Financial toxicity in living donor liver transplantation: A call to action for financial neutrality.

After 2 decades of limited growth, living donor liver transplant (LDLT) has been increasingly accepted as a promising solution to the growing organ shortage in the US. With experience, LDLT offers superior graft and patient survival with low rates of rejection. However, not all waitlisted patients have equal access to LDLT, with financial toxicity representing a substantial barrier. Potential living liver donors face indirect, direct, and opportunity costs associated with donation as well as insurance-based discrimination and variable employer leave policies. There are multiple potential national, local, and patient-centered solutions to address some of the cost-related issues associated with living LDLT. These include standardization of employer leave policies, creation of federal and state-led tax relief programs, optimization of National Living Donor Assistance Center use, engagement of independent living donor advocates, creation of financial toolkits, and encouragement of recipient or donor-led fundraising. In this piece, members of the North American Living Liver Donation Group, a consortium of 37 LDLT programs, explore these financial challenges and discuss solutions to achieve financial neutrality, where individuals can donate free from financial constraints or gains. As a community, it is imperative that we confront factors driving financial toxicity to improve equity and access to LDLT.

Donor-Dependent Variations in Systemic Oxidative Stress and Their Association with One-Year Graft Outcomes in Kidney Transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: Oxidative stress has been implicated in complications after kidney transplantation (KT), including delayed graft function (DGF) and rejection. However, its role in long-term posttransplant outcomes remains unclear. METHODS: We investigated oxidative damage and antioxidant defense dynamics, and their impact on the graft outcomes, in 41 KT recipients categorized by type of donation over 12 months. Oxidative status was determined using OxyScore and AntioxyScore indexes, which comprise several circulating biomarkers of oxidative damage and antioxidant defense. Donor types included donation after brain death (DBD [61.0%]), donation after circulatory death (DCD [26.8%]), and living donation (LD [12.1%]). RESULTS: There was an overall increase in oxidative damage early after transplantation, which was significantly higher in DCD as compared to DBD and LD recipients. The multivariate adjustment confirmed the independent association of OxyScore and type of deceased donation with DGF, donor kidney function, and induction therapy with antithymocyte globulin. There were no differences in terms of antioxidant defense. Lower oxidative damage at day 7 predicted better graft function at 1-year posttransplant only in DBD recipients. CONCLUSION: DCD induced greater short-term oxidative damage after KT, whereas the early levels of oxidative damage were predictive of the graft function 1 year after KT among DBD recipients.

Association between donor kidney cysts and donor and recipient outcomes after living donor kidney transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: Incidental kidneys cysts are typically considered benign, but the presence of cysts is more frequent in individuals with other early markers of kidney disease. We studied the association of donor kidney cysts with donor and recipient outcomes after living donor kidney transplantation. METHODS: We retrospective identified 860 living donor transplants at our center (1/1/2011-7/31/2022) without missing data. Donor cysts were identified by review of pre-donation CT scan reports. We used linear regression to study the association between donor cysts and 6-month single-kidney estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) increase, and time-to-event analyses to study the association between donor cysts and recipient death-censored graft failure. RESULTS: Among donors, 77% donors had no kidney cysts, 13% had ≥1 cyst on the kidney not donated, and 11% only had cysts on the donated kidney. In adjusted linear regression, cysts on the donated kidney and kidney not donated were not significantly associated with 6-month single-kidney eGFR increase. Among transplants, 17% used a transplanted kidney with a cyst and 6% were from donors with cysts only on the kidney not transplanted. There was no association between donor cyst group and post-transplant death-censored graft survival. Results were similar in sensitivity analyses comparing transplants using kidneys with no cysts versus 1-2 cysts versus ≥3 cysts. CONCLUSIONS: Kidney cysts in living kidney donors were not associated with donor kidney recovery or recipient allograft longevity, suggesting incidental kidney cysts need not be taken into account when determining living donor candidate suitability or the laterality of planned donor nephrectomy.

Impact of delayed listing after initiating kidney transplant evaluation on transplant outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Longer end-stage renal disease time has been associated with inferior kidney transplant outcomes. However, the contribution of transplant evaluation is uncertain. We explored the relationship between time from evaluation to listing (ELT) and transplant outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective study included 2535 adult kidney transplants from 2000 to 2015. Kaplan-Meier survival curves, log-rank tests, and Cox regression models were used to compare transplant outcomes. RESULTS: Patient survival for both deceased donor (DD) recipients (p < .001) and living donor (LD) recipients (p < .0001) was significantly higher when ELT was less than 3 months. The risks of ELT appeared to be mediated by other risks in DD recipients, as adjusted models showed no associated risk of graft loss or death in DD recipients. For LD recipients, ELT remained a risk factor for patient death after covariate adjustment. Each month of ELT was associated with an increased risk of death (HR = 1.021, p = .04) but not graft loss in LD recipients in adjusted models. CONCLUSIONS: Kidney transplant recipients with longer ELT times had higher rates of death after transplant, and ELT was independently associated with an increased risk of death for LD recipients. Investigations on the impact of pretransplant evaluation on post-transplant outcomes can inform transplant policy and practice.

Living Donor Decision-Making and the Complex Interplay of Finances and Other Motivators, Barriers, and Facilitators.

INTRODUCTION: The decision to become a living donor requires consideration of a complex, interactive array of factors that could be targeted for clinical, policy, and educational interventions. Our objective was to assess how financial barriers interact with motivators, other barriers, and facilitators during this process. METHODS: Data were obtained from a public survey assessing motivators, barriers, and facilitators of living donation. We used multivariable logistic regression and consensus k-means clustering to assess interactions between financial concerns and other considerations in the decision-making process. RESULTS: Among 1592 respondents, the average age was 43; 74% were female and 14% and 6% identified as Hispanic and Black, respectively. Among employed respondents (72%), 40% indicated that they would not be able to donate without lost wage reimbursement. Stronger agreement with worries about expenses and dependent care challenges was associated with not being able to donate without lost wage reimbursement (OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.0-1.3; OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.1-1.3, respectively). Four respondent clusters were identified. Cluster 1 had strong motivators and facilitators with minimal barriers. Cluster 2 had barriers related to health concerns, nervousness, and dependent care. Clusters 3 and 4 had financial barriers. Cluster 3 also had anxiety related to surgery and dependent care. CONCLUSIONS: Financial barriers interact primarily with health and dependent care concerns when considering living organ donation. Targeted interventions to reduce financial barriers and improve provider communication regarding donation-related risks are needed.

Comparison of Kidney Graft Function and Survival in an Emulated Trial With Living Donors and Brain-Dead Donors.

Living donation (LD) transplantation is the preferred treatment for kidney failure as compared to donation after brain death (DBD), but age may play a role. We compared the 1-year estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) after kidney transplantation for recipients of LD and DBD stratified by recipient and donor age between 2015 and 2018 in a matched cohort. The strength of the association between donation type and 1-year eGFR differed by recipient age (P interaction < 0.0001). For LD recipients aged 40-54 years versus same-aged DBD recipients, the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for eGFR ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2 was 1.48 (95% CI: 1.16-1.90). For DBD recipients aged ≥ 60 years, the aOR was 0.18 (95% CI: 0.12-0.29) versus DBD recipients aged 40-54 years but was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.67-1.24) versus LD recipients aged ≥60 years. In the matched cohort, 4-year graft and patient survival differed by donor age and type. As compared with DBD grafts, LD grafts increased the proportion of recipients with 1-year eGFR ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Recipients aged ≥60 years benefited most from LD transplantation, even if the donor was aged ≥60 years. For younger recipients, large age differences between donor and recipient could also be addressed with a paired exchange program.

Unrecognized opportunities: The landscape of pediatric kidney-paired donation in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric (age < 18 years) kidney transplant (KT) candidates face increasingly complex choices. The 2014 kidney allocation system nearly doubled wait times for pediatric recipients. Given longer wait times and new ways to optimize compatibility, more pediatric candidates may consider kidney-paired donation (KPD). Motivated by this shift and the potential impact of innovations in KPD practice, we studied pediatric KPD procedures in the US from 2008 to 2021. METHODS: We describe the characteristics and outcomes of pediatric KPD recipients with comparison to pediatric non-KPD living donor kidney transplants (LDKT), pediatric LDKT recipients, and pediatric deceased donor (DDKT) recipients. RESULTS: Our study cohort includes 4987 pediatric DDKTs, 3447 pediatric non-KPD LDKTs, and 258 pediatric KPD transplants. Fewer centers conducted at least one pediatric KPD procedure compared to those that conducted at least one pediatric LDKT or DDKT procedure (67, 136, and 155 centers, respectively). Five centers performed 31% of the pediatric KPD transplants. After adjustment, there were no differences in graft failure or mortality comparing KPD recipients to non-KPD LDKT, LDKT, or DDKT recipients. DISCUSSION: We did not observe differences in transplant outcomes comparing pediatric KPD recipients to controls. Considering these results, KPD may be underutilized for pediatric recipients. Pediatric KT centers should consider including KPD in KT candidate education. Further research will be necessary to develop tools that could aid clinicians and families considering the time horizon for future KT procedures, candidate disease and histocompatibility characteristics, and other factors including logistics and donor protections.

Robotic living donor nephrectomy is associated with reduced post-operative opioid use compared to hand-assisted laparoscopic approach.

BACKGROUND: Robotic donor nephrectomy (RDN) has emerged as a safe alternative to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN). Having previously demonstrated comparable efficacy, this study aims to examine postoperative analgesia use (opioid and non-opioid) in the two groups. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 300 living donor nephrectomies performed at our center, comparing 150 RDN's with a contemporary cohort of 150 hand-assisted LDN's. In addition to clinical and demographic information, data on postoperative inpatient opioid and non-opioid analgesia (from patient's arrival to the surgical floor after surgery till the time of discharge) was collected. Opioid dosages were standardized by conversion to morphine milligram equivalents (MME). All patients were managed post-operatively under a standardized ERAS pathway for living donor nephrectomy patients. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in donor age, gender, and BMI between RDN and LDN groups. Total post-operative opioid use (MME's) was significantly lower in RDN patients (RDN 27.1 vs. LDN 46.3; P < 0.0001). Breakdown of opioid use with post-operative (POD) day demonstrated significantly lower use in RDN group on POD1 (RDN 8.6 vs. LDN 17.0; P < 0.05), and POD2 (RDN 3.9 vs LDN 10; P < 0.05). RDN patients had a shorter post-operative length of stay (LOS) (RDN 1.69 days vs. LDN 1.98; P = 0.0003). There were no differences between groups in non-opioid medication use, complications, and readmission rates. CONCLUSION: RDN has comparable safety to hand-assist LDN and offers additional benefits of lower postoperative opioid requirement and a shorter hospital LOS.

Effective and safe implementation of robot-assisted donor nephrectomy by experienced laparoscopic surgeons.

BACKGROUND: In June 2021, the first robot-assisted donor nephrectomy (RADN) was performed at the Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), the Netherlands. The goal of this study was to investigate whether this procedure has been implemented safely and efficiently. METHODS: RADN was retrospectively compared to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) performed during the same time period (June 2021 until November 2022). Patients were assigned to RADN depending on the availability of the da Vinci robot and surgical team. The studied endpoints were postoperative complications, operative time, estimated blood loss, warm ischemic time (WIT), and postoperative pain experience. For analysis, the Student's t-test and Chi-squared test were used for, respectively, continuous and categorical data. RESULTS: Forty RADN were compared to 63 LDN. Total insufflation time was significantly longer in RADN compared to LDN (188 min (169-214) versus 172 min (144-194); p = 0.02). Additionally, WIT was also found to be significantly higher in the robot-assisted group (04:54 min vs. 04:07 min; p < 0.01). No statistical differences were found in postoperative outcomes (eGFR of the recipient at 3-month follow-up, RADN 54.08 mL/min ±18.79 vs. LDN 56.41 mL/min ±16.82; p = 0.52), pain experience, and complication rate. CONCLUSION: RADN was safely and efficiently implemented at the LUMC. It's results were not inferior to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Operative time and warm ischemic times were longer in RADN. This may relate to a learning curve effect. No clinically relevant effect on postoperative outcomes was observed.

The Importance of Segment 4 Anatomy on Outcomes Following Living Donor Left Lateral Segmentectomy.

BACKGROUND: During left lateral section (LLS) resection for live liver donation, the vascular inflow and the bile drainage of segment 4 (S4) are compromised. We investigated the long-term changes of S4 after donation and their potential prognostic impact on living liver donors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of 42 consecutive left lateral (LLS, S2/3) liver resections for living donation. RESULTS: There were 25 female and 17 male donors. Median age was 33 y and median body mass index was 26. Median LLS, S2/3, volume was 262 cc, and median sS4 volume was 160 cc. Complications were encountered in three donors (7%). An independent extrahepatic S4 artery (S4A) (with a proximal left heptic artery or a right hepatic artery origin) was identified in 41% of the donors. Ligation of the independent S4A was not associated with the rate of post resection liver dysfunction, complications, or the degree of S4 atrophy. Having a dominant S4 portal triad pedicle feeding the right anterior sectors, segment 5/8, of the liver was associated with increased parenchymal damage as evidenced by a higher peak of alanine aminotransferase but was not associated with postoperative complications. The median degree of atrophy of S4 at 1 y post donation as noted on imaging was 66%. The presence of a dominant S4 portal triad pedicle and the peak alanine aminotransferase early postoperatively were both predictors of the degree of S4 atrophy post donation. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of an independent S4A or dominant S4 portal triad pedicle feeding the liver right anterior sectors, segment 5/8, should not be a contraindication for left lateral segment living donation.

Variation in adult living donor liver transplantation in the United States: Identifying opportunities for increased utilization.

In the United States, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is limited to transplant centers with specific experience. However, the impact of recipient characteristics on procedure selection (LDLT vs. deceased donor liver transplant [DDLT]) within these centers has not been described. Transplant registry data for centers that performed ≥1 LDLT in 2002-2019 were analyzed using hierarchal regression modeling to quantify the impact of patient and center factors on the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of LDLT (vs DDLT). Among 73,681 adult recipients, only 4% underwent LDLT, varying from <1% to >60% of total liver transplants. After risk adjustment, the likelihood of receiving an LDLT rose by 73% in recent years (aOR 1.73 for 2014-2019 vs. 2002-2007) but remained lower for older adults, men, racial and ethnic minorities, and obese patients. LDLT was less commonly used in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or alcoholic cirrhosis, and more frequently in those with hepatitis C and with lower severity of illness (Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score < 15). Patients with public insurance, lower educational achievement, and residence in the Northwest and Southeast had decreased access. While some differences in access to LDLT reflect clinical factors, further exploration into disparities in LDLT utilization based on center practice and socioeconomic determinants of health is needed.

Trends in organ donation and transplantation over the past eighteen years in Iran.

BACKGROUND: This article will review the trends in organ donation over the past 18 years in Iran. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All donation and transplantation statistics were extracted by reviewing the Organ Procurement and Transplantation database of the Ministry of Health of Iran from 2002 to 2019. RESULTS: Iran's national deceased donation rate from 2002 to 2019 increased 19.06-fold from .75 to 14.3 per million population (PMP). After the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the rate of organ donation in Iran decreased significantly. Although 1 year after the onset of the pandemic, due to the widespread adoption of COVID19 vaccination, the rate of organ donation began to increase again, this system is still under performing. During the years under examination, the rate of deceased kidney donation increased significantly compared to living kidney donation and reached up to 2001 kidney transplantations in 2021. From 2002 to 2019, the rate of liver transplants increased to 12.8. Likewise, the rate of heart transplants increased 8.4-fold, from 15 to 126 cases during the same time. CONCLUSSION: Although a personal choice, the process of organ donation involves medical, legal, ethical, organizational, and social aspects. The trend in increasing donation rates over the past years can be attributed to multiple influences, which include rigorous team efforts in the organ donation and transplantation systems, in addition to creating a donation culture and promoting donation through media platforms. Moreover, we can say that the rising rates of deceased donor transplantation also can drive down rates of commercial living donor transplantation.

A survey of transplant providers regarding attitudes, barriers, and facilitators to living donor liver transplantation in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: A successful living donor liver transplant (LDLT) is the culmination of a multifaceted process coordinated among key stakeholders. METHODS: We conducted an electronic survey of US liver transplant (LT) centers (August 26, 2021-October 10, 2021) regarding attitudes, barriers, and facilitators of LDLT to learn how to expand LDLT safely and effectively in preparation for the American Society of Transplantation Living Donor Liver Transplant Consensus Conference. RESULTS: Responses were received from staff at 58 programs (40.1% of US LT centers). There is interest in broadening LDLT (100% of LDLT centers, 66.7% of non-LDLT centers) with high level of agreement that LDLT mitigates donor shortage (93.3% of respondents) and that it should be offered to all suitable candidates (87.5% of respondents), though LDLT was less often endorsed as the best first option (29.5% of respondents). Key barriers at non-LDLT centers were institutional factors and surgical expertise, whereas those at LDLT centers focused on waitlist candidate and donor factors. Heterogeneity in candidate selection for LDLT, candidate reluctance to pursue LDLT, high donor exclusion rate, and disparities in access were important barriers. CONCLUSION: Findings from this study may help guide current and future expansion of LDLT more efficiently in the US. These efforts require clear and cohesive messaging regarding LDLT benefits, engagement of the public community, and dedicated resources to equitably increase LDLT access.

Dual living donor organ transplants.

INTRODUCTION: Dual organ donation and transplantation from living donors (LDs) is a rare practice. Dual organ transplants can be done from the same LD or from different LDs and either simultaneously or sequentially. Simultaneous dual organ transplants from the same LD are of considerable concern due to the magnitude of the donor procedure. METHODS AND RESULTS: According to the UNOS/OPTN and IPTR databases, the US experience of LD dual organ transplants from 1981 to 2021 comprised 101 simultaneous or sequential dual organ transplants from the same LD and 111 transplants from different LDs for a total of 212 LD dual transplants. The first simultaneous or sequential dual organ transplants from either the same LD or different LDs were pancreas-kidney transplants (n = 92). Four additional LD organ transplant combinations have been performed in the United States: liver-kidney (n = 93), lung-kidney (n = 16), liver-intestine (n = 9), and intestine-kidney (n = 2). Only for dual pancreas-kidney (n = 49) and liver-intestinal transplants (n = 4), organs from the same LD have been procured simultaneously. Importantly, no donor deaths have been reported after any simultaneous or sequential procurement. LD dual organ outcomes in all recipient categories have been excellent. CONCLUSIONS: LD dual organ donation and transplantation is safe and successful. Any potential dual organ LD candidate must be subject to the highest level of evaluation scrutiny. A (dual) organ donor registry is warranted for long-term follow-up.

Anterior hepatic resection: A simple and safe technique for reducing the antero-posterior diameter of the liver graft for small pediatric recipients.

BACKGROUND: The techniques involved in neonatal and infantile transplantation require approaches that can sculpt a left lateral segment (LLS) to the right shape and size and avoid large-for-size syndrome. The aim of this article is to describe the anterior hepatic resection (AHR) of the LLS in pediatric LDLT. METHODS: A retrospective anatomical study of preoperative image studies, description of the technique for AHR, and short-term results. RESULTS: The AHR was performed in eight cases. All donors were male, with average age, BW, and BMI of 28.3 ± 5.9 years, 74.2 ± 9.3 kg, and 24.3 ± 2.6 kg/m2, respectively. Donors were discharged at an average of 3.6 ± 0.8 days. The median recipient age and BW at transplantation were 6.9 (2.7 to 11) months and 5.9 (3.9 to 8) kg, respectively, and the recipient-to-donor body weight ratio (RDBW) was <0.1 in all but one case. The mean percentage reduction in graft weight and in the antero-posterior diameter were 33.2% ± 5.5% and 38.3% ± 12.6%, respectively. The average (SD) GRWR was 4.8% ± 1.7% before all the resections and 3.5% ± 1.0% after the procedures. Seven patients were primarily closed. CONCLUSION: After LLS resection, a nonanatomical anterior resection of the LLS was accomplished without hilar vascular dissection to segments II/III. The final liver graft allowed primary abdominal wall closure in all but one patient, with meaningful adjustments in GRWR. AHR proved to be simple, safe, reproducible, and effective in the presented case series.

Life-threatening variceal bleeding after liver transplantation and extensive portal vein thrombosis: Desperate times call for desperate measures.

BACKGROUND: The management of complex, intra- and extrahepatic portal vein thrombosis (PVT) after liver transplantation (LT) is challenging. Although most of the patients remain asymptomatic or oligosymptomatic in the chronic setting, some of them may develop severe portal hypertension and related complications, notably gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. In the emergency scenario, clinical and endoscopic treatments as well as intensive support constitute the bases of conservative management, while more definitive treatment options such as surgical shunting and retransplantation are related to high morbidity rates. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) was largely considered of limited role due to technical difficulties arising from extensive PVT. Recently, however, new minimally invasive image-guided techniques emerged, allowing portal vein recanalization and TIPS creation simultaneously (TIPS-PVR), even in complex PVT pretransplant patients. METHODS: Herein, we describe a novel indication for TIPS-PVR in a post-LT adolescent presenting with life-threatening, refractory GI bleeding. RESULTS: The patient presented with complete resolution of the hemorrhagic condition after the procedure, with no deterioration of hepatic function or hepatic encephalopathy. Follow-up Doppler ultrasound after TIPS-PVR showed normal hepatopetal venous flow within the stents, and no evidence of complications, including intraperitoneal or peri splenic bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: This report describes the feasibility of TIPS-PVR in the post-LT scenario complicated by extensive PVT. In this case, a complete resolution of the life-threatening GI bleeding was achieved, with no major complications. Other patients with complex chronic PVT might benefit from the use of the described technique, but further studies are required to determine the correct timing and indications of the procedure, eventually before the occurrence of life-threatening complications.

Robotic donor nephrectomy: optimizing outcomes beyond the limitations of laparoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Robotic donor nephrectomy (RDN) has emerged as a safe alternate to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN), offering improved visualization, instrument dexterity and ergonomics. There is still concern about how to safely transition from LDN to RDN. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 150 consecutive living donor operations (75 LDN and 75 RDN) at our center, comparing the first 75 RDN's with the last 75 LDN's performed prior to the initiation of the robotic transplant program. Operative times and complications were used as surrogates of efficiency and safety, respectively, to estimate the learning curve with RDN. RESULTS: RDN was associated with a longer total operative time (RDN 182 vs LDN 144 min; P < 0.0001) but a significantly shorter post-operative length of stay (RDN 1.8 vs LDN 2.1 days; P = 0.0213). Donor complications and recipient outcomes were the same between both groups. Learning curve of RDN was estimated to be about 30 cases. CONCLUSIONS: RDN is a safe alternate to LDN with acceptable donor morbidity and no negative impact on recipient outcomes even during the early part of the RDN learning curve. Surgeon preferences for the robotic approach compared to traditional laparoscopy will require further scrutiny to improve ergonomics and operative efficiency.

Short- and long-term complications after living donor ileal resection.

Intestinal transplantation from deceased donors is the established procedure for patients with irreversible intestinal failure. However, a living-donor intestinal transplant has not been routinely performed yet because of undefined surgical risks to the donor. In this report, we reviewed our experience with living-donor ileal resection from May 1999 to December 2021. A total of 40 living-donor ileal resections were performed for 40 intestinal transplant recipients. Clinical data were prospectively collected and analyzed for postoperative complications after ileal procurement. None of the donors experienced life-threatening complications or mortality. Six (15%) of 40 donors experienced minor operative complications. Transit intestinal graft inadequacy including weight loss, diarrhea, and vitamin B12 deficiency was common early following surgery, but was manageable and disappeared in most cases within a year. All donors had significant reductions in total plasma cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations after donation as compared with the baseline levels. With an average follow-up of 67.8 months, bilateral kidney stones occurred in one donor and gallstones in the other. All the donors have regained their normal capacity for work. Living-donor ileal resection is associated with minimal short- and long-term morbidity and remains an attractive alternative for potential recipients when suitable deceased donors are unavailable.

Assessment of long-term outcomes post living liver donation highlights the importance of scientific integrity when presenting transplant registry data.

Living donor liver transplantation has expanded in recent years, particularly in North America. As experience with this procedure has matured over the last 25 years, centers are increasingly faced with potential living donors who are more medically complex. As donors move through the evaluation process, completing the informed consent process continues to be challenged by a paucity of granular data demonstrating long-term outcomes and overall safety specifically in the otherwise "healthy" living liver donor population. Two recently published studies examined long-term outcomes post-living liver donation using Korean registry data and reported similar results, with excellent overall survival when compared to appropriately matched controls. However, the authors of these studies were presented differently, with one reporting an alarmist view based on one aspect of a suboptimal analysis approach using an inappropriate comparator group. Herein, the North American Living Liver Donor Innovation Group (NALLDIG) consortium discusses these two studies and their potential impact on living liver donation in North America, ultimately highlighting the importance of scientific integrity in data presentation and dissemination when using transplant registry data.

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.