Dataset Information

A National Survey of Practice Patterns for Accepting Living Kidney Donors With Prior COVID-19.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

A critical question facing transplant programs is whether, when, and how to safely accept living kidney donors (LKDs) who have recovered from COVID-19 infection. The purpose of the study is to understand current practices related to accepting these LKDs.

Methods

We surveyed US transplant programs from 3 September through 3 November 2020. Center level and participant level responses were analyzed.

Results

A total of 174 respondents from 115 unique centers responded, representing 59% of US LKD programs and 72.4% of 2019 and 72.5% of 2020 LKD volume (Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network-OPTN 2021). In all, 48.6% of responding centers had received inquiries from such LKDs, whereas 44.3% were currently evaluating. A total of 98 donors were in the evaluation phase, whereas 27.8% centers had approved 42 such donors to proceed with donation. A total of 50.8% of participants preferred to wait >3 months, and 91% would wait at least 1 month from onset of infection to LD surgery. The most common reason to exclude LDs was evidence of COVID-19-related AKI (59.8%) even if resolved, followed by COVID-19-related pneumonia (28.7%) and hospitalization (21.3%). The most common concern in accepting such donors was kidney health postdonation (59.2%), followed by risk of transmission to the recipient (55.7%), donor perioperative pulmonary risk (41.4%), and donor pulmonary risk in the future (29.9%).

Conclusion

Practice patterns for acceptance of COVID-19-recovered LKDs showed considerable variability. Ongoing research and consensus building are needed to guide optimal practices to ensure safety of accepting such donors. Long-term close follow-up of such donors is warranted.

SUBMITTER: Jan MY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8123405 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A National Survey of Practice Patterns for Accepting Living Kidney Donors With Prior COVID-19.

Jan Muhammad Y MY Jawed Areeba T AT Barros Nicolas N Adebiyi Oluwafisayo O Diez Alejandro A Fridell Jonathan A JA Goggins William C WC Yaqub Muhammad S MS Anderson Melissa D MD Mujtaba Muhammad A MA Taber Tim E TE Mishler Dennis P DP Kumar Vineeta V Lentine Krista L KL Sharfuddin Asif A AA

Kidney international reports 20210515 8

<h4>Introduction</h4>A critical question facing transplant programs is whether, when, and how to safely accept living kidney donors (LKDs) who have recovered from COVID-19 infection. The purpose of the study is to understand current practices related to accepting these LKDs.<h4>Methods</h4>We surveyed US transplant programs from 3 September through 3 November 2020. Center level and participant level responses were analyzed.<h4>Results</h4>A total of 174 respondents from 115 unique centers respon ...[more]

PMID: 34027242

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:BackgroundRacial/ethnic disparities in living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) are large, and rates of LDKT may be limited by indirect costs of living donation. A 2019 Executive Order- Advancing American Kidney Health (AAKH)- sought to remove indirect costs through an expanded reimbursement program. We examine how potential living kidney donors in the U.S. believe regulation stemming from the AAKH initiative will impact their living donor evaluation likelihood, how these beliefs vary by minority race/ethnicity and prior willingness to be evaluated, and how differences are explained by ability to benefit or knowledge and attitudes.MethodsData from a 2019 online survey (Families of Renal Patients Survey) were used. Respondents are U.S. adult (> 18 years) members of the Qualtrics Survey Panel who reported having relatives with weak or failing kidneys (N = 590). Respondents' likelihood to be evaluated for living kidney donation are measured by self-report. Prior willingness is measured by past donation-related actions and current attitudes. Ability to benefit is measured by self-reported labor force participation and financial strain. Transplant knowledge is measured by self-report and a knowledge test, and transplant-related attitudes are measured by self-report. Average marginal effects of minority race/ethnicity and prior willingness for response to each provision in fully-adjusted models were estimated. Formal tests of mediation were conducted using the Karlson, Holm, and Breen (KHB) mediation model. Stata/MP 14.2 was used to conduct all analyses.ResultsMajorities of all groups report favorable responses to the provisions stipulated in AAKH regulation. Responses to provisions are significantly associated with race/ethnicity and prior willingness, with racial/ethnic minorities and those not previously willing to be evaluated less likely to report favorable responses to these provisions. Prior willingness differences are partially explained by group differences in ability to benefit and transplant-related knowledge and attitudes, but racial/ethnic differences largely are not.ConclusionsRegulation stemming from the AAKH initiative is likely to effectively promote LDKT, but may also exacerbate racial/ethnic disparities. Therefore, the regulation may need to be supplemented by efforts to address non-financial obstacles to LDKT in racial/ethnic minority communities in order to ensure equitable increases in LDKT rates and living donor support.

Project description:To prevent renal graft thrombosis in kidney transplantation, centres use different perioperative anticoagulant strategies, based on various risk factors. In our centre, patients transplanted preemptively are considered at increased risk of renal graft thrombosis compared to patients who are dialysis-dependent at time of transplantation. Therefore these patients are given a single dose of 5000 IU unfractionated heparin intraoperatively before clamping of the vessels. We questioned whether there is a difference in haemostatic state between preemptively and non-preemptively transplanted patients and whether the distinction in intraoperative heparin administration used in our center is justified. For this analysis, citrate samples of patients participating in the VAPOR-1 trial were used and several haemostatic and fibrinolytic parameters were measured in 29 preemptively and 28 non-preemptively transplanted patients and compared to 37 living kidney donors. Sample points were: induction anaesthesia (T1), 5 minutes after reperfusion (T2) and 2 hours postoperative (T3). At T1, recipient groups showed comparable elevated levels of platelet factor 4 (PF4, indicating platelet activation), prothrombin fragment F1+2 and D-dimer (indicating coagulation activation) and Von Willebrand Factor (indicating endothelial activation) compared to the donors. The Clot Lysis Time (CLT, a measure of fibrinolytic potential) was prolonged in both recipient groups compared to the donors. At T3, F1+2, PF4 and CLT were higher in non-preemptively transplanted recipients compared to preemptively transplanted recipients. Compared to donors, non-preemptive recipients showed a prolonged CLT, but comparable levels of PF4 and D-dimer. In conclusion pre-transplantation, preemptively and non-preemptively transplanted patients show a comparable enhanced haemostatic state. A distinction in intraoperative heparin administration between preemptive and non-preemptive transplantation does not seem justified.

Dataset Information

A National Survey of Practice Patterns for Accepting Living Kidney Donors With Prior COVID-19.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A National Survey of Practice Patterns for Accepting Living Kidney Donors With Prior COVID-19.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets