Psychosocial consequences of living kidney donation: a prospective multicentre study on health-related quality of life, donor-recipient relationships and regret.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have indicated decreased health-related quality of life (HRQoL) shortly after kidney donation, returning to baseline in the longer term. However, a subgroup of donors experiences persistent HRQoL problems. To identify which HRQoL aspects are impacted most by the donation and to identify at-risk donors, more specific insight into psychosocial donation consequences is needed. METHODS: The current study examined the HRQoL course, donor-perceived consequences of donation for donors, recipients and donor-recipient relationships, and regret up to 12 months post-donation in donors from seven Dutch transplantation centres. Kidney donor candidates (n = 588) completed self-report questionnaires early in the screening procedure, of which 361 (61%) donated their kidney. RESULTS: Data for 230 donors (64%) with complete assessments before donation and 6 and 12 months post-donation were analysed. Results indicated that donor physical HRQoL was comparable at all time points, except for an increase in fatigue that lasted up to 12 months post-donation. Mental HRQoL decreased at 6 months post-donation, but returned to baseline at 12 months. Donors reported large improvements in recipient's functioning and a smaller influence of the recipient's kidney disease or transplantation on the donor's life over time. A subgroup experienced negative donation consequences with 14% experiencing regret 12 months post-donation. Predictors of regret were more negative health perceptions and worse social functioning 6 months post-donation. The strongest baseline predictors of higher fatigue levels after donation were more pre-donation fatigue, worse general physical functioning and a younger age. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should examine predictors of HRQoL after donation to improve screening and to provide potential interventions in at-risk donors.

Pre-donation cognitions of potential living organ donors: the development of the Donation Cognition Instrument in potential kidney donors.

Background: Cognitions surrounding living organ donation, including the motivation to donate, expectations of donation and worries about donation, are relevant themes during living donor evaluation. However, there is no reliable psychometric instrument assessing all these different cognitions. This study developed and validated a questionnaire to assess pre-donation motivations, expectations and worries regarding donation, entitled the Donation Cognition Instrument (DCI). Methods: Psychometric properties of the DCI were examined using exploratory factor analysis for scale structure and associations with validated questionnaires for construct validity assessment. Results: From seven Dutch transplantation centres, 719 potential living kidney donors were included. The DCI distinguishes cognitions about donor benefits, recipient benefits, idealistic incentives, gratitude and worries about donation (Cronbach's alpha 0.76-0.81). Scores on pre-donation cognitions differed with regard to gender, age, marital status, religion and donation type. With regard to construct validity, the DCI was moderately correlated with expectations regarding donor's personal well-being and slightly to moderately to health-related quality of life. Conclusions: The DCI is found to be a reliable instrument assessing cognitions surrounding living organ donation, which might add to pre-donation quality of life measures in facilitating psychosocial donor evaluation by healthcare professionals.

Combining transplant professional's psychosocial donor evaluation and donor self-report measures to optimise the prediction of HRQoL after kidney donation: an observational prospective multicentre study.

OBJECTIVES: Living donor kidney transplantation is currently the preferred treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease. The psychosocial evaluation of kidney donor candidates relies mostly on the clinical viewpoint of transplant professionals because evidence-based guidelines for psychosocial donor eligibility are currently lacking. However, the accuracy of these clinical risk judgements and the potential added value of a systematic self-reported screening procedure are as yet unknown. The current study examined the effectiveness of the psychosocial evaluation by transplant professionals and the potential value of donor self-report measures in optimising the donor evaluation. Based on the stress-vulnerability model, the predictive value of predonation, intradonation and postdonation factors to impaired longer term health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of kidney donors was studied. DESIGN: An observational prospective multicentre study. SETTING: Seven Dutch transplantation centres. PARTICIPANTS: 588 potential donors participated, of whom 361 donated. Complete prospective data of 230 donors were available. Also, 1048 risk estimation questionnaires were completed by healthcare professionals. METHODS: Transplant professionals (nephrologists, coordinating nurses, social workers and psychologists) filled in risk estimation questionnaires on kidney donor candidates. Furthermore, 230 kidney donors completed questionnaires (eg, on HRQoL) before and 6 and 12 months after donation. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: HRQoL, demographic and preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative health characteristics, perceived support, donor cognitions, recipient functioning and professionals risk estimation questionnaires. RESULTS: On top of other predictors, such as the transplant professionals' risk assessments, donor self-report measures significantly predicted impaired longer term HRQoL after donation, particularly by poorer predonation physical (17%-28% explained variance) and psychological functioning (23%). CONCLUSIONS: The current study endorses the effectiveness of the psychosocial donor evaluation by professionals and the additional value of donor self-report measures in optimising the psychosocial evaluation. Consequently, systematic screening of donors based on the most prominent risk factors provide ground for tailored interventions for donors at risk.

Living Kidney Donor Knowledge of Provided Information and Informed Consent: The PRINCE Study.

BACKGROUND: Informed consent for living kidney donation is paramount, as donors are healthy individuals undergoing surgery for the benefit of others. The informed consent process for living kidney donors is heterogenous, and the question concerns how well they are actually informed. Knowledge assessments, before and after donor education, can form the basis for a standardized informed consent procedure for live kidney donation. METHODS: In this prospective, a multicenter national cohort study conducted in all eight kidney transplant centers in The Netherlands, we assessed the current status of the informed consent practice for live donor nephrectomy. All of the potential living kidney donors in the participating centers were invited to participate. They completed a pop quiz during their first outpatient appointment (Cohort A). Living kidney donors completed the same pop quiz upon admission for donor nephrectomy (Cohort B). RESULTS: In total, 656 pop quizzes were completed (417 in Cohort A, and 239 in Cohort B). The average donor knowledge score was 7.0/25.0 (±3.9, range 0-18) in Cohort A, and 10.5/25.0 (±2.8, range 0-17.5) in Cohort B. Cohort B scored significantly higher on overall knowledge, preparedness, and the individual item scores (p < 0.0001), except for the long-term complications (p = 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Donor knowledge generally improves during the live donor workup, but it is still quite disappointing. Long-term complications, especially, deserve more attention during living kidney donor education.

Model-Based Estimation of Iohexol Plasma Clearance for Pragmatic Renal Function Determination in the Renal Transplantation Setting.

BACKGROUND: Iohexol plasma clearance-based glomerular filtration rate (GFR) determination provides an accurate method for renal function evaluation. This technique is increasingly advocated for clinical situations that dictate highly accurate renal function assessment, as an alternative to conventional serum creatinine-based methods with limited accuracy or poor feasibility. In the renal transplantation setting, this particularly applies to living renal transplant donor eligibility screening, renal transplant function monitoring and research purposes. The dependency of current iohexol GFR estimation techniques on extensive sampling, however, has limited its clinical application. We developed a population pharmacokinetic model and limited sampling schedules, implemented in the online InsightRX precision dosing platform, to facilitate pragmatic iohexol GFR assessment. METHODS: Iohexol concentrations (n = 587) drawn 5 min to 4 h after administration were available from 67 renal transplant recipients and 41 living renal transplant donor candidates with measured iohexol GFRs of 27-117 mL/min/1.73 m2. These were split into a model development (n = 72) cohort and an internal validation (n = 36) cohort. External validation was performed with 1040 iohexol concentrations from 268 renal transplant recipients drawn between 5 min and 4 h after administration, and extended iohexol curves up to 24 h from 11 random patients with impaired renal function. Limited sampling schedules based on one to four blood draws within 4 h after iohexol administration were evaluated in terms of bias and imprecision, using the mean relative prediction error and mean absolute relative prediction error. The total deviation index and percentage of limited sampling schedule-based GFR predictions within ± 10% of those of the full model (P10) were assessed to aid interpretation. RESULTS: Iohexol pharmacokinetics was best described with a two-compartmental first-order elimination model, allometrically scaled to fat-free mass, with patient type as a covariate on clearance and the central distribution volume. Model validity was confirmed during the internal and external validation. Various limited sampling schedules based on three to four blood draws within 4 h showed excellent predictive performance (mean relative prediction error < ± 0.5%, mean absolute relative prediction error < 3.5%, total deviation index < 5.5%, P10 > 97%). The best limited sampling schedules based on three to four blood draws within 3 h showed reduced predictive performance (mean relative prediction error < ± 0.75%, mean absolute relative prediction error < 5.5%, total deviation index < 9.5%, P10 ≥ 85%), but may be considered for their enhanced clinical feasibility when deemed justified. CONCLUSIONS: Our online pharmacometric tool provides an accurate, pragmatic, and ready-to-use technique for measured GFR-based renal function evaluation for clinical situations where conventional methods lack accuracy or show limited feasibility. Additional adaptation and validation of our model and limited sampling schedules for renal transplant recipients with GFRs below 30 mL/min is warranted before considering this technique in these patients.