline recommendations but does not include the rationale and references for each recommendation, which are published elsewhere.