Risks and Outcomes of Living Donation

School of Medicine, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, United States
Advances in chronic kidney disease (Impact Factor: 2.05). 07/2012; 19(4):220-8. DOI: 10.1053/j.ackd.2011.09.005
Source: PubMed


Living donors supply approximately 40% of renal allografts in the United States. Based on current data, perioperative mortality after donor nephrectomy is approximately 3 per 10,000 cases, and major and minor perioperative complications affect approximately 3% to 6% and 22% of donors, respectively. Donor nephrectomy does not appear to increase long-term mortality compared with controls, nor does it appear to increase ESRD risk among white donors. Within the donor population, the likelihood of postdonation chronic renal failure and medical comorbidities such as hypertension and diabetes appears to be relatively higher among some donor subgroups, such as African Americans and obese donors, but the impact of uninephrectomy on the lifetime risks of adverse events expected without nephrectomy in these subgroups has not yet been defined. As national follow-up of living donors in the United States is limited in scope, duration, and completeness, additional methods for quantifying risk among diverse living donors are needed. In addition to improved national collection of follow-up data, possible sources of information on donor outcomes may include focused studies with carefully defined control groups, and database integration projects that link national donor registration records to other data sources. Given the growth and evolving characteristics of the living donor population, as well as changes in surgical techniques, tracking of short- and long-term risks after living kidney donation is vital to support truly informed consent and to maintain public trust in living donation. The transplant community must persist in their efforts to accurately assess risk across demographically diverse living kidney donors.

9 Reads
  • The Lancet 09/2012; 380(9854). DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61300-2 · 45.22 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Living kidney donation is an important option for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and has improved life expectancy and quality for patients otherwise requiring maintenance dialysis or deceased-donor transplantation. Given the favorable outcomes of live donation and the shortage of organs to transplant, individuals with potentially unfavorable demographic and clinical characteristics are increasingly being permitted to donate kidneys. While this trend has successfully expanded the live donor pool, it has raised concerns as to which acceptance criteria are safe. This review aims to summarize the existing literature on the outcomes of transplantation from medically complex living kidney donors, including both donor and recipient outcomes when available.
    03/2013; 1(1). DOI:10.1007/s40472-013-0001-6
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A live organ donor needs to be informed carefully about the risks and benefits of her donation for both herself and her recipient, but a key ethical question is how much the donor is allowed to know about the recipient. To decide this question, we must first decide whether, out of respect for autonomy, the donor should decide how much she wants to know, or whether the transplant team, as the professionals, should decide what information is relevant to the donor's decision. I argue that the transplant team should control the process. While the donor has the right to know enough about her recipient to assess the risk to herself and the prospects for a successful donation, she is not entitled to any further information, no matter how much she wants it. In particular, I argue that donors are not entitled to information that has not been shown to affect outcomes, but that they should be told if a recipient is HIV or that he has rejected a previous organ due to non-compliance. Donors have a right to make decisions with all the information they need, but recipients need not make their lives completely transparent.
    The Journal of Law Medicine &amp Ethics 03/2013; 41(1):323-32. DOI:10.1111/jlme.12023 · 1.10 Impact Factor
Show more