A Comparison of Close Family Members and Other Relationships in Live Kidney Donor Evaluation

Background: While initially live kidney donations (LKD) were largely restricted to biological relatives, there is currently more variety in the types of donor-recipient relationships. We examined the LKD evaluation process to compare behaviors and characteristics of close family members (CFM) versus other relationships. Methods: Single institution retrospective chart review of referrals for LKD between 1/2009-12/2022. Referrals were identified using the Organ Transplant Tracking Record database and cross referenced with billing data. Elimination at each stage of evaluation was compared between CFM (spouses, parents, siblings, and children) and non-CFM using Chi square test. Results: In sum, 1861 referrals were reviewed, including 477 (25.6%) CFM and 1384 (74.4%) non-CFM, resulting in 146 approvals and 125 donations. CFM were more likely to complete medical (med) and psychosocial (psych) workup (WU). Among those who completed WU, CFM were less likely to have med and psych contraindications (CI). Overall, CFM were more likely to be approved and to donate. However, once approved, there was no difference in donation between the 2 groups (p = 0.61). The top med CI for both was obesity, eliminating 60/124 (48.3%) CFM and 203/399 (50.9%) non-CFM, followed by hypertension (HTN) and malignancy concerns for CFM; nephrolithiasis and HTN for non-CFM. The top psych CI was substance use disorder (SUD) for CFM; young donor age for non-CFM. Conclusion: We saw a high proportion of non-CFM referrals, suggesting increased awareness and acceptance to be considered as donors. Non-CFM were more often eliminated due to med or psych CI. CFM showed greater commitment to complete LKD evaluation, but once approved, both groups were equally likely to follow through with donation. - Close family member (n = 477) Other (n = 1384) p value Positive crossmatch (%) 3 (1.4) 7 (1.8) 0.75 Begin medical workup (%) 248 (52.0) 503 (36.3) < 0.01 Complete medical workup (%) 211 (44.2) 468 (33.8) < 0.01 Medical contraindication (% complete workup) 124 (57.8) 399 (85.3) < 0.01 Complete psychosocial workup (%) 170 (35.6) 169 (12.2) < 0.01 Psychosocial contraindication (% complete workup) 28 (16.5) 60 (35.5) < 0.01 Recipient too ill or dead (%) 14 (2.9) 33 (2.4) 0.51 Approved (%) 83 (17.4) 63 (4.6) < 0.01 Donate (%) 70 (14.7) 55 (4.0) < 0.01 Donate (% approved) 70 (84.3) 55 (87.3) 0.61

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Published
2024-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1681/asn.2024jth46w2n
Primary Topic
Organ Donation and Transplantation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Comparison of Close Family Members and Other Relationships in Live Kidney Donor Evaluation

Amy Evenson, Stalin Cañizares, Maria C. Rivera, Devin E. Eckhoff et al.
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Organ Donation and Transplantation
article

A Comparison of Close Family Members and Other Relationships in Live Kidney Donor Evaluation

Amy Evenson, Stalin Cañizares, Maria C. Rivera, Devin E. Eckhoff, Martha Pavlakis, Ritah R. Chumdermpadetsuk, Bhavna Chopra, Adriana Montalvan
article en

Abstract

Background: While initially live kidney donations (LKD) were largely restricted to biological relatives, there is currently more variety in the types of donor-recipient relationships. We examined the LKD evaluation process to compare behaviors and characteristics of close family members (CFM) versus other relationships. Methods: Single institution retrospective chart review of referrals for LKD between 1/2009-12/2022. Referrals were identified using the Organ Transplant Tracking Record database and cross referenced with billing data. Elimination at each stage of evaluation was compared between CFM (spouses, parents, siblings, and children) and non-CFM using Chi square test. Results: In sum, 1861 referrals were reviewed, including 477 (25.6%) CFM and 1384 (74.4%) non-CFM, resulting in 146 approvals and 125 donations. CFM were more likely to complete medical (med) and psychosocial (psych) workup (WU). Among those who completed WU, CFM were less likely to have med and psych contraindications (CI). Overall, CFM were more likely to be approved and to donate. However, once approved, there was no difference in donation between the 2 groups (p = 0.61). The top med CI for both was obesity, eliminating 60/124 (48.3%) CFM and 203/399 (50.9%) non-CFM, followed by hypertension (HTN) and malignancy concerns for CFM; nephrolithiasis and HTN for non-CFM. The top psych CI was substance use disorder (SUD) for CFM; young donor age for non-CFM. Conclusion: We saw a high proportion of non-CFM referrals, suggesting increased awareness and acceptance to be considered as donors. Non-CFM were more often eliminated due to med or psych CI. CFM showed greater commitment to complete LKD evaluation, but once approved, both groups were equally likely to follow through with donation. - Close family member (n = 477) Other (n = 1384) p value Positive crossmatch (%) 3 (1.4) 7 (1.8) 0.75 Begin medical workup (%) 248 (52.0) 503 (36.3) < 0.01 Complete medical workup (%) 211 (44.2) 468 (33.8) < 0.01 Medical contraindication (% complete workup) 124 (57.8) 399 (85.3) < 0.01 Complete psychosocial workup (%) 170 (35.6) 169 (12.2) < 0.01 Psychosocial contraindication (% complete workup) 28 (16.5) 60 (35.5) < 0.01 Recipient too ill or dead (%) 14 (2.9) 33 (2.4) 0.51 Approved (%) 83 (17.4) 63 (4.6) < 0.01 Donate (%) 70 (14.7) 55 (4.0) < 0.01 Donate (% approved) 70 (84.3) 55 (87.3) 0.61

Journal of the American Society of NephrologyVol. 35(10S)
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
Gender equality
Openalex Percentile: Top 71%
Organ Donation and Transplantation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.