Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
    • Reprint Information
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
    • Feedback
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
    • Reprint Information
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
    • Feedback
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow CJASN on Twitter
  • CJASN RSS
  • Community Forum
Features
You have accessRestricted Access

Helping More Patients Receive a Living Donor Kidney Transplant

Amit X. Garg
CJASN December 2018, 13 (12) 1918-1923; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.00760118
Amit X. Garg
Department of Medicine, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading

Abstract

The best treatment option for many patients with kidney failure is a kidney transplant from a living donor. Countries that successfully increase their rate of living kidney donation will decrease their reliance on dialysis, the most expensive and high-risk form of kidney replacement therapy. Outlined here are some barriers that prevent some patients from pursuing living kidney donation and current knowledge on some potential solutions to these barriers. Also described are strategies to promote living kidney donation in a defensible system of practice. Safely increasing the rate of living kidney donation will require better programs and policies to improve the experiences of living donors and their recipients, to safeguard the practice for years to come.

  • Living Donors
  • kidney transplantation
  • renal dialysis
  • Renal Insufficiency
  • Tissue and Organ Harvesting
  • Renal Replacement Therapy
  • kidney

Introduction

Mary is a 67-year-old woman with diabetes and hypertension, who has been followed in an outpatient nephrology clinic for the past 2 years. She is compliant with recommended treatment, has good physical and cognitive function, but is obese (224 pounds; body mass index 37.5 kg/m2). She is widowed, has three children, has a modest pension, and comes alone to appointments. Unfortunately, her kidney function continues to decline. Her most recent laboratory results show a serum creatinine of 260 µmol/L (2.9 mg/dl), an eGFR of 16 ml/min per 1.73 m2, and a random urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio of 60 mg/mmol (530 mg/g). Her estimated chance of needing kidney replacement therapy is 31% in 2 years and 68% in 5 years (www.kidneyfailurerisk.com) (1). Although you aim to preserve her native kidney function for the longest time possible, you wish to advance a plan of kidney replacement therapy. Treatment options to discuss with Mary include (1) taking a conservative, palliative-care approach to therapy (not aligned with Mary’s current goals of care) (2), planning for dialysis delivered in-center or at home, and (3) seeking a kidney transplant from a deceased or living donor.

Receipt of a kidney from a living donor could be Mary’s best treatment option. Compared with dialysis, a kidney transplant would give her the best chance of a longer life—her estimated 3-year survival in the United States with a living donor transplant would be 96% compared with only 66% on dialysis (assuming her health characteristics remain stable until the start of treatment; www.ichoosekidney.emory.edu) (2). She is more likely to feel better, allowing her to be more active and have an easier time traveling to visit grandchildren. Finally, receiving a kidney from a living donor would save Mary from waiting many additional years for a deceased donor kidney (and her estimated 3-year chance of survival in the United States with a living donor transplant would be 96% compared with 94% with a deceased donor transplant) (2). Ideally, Mary could receive her living donor transplant preemptively, avoiding any exposure to dialysis (3). In the Canadian publicly funded healthcare system, receipt of a kidney transplant would save an estimated CAN$200,000 in averted dialysis costs over 5 years (4,5).

Unfortunately, in many countries, including the United States and Canada, many people like Mary will not receive a kidney transplant. In many countries, the waiting list for deceased donor kidneys continues to grow with the rising number of patients with advanced kidney disease, and rates of living donor kidney transplants have stagnated over the last decade (as seen in the United States, Canada, Brazil, Australia, and New Zealand) (6). Increasing the rate of living kidney donation would help meet the demand for transplantable kidneys (7,8).

Using Mary’s case as an illustrative example, some barriers to living donor kidney transplantation are discussed. Current knowledge on some potential solutions that address these barriers are then considered, followed by the context in how we promote living kidney donation in a defensible system of practice.

Barriers to Living Kidney Donor Transplantation

There are many barriers to receiving a living donor kidney transplant (Figure 1). These begin with Mary (at the level of a patient with advanced kidney disease) and extend to her support network of family and friends (who may also become living donors), her healthcare providers, and the healthcare system.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

There are several barriers to living donor kidney transplantation. Some barriers to living kidney donor transplantation (LKDT).

Barriers Experienced by Patients with Advanced Kidney Disease

Mary may lack knowledge about her treatment options (9–11). Each time Mary visits her nephrology clinic, there is a great deal of information to take in. It is very stressful to learn that one of your vital organs is failing, and it would be natural for Mary to feel overwhelmed and have trouble processing the necessary information to make medical decisions. Some patients refer to this as “kidney brain.” Some patients with kidney disease also have low health literacy (12). It is also possible Mary will not receive complete information from her health professionals.

Mary may feel conflicted about living donor kidney transplantation. She may feel uneasy or unsure of how to go about the process or believe she does not deserve someone else’s kidney. She may be hesitant to ask potential donors in case they feel pressured, feel afraid that no one will come forward to offer her a kidney, or anticipate disappointment about being turned down for her request (13). As highlighted in one national campaign, “many people won’t get a transplant simply because they don’t know how to ask” (US National Kidney Foundation, the Big Ask Big Give campaign) (14). Beyond asking, Mary may fear for the future health of the donor, feel guilty because she thinks the donor will be inconvenienced or put at risk, or become anxious about being indebted to the donor and wonder if their relationship will change (13). She may not understand that many donors benefit from the donation process. For example, her children may take on care responsibilities were she to begin dialysis treatments, which would be relieved were she to receive a transplant (15). In a systematic review of 51 studies describing 5139 donors who were assessed on average 4 years after donation, most donors reported no change or an improved relationship with their recipient, spouse, family members, and nonrecipient children, and some experienced an increase in self-esteem (16).

Mary will also need to be assessed for transplant eligibility. Although this may occur concurrently with her search for a living donor, some transplant centers in Ontario, Canada advise nephrologists not to complete transplant evaluation testing before dialysis initiation unless they have a reasonable prospect of a living kidney donor (given that the current wait time for a deceased donor kidney is 4 years, and doing the testing early means that it becomes outdated). Many transplant centers prefer or require intended recipients to have a body mass index <35 kg/m2, which may mean Mary will need to lose at least 15 pounds. Mary can expect to undergo many tests. In addition to standard and infectious disease blood work, Mary will need to have up-to-date colon, cervical, and breast cancer screening, an abdominal/kidney ultrasound and, because she has risk factors for heart disease, a cardiology consult, which can include an echocardiogram and noninvasive cardiac testing (e.g., a nuclear stress test). At the transplant center, Mary might have consultations with nurses, a social worker, a nephrologist, and a surgeon–a process that takes many months. These evaluation requirements will require Mary’s time and she may incur substantial expenses for travel and accommodation depending on how far she lives from her transplant evaluation center.

Barriers Experienced by Family and Friends of Patients with Advanced Kidney Disease

Mary has not shared her current situation with her three children or her extended family and friends because she has not wanted to worry them. They are completely unaware of how they can support Mary in her decision-making to pursue a kidney transplant. They may be unaware of the opportunity of living kidney donation, or may have cultural barriers (e.g., [mis]interpretations within their community about living donation) (17), genetic or environmental barriers (e.g., familial diseases or shared risk factors [diabetes, obesity]), or socioeconomic barriers (the donor will be off work for several weeks for the evaluation, surgery, and recovery). As with the recipient, donor candidates undergo extensive evaluation to assess their eligibility to donate. Approximately four out of every five candidates who contact a center do not proceed with donation (some are screened out after some initial questions, some are screened out after consults and testing, some never complete the testing to assess eligibility, and some do not donate because the recipient dies, becomes ill, receives a deceased donor kidney, or receives a kidney from another living donor) (18,19). Some candidates will also need to make some lifestyle changes (e.g., to quit smoking or achieve a body mass index <30 kg/m2). Donor candidates must complete screening questionnaires, blood and urine tests, diagnostic tests (abdominal computed tomography angiography), and specialist consultations (nephrologist, surgeon, and an assessment of psychosocial health). These evaluation visits take time (including time off work), and many candidates incur expenses for travel and accommodation, which are not always reimbursed (20). In many regions, the average time from when the donor first contacts a transplant center to the date of donation is almost a year (18,21).

Barriers at the Level of Healthcare Providers

Mary will require the support of her primary nephrologist and healthcare team in her decision to seek a transplant (22). Without sufficient information on her treatment options, Mary may believe that dialysis and living donor kidney transplantation offer similar outcomes. If Mary is experiencing uncertainty, she and her provider may delay making a difficult decision and opt to start hemodialysis with a catheter when kidney replacement is needed. The kidney clinic is a busy environment, and health professionals may lack the time and resources to fully guide and educate Mary in her transplant decision-making, and to enable her transplant evaluation should she wish to proceed. They should keep accurate notes on transplant discussions, which often need to be repeated on several occasions (23). Mary’s healthcare professionals may lack knowledge or have misunderstandings about the benefits, risks, and process of living donor kidney transplantation. Complicating matters is the lack of consensus even among experts that the risks are fully determined, or that the risks are always justifiable. In addition, any education and supportive materials to help Mary make an informed decision need to be culturally appropriate (24).

The best time to refer someone like Mary for transplant evaluation remains uncertain. If Mary begins her transplant evaluation too soon and her kidney function does not decline as quickly as expected, her initial testing may become outdated and need repeating. Her provider may also be concerned that, on the basis of her characteristics, Mary’s chance of dying or having a major adverse cardiovascular event in the next 2 years is approximately 15%, which could preclude a kidney transplant (estimates from a calculator developed by the CKD Prognosis Consortium: ckdpcrisk.org/lowgfrevents) (25). Communication between the primary nephrologist and transplant center can be poor, which can prolong the evaluation. The primary nephrologist is often uncertain whether a living donor candidate will be approved and may need to support their patient in finding more candidates.

Barriers at the Level of the Healthcare System

The healthcare system should be designed to support Mary in her pursuit of kidney transplantation when her kidneys fail (if that is her treatment choice). General nephrologists and kidney clinics may lack adequate resources to provide the education and support Mary needs to make fully informed transplant decisions. Financial incentives may also be misaligned: each successful transplant in some healthcare systems may mean the nephrology program and the nephrologist lose the associated income that would come from dialysis. The electronic medical information from nephrology programs and transplant centers may not be linked, making processes inefficient and difficult to analyze.

Solutions to Improve Patient Experiences and Safely Increase Access to Living Donor Kidney Transplantation

Mary’s case description illustrates how complex it can be for her to receive a living donor kidney transplant, particularly one that is preemptive and avoids exposing her to dialysis. In the province of Ontario in Canada, health professionals, researchers, living donors, recipients, and patients with kidney failure are working together to better understand the barriers that prevent living donor kidney transplants, and to advance solutions which overcome them (26). The literature was reviewed, and expert colleagues were consulted. Ontario is not alone; efforts to improve standards and opportunities in living kidney donation are the focus of many professional groups (7,27,28).

A patient with kidney failure needs to complete their evaluation and be approved to receive a kidney transplant (irrespective if it is from a deceased or living donor). Connecting patients with peer mentors may help more patients receive a kidney transplant; peer mentors are uniquely able to provide practical guidance and emotional support on the basis of their lived experience. Peer mentorship was highly ranked by recipients and donors at a workshop hosted in Ontario (26), and two clinical trials have shown that more patients receive transplant referrals and progress through the evaluation process when they interact with kidney transplant recipients trained as peer mentors (29,30). In one of these trials (conducted in 134 dialysis centers in Georgia) only about 11% of patients were referred for transplant evaluation in the year after dialysis initiation; this increased to 17% after the intervention (30). In this trial, peer mentorship was included as part of a multicomponent strategy that provided education and engagement activities targeting dialysis directors, staff, and patients. Compared with usual care, dialysis centers that received the intervention had a significant increase in (1) referrals for transplant evaluation, (2) completed transplant evaluations, and (3) transplant wait-listing. This intervention also reduced racial disparities in access to transplantation.

Adding home visits to routine clinic-based education shows promise for specifically increasing access to living donor kidney transplantation. Clinical trials conducted by Rodrigue et al. (31,32) and Ismail et al. (33) have evaluated novel interventions with home visits, where these visits occurred over one or two occasions, were led by an allied health professional, and provided an opportunity to engage a patient’s family members, friends, and significant others in a discussion about transplantation. Beyond providing education, these visits assisted patients in mobilizing their social network to build consensus on what their best treatment option might be (taking the onus off the patient with kidney failure from doing it on their own). Importantly, these interventions achieved an >50% increase in the number of living donor evaluations and kidney transplants compared with the control group.

Several other strategies show promise in increasing access to living donor kidney transplantation whereas other strategies do not (summarized in a review by Barnieh et al. [34]). These strategies involve complex processes and include greater education for patients with kidney failure, removing disincentives (such as the expenses incurred by donors), a web-based system for donor-candidate screening, use of transplant champions to help intended recipients prepare for kidney transplantation (including finding living kidney donors), and creating dedicated multidisciplinary healthcare teams to support living kidney donation (34,35). Rigorous research methods are needed to assess the effects of complex interventions (36). Our team has responded by launching a cluster-randomized trial of 26 CKD programs in Ontario; these programs care for about 10,000 patients on dialysis and 15,000 patients with advanced CKD. We will test whether a multicomponent strategy (which includes data audit and feedback, transplant ambassadors, educational resources, and provincial coordination with administrative support) improves access to living donor kidney transplantation (the Enable Access to Kidney Transplantation and Living Kidney Donation trial) (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03329521).

Promoting Living Kidney Donation in a Defensible System of Practice

Living kidney donation raises ethical considerations for health professionals who help patients and their families pursue this treatment option (35). A person who becomes a living donor (and to a lesser extent a person who is evaluated as a living donor) is accepting some degree of personal risk that they would not otherwise incur. Diverse issues may arise during evaluation. Discovered health conditions may affect a person’s insurability, and occasionally candidates may have an adverse reaction to the intravenous contrast used in computed tomography angiography. Misattributed paternity is sometimes discovered in father-child relationships (37). Candidates may have negative psychosocial consequences if they are deemed ineligible to donate (35). The evaluation process takes time and energy for all those involved, and the candidate can incur substantial financial costs (38). For every 3000 people who proceed with donation, one may die due to the surgery, and another 15 may suffer a serious postoperative complication such as a pulmonary embolism or a need to return to the operating room (39). The donor will be on restricted duties for 6 weeks while recovering from the surgery, and on occasion may have a poor psychologic outcome, particularly if the recipient’s graft fails (in 2%–5% of transplants, the graft will not take or will last less than a year) (40). Long-term medical outcomes include a higher risk of ESKD (the absolute risk is <0.5% over 15 years), and uncertainty remains about the lifetime risk of several other outcomes (41). When promoting living kidney donation, health professionals may “subject” some donors (who would have not come forward otherwise) to these risks; professionals can experience significant distress when a living donation they enabled has a poor outcome. Health professionals must be comfortable in their belief that the expected benefits outweigh the harm and be confident that the donor and recipient are proceeding with a full understanding of the possible outcomes. A donor can derive several benefits from a successful transplant, including a better family life when their loved one with kidney failure is healthier.

Advocates and professionals on the donor’s evaluation team, who are separate from the intended recipient’s care, play an important role in a defensible system of practice. The operating procedures for donor evaluation teams continue to evolve. An international team of experts developed updated guidelines for the evaluation and care of living kidney donors, summarized in the 2017 Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes International Clinical Practice Guidelines (27). A key responsibility of health professionals who evaluate donor candidates is to approve only those candidates with an acceptably low forecasted risk of postdonation complications (appreciating this is sometimes easier said than done as in the community there are ongoing debates on what level of risk is acceptable, for whom and under what circumstances). For donors who proceed with surgery, health professionals should enable pre- and postdonation care that minimizes the risk of complications. In the past decade, living donor outcomes have received more attention than ever before (38,42–47). Ongoing efforts are needed to better understand and mitigate poor donor outcomes on the basis of a candidate’s specific characteristics, and share new information with the estimated half a million living kidney donors worldwide.

In conclusion, increasing the rate of living kidney donation will decrease reliance on dialysis, the most expensive and high-risk form of kidney replacement therapy. Safely increasing the rate of living kidney donation will require better programs and policies to improve the experiences of living donors and their recipients and to safeguard the practice for years to come.

Disclosures

A.X.G. has received partnership grant support from Astellas for Canadian Institutes of Health Research funded research grants in living kidney donation.

Acknowledgments

The 2016 Kidney Week Young Investigator Award presentation formed the basis of this article. I thank the American Society of Nephrology and the American Heart Association for this award, and also thank the members who supported my nomination. Equally important are my colleagues in the Division of Nephrology at Western University who continue to support my career in so many ways. I am privileged to work in living kidney donation with so many talented mentors, colleagues, staff, students, patients and policy-makers. I am grateful to the following individuals for reviewing this article and providing valuable feedback: Dr. Lianne Barnieh, Dr. Morgan Grams, Dr. Andrew Levey, Dr. Rachel Patzer, Dr. James Rodrigue, and Dr. Jessica Sontrop. Finally, and most importantly, the award was only possible through the substantial support of my immediate and extended family.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Kidney Foundation of Canada, the Lawson Health Research Institute, and the Department of Medicine at Western University were all instrumental in supporting my research endeavors and career development through generous grant support.

Footnotes

  • Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.cjasn.org.

  • Copyright © 2018 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    1. Tangri N,
    2. Grams ME,
    3. Levey AS,
    4. Coresh J,
    5. Appel LJ,
    6. Astor BC,
    7. Chodick G,
    8. Collins AJ,
    9. Djurdjev O,
    10. Elley CR,
    11. Evans M,
    12. Garg AX,
    13. Hallan SI,
    14. Inker LA,
    15. Ito S,
    16. Jee SH,
    17. Kovesdy CP,
    18. Kronenberg F,
    19. Heerspink HJL,
    20. Marks A,
    21. Nadkarni GN,
    22. Navaneethan SD,
    23. Nelson RG,
    24. Titze S,
    25. Sarnak MJ,
    26. Stengel B,
    27. Woodward M,
    28. Iseki K
    ; CKD Prognosis Consortium: Multinational assessment of accuracy of equations for predicting risk of kidney failure: A meta-analysis. JAMA 315: 164–174, 2016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Patzer RE,
    2. Basu M,
    3. Larsen CP,
    4. Pastan SO,
    5. Mohan S,
    6. Patzer M,
    7. Konomos M,
    8. McClellan WM,
    9. Lea J,
    10. Howard D,
    11. Gander J,
    12. Arriola KJ
    : iChoose kidney: A clinical decision aid for kidney transplantation versus dialysis treatment. Transplantation 100: 630–639, 2016
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Jay CL,
    2. Dean PG,
    3. Helmick RA,
    4. Stegall MD
    : Reassessing preemptive kidney transplantation in the United States: Are we making progress? Transplantation 100: 1120–1127, 2016
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Axelrod DA,
    2. McCullough KP,
    3. Brewer ED,
    4. Becker BN,
    5. Segev DL,
    6. Rao PS
    : Kidney and pancreas transplantation in the United States, 1999-2008: The changing face of living donation. Am J Transplant 10: 987–1002, 2010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    Kidney Foundation of Canada: Facing the Facts, 2015. Available at: https://www.kidney.ca/file/Facing-the-Facts-2015-infographic-landscape.pdf?erid=0. Accessed July 26, 2018
  6. ↵
    1. Reese PP,
    2. Boudville N,
    3. Garg AX
    : Living kidney donation: Outcomes, ethics, and uncertainty. Lancet 385: 2003–2013, 2015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. LaPointe Rudow D,
    2. Hays R,
    3. Baliga P,
    4. Cohen DJ,
    5. Cooper M,
    6. Danovitch GM,
    7. Dew MA,
    8. Gordon EJ,
    9. Mandelbrot DA,
    10. McGuire S,
    11. Milton J,
    12. Moore DR,
    13. Morgievich M,
    14. Schold JD,
    15. Segev DL,
    16. Serur D,
    17. Steiner RW,
    18. Tan JC,
    19. Waterman AD,
    20. Zavala EY,
    21. Rodrigue JR
    : Consensus conference on best practices in live kidney donation: Recommendations to optimize education, access, and care. Am J Transplant 15: 914–922, 2015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Davis CL
    : How to increase living donation. Transpl Int 24: 344–349, 2011
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Waterman AD,
    2. Robbins ML,
    3. Peipert JD
    : Educating prospective kidney transplant recipients and living donors about living donation: Practical and theoretical recommendations for increasing living donation rates. Curr Transplant Rep 3: 1–9, 2016
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Timmerman L,
    2. Ismail SY,
    3. Luchtenburg AE,
    4. Zuidema WC,
    5. IJzermans JNM,
    6. Busschbach JJV,
    7. Weimar W,
    8. Massey EK
    : Exploring knowledge about dialysis, transplantation, and living donation among patients and their living kidney donors. Int J Behav Med 22: 580–589, 2015
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. St Clair Russell J,
    2. Boulware LE
    : End-stage renal disease treatment options education: What matters most to patients and families. Semin Dial 31: 122–128, 2018
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Taylor DM,
    2. Fraser SDS,
    3. Bradley JA,
    4. Bradley C,
    5. Draper H,
    6. Metcalfe W,
    7. Oniscu GC,
    8. Tomson CRV,
    9. Ravanan R,
    10. Roderick PJ
    ; ATTOM investigators: A systematic review of the prevalence and associations of limited health literacy in CKD. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 12: 1070–1084, 2017
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Hanson CS,
    2. Chadban SJ,
    3. Chapman JR,
    4. Craig JC,
    5. Wong G,
    6. Ralph AF,
    7. Tong A
    : The expectations and attitudes of patients with chronic kidney disease toward living kidney donor transplantation: A thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. Transplantation 99: 540–554, 2015
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    National Kidney Foundation: The Big Ask The Big Give, 2017. Available at: https://www.kidney.org/transplantation/livingdonors. Accessed January 5, 2018
  14. ↵
    1. Van Pilsum Rasmussen SE,
    2. Henderson ML,
    3. Kahn J,
    4. Segev D
    : Considering tangible benefit for interdependent donors: Extending a risk-benefit framework in donor selection. Am J Transplant 17: 2567–2571, 2017
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Clemens KK,
    2. Thiessen-Philbrook H,
    3. Parikh CR,
    4. Yang RC,
    5. Karley ML,
    6. Boudville N,
    7. Ramesh Prasad GV,
    8. Garg AX
    ; Donor Nephrectomy Outcomes Research (DONOR) Network: Psychosocial health of living kidney donors: A systematic review. Am J Transplant 6: 2965–2977, 2006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Ismail SY,
    2. Massey EK,
    3. Luchtenburg AE,
    4. Claassens L,
    5. Zuidema WC,
    6. Busschbach JJ,
    7. Weimar W
    : Religious attitudes towards living kidney donation among Dutch renal patients. Med Health Care Philos 15: 221–227, 2012
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Bailey PK,
    2. Tomson CRV,
    3. MacNeill S,
    4. Marsden A,
    5. Cook D,
    6. Cooke R,
    7. Biggins F,
    8. O’Sullivan J,
    9. Ben-Shlomo Y
    : A multicenter cohort study of potential living kidney donors provides predictors of living kidney donation and non-donation. Kidney Int 92: 1249–1260, 2017
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Lapasia JB,
    2. Kong SY,
    3. Busque S,
    4. Scandling JD,
    5. Chertow GM,
    6. Tan JC
    : Living donor evaluation and exclusion: The Stanford experience. Clin Transplant 25: 697–704, 2011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Sickand M,
    2. Cuerden MS,
    3. Klarenbach SW,
    4. Ojo AO,
    5. Parikh CR,
    6. Boudville N,
    7. Garg AX
    ; Donor Nephrectomy Outcomes Research Network: Reimbursing live organ donors for incurred non-medical expenses: A global perspective on policies and programs. Am J Transplant 9: 2825–2836, 2009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Habbous S,
    2. Arnold J,
    3. Begen MA,
    4. Boudville N,
    5. Cooper M,
    6. Dipchand C,
    7. Dixon SN,
    8. Feldman LS,
    9. Goździk D,
    10. Karpinski M,
    11. Klarenbach S,
    12. Knoll GA,
    13. Lam NN,
    14. Lentine KL,
    15. Lok C,
    16. McArthur E,
    17. McKenzie S,
    18. Miller M,
    19. Monroy-Cuadros M,
    20. Nguan C,
    21. Prasad GVR,
    22. Przech S,
    23. Sarma S,
    24. Segev DL,
    25. Storsley L,
    26. Garg AX
    ; Donor Nephrectomy Outcomes Research (DONOR) Network: Duration of living kidney transplant donor evaluations: Findings from 2 multicenter cohort studies [published online ahead of print March 24, 2018]. Am J Kidney Dis
  21. ↵
    1. Davis CL
    : Preemptive transplantation and the transplant first initiative. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 19: 592–597, 2010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Huml AM,
    2. Sullivan CM,
    3. Pencak JA,
    4. Sehgal AR
    : Accuracy of dialysis medical records in determining patients’ interest in and suitability for transplantation. Clin Transplant 27: 541–545, 2013
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Purnell TS,
    2. Luo X,
    3. Cooper LA,
    4. Massie AB,
    5. Kucirka LM,
    6. Henderson ML,
    7. Gordon EJ,
    8. Crews DC,
    9. Boulware LE,
    10. Segev DL
    : Association of race and ethnicity with live donor kidney transplantation in the United States from 1995 to 2014. JAMA 319: 49–61, 2018
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Grams ME,
    2. Sang Y,
    3. Ballew SH,
    4. Carrero JJ,
    5. Djurdjev O,
    6. Heerspink HJL,
    7. Ho K,
    8. Ito S,
    9. Marks A,
    10. Naimark D,
    11. Nash DM,
    12. Navaneethan SD,
    13. Sarnak M,
    14. Stengel B,
    15. Visseren FLJ,
    16. Wang AY-M,
    17. Köttgen A,
    18. Levey AS,
    19. Woodward M,
    20. Eckardt K-U,
    21. Hemmelgarn B,
    22. Coresh J
    : Predicting timing of clinical outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease and severely decreased glomerular filtration rate. Kidney Int 93: 1442–1451, 2018
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Getchell LE,
    2. McKenzie SQ,
    3. Sontrop JM,
    4. Hayward JS,
    5. McCallum MK,
    6. Garg AX
    : Increasing the rate of living donor kidney transplantation in Ontario: Donor- and recipient-identified barriers and solutions. Can J Kidney Health Dis 4: 2054358117698666, 2017
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    1. Lentine KL,
    2. Kasiske BL,
    3. Levey AS,
    4. Adams PL,
    5. Alberú J,
    6. Bakr MA,
    7. Gallon L,
    8. Garvey CA,
    9. Guleria S,
    10. Li PK-T,
    11. Segev DL,
    12. Taler SJ,
    13. Tanabe K,
    14. Wright L,
    15. Zeier MG,
    16. Cheung M,
    17. Garg AX
    : Summary of Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline on the evaluation and care of living kidney donors. Transplantation 101: 1783–1792, 2017
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    National Health Service Blood and Transplant: Living Donor Kidney Transplantation 2020: A UK Strategy, 2014. Available at: https://nhsbtdbe.blob.core.windows.net/umbraco-assets-corp/1434/ldkt_2020_strategy.pdf. Accessed January 5, 2018
  28. ↵
    1. Sullivan C,
    2. Leon JB,
    3. Sayre SS,
    4. Marbury M,
    5. Ivers M,
    6. Pencak JA,
    7. Bodziak KA,
    8. Hricik DE,
    9. Morrison EJ,
    10. Albert JM,
    11. Navaneethan SD,
    12. Reyes CMD,
    13. Sehgal AR
    : Impact of navigators on completion of steps in the kidney transplant process: A randomized, controlled trial. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 7: 1639–1645, 2012
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Patzer RE,
    2. Paul S,
    3. Plantinga L,
    4. Gander J,
    5. Sauls L,
    6. Krisher J,
    7. Mulloy LL,
    8. Gibney EM,
    9. Browne T,
    10. Zayas CF,
    11. McClellan WM,
    12. Arriola KJ,
    13. Pastan SO
    ; Southeastern Kidney Transplant Coalition: A randomized trial to reduce disparities in referral for transplant evaluation. J Am Soc Nephrol 28: 935–942, 2017
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    1. Rodrigue JR,
    2. Cornell DL,
    3. Kaplan B,
    4. Howard RJ
    : A randomized trial of a home-based educational approach to increase live donor kidney transplantation: Effects in blacks and whites. Am J Kidney Dis 51: 663–670, 2008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Rodrigue JR,
    2. Cornell DL,
    3. Lin JK,
    4. Kaplan B,
    5. Howard RJ
    : Increasing live donor kidney transplantation: A randomized controlled trial of a home-based educational intervention. Am J Transplant 7: 394–401, 2007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Ismail SY,
    2. Luchtenburg AE,
    3. Timman R,
    4. Zuidema WC,
    5. Boonstra C,
    6. Weimar W,
    7. Busschbach JJV,
    8. Massey EK
    : Home-based family intervention increases knowledge, communication and living donation rates: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Transplant 14: 1862–1869, 2014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Barnieh L,
    2. Collister D,
    3. Manns B,
    4. Lam NN,
    5. Shojai S,
    6. Lorenzetti D,
    7. Gill JS,
    8. Klarenbach S
    : A scoping review for strategies to increase living kidney donation. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 12: 1518–1527, 2017
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Lentine KL,
    2. Mandelbrot D
    : Moving from intuition to data: Building the evidence to support and increase living donor kidney transplantation. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 12: 1383–1385, 2017
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    1. Craig P,
    2. Dieppe P,
    3. Macintyre S,
    4. Michie S,
    5. Nazareth I,
    6. Petticrew M
    ; Medical Research Council Guidance: Developing and evaluating complex interventions: The new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 337: a1655, 2008
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    1. Young A,
    2. Kim SJ,
    3. Gibney EM,
    4. Parikh CR,
    5. Cuerden MS,
    6. Horvat LD,
    7. Hizo-Abes P,
    8. Garg AX
    ; Donor Nephrectomy Outcomes Research (DONOR) Network: Discovering misattributed paternity in living kidney donation: Prevalence, preference, and practice. Transplantation 87: 1429–1435, 2009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Klarenbach S,
    2. Gill JS,
    3. Knoll G,
    4. Caulfield T,
    5. Boudville N,
    6. Prasad GVR,
    7. Karpinski M,
    8. Storsley L,
    9. Treleaven D,
    10. Arnold J,
    11. Cuerden M,
    12. Jacobs P,
    13. Garg AX
    ; Donor Nephrectomy Outcomes Research (DONOR) Network: Economic consequences incurred by living kidney donors: A Canadian multi-center prospective study. Am J Transplant 14: 916–922, 2014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Segev DL,
    2. Muzaale AD,
    3. Caffo BS,
    4. Mehta SH,
    5. Singer AL,
    6. Taranto SE,
    7. McBride MA,
    8. Montgomery RA
    : Perioperative mortality and long-term survival following live kidney donation. JAMA 303: 959–966, 2010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Jacobs CL,
    2. Gross CR,
    3. Messersmith EE,
    4. Hong BA,
    5. Gillespie BW,
    6. Hill-Callahan P,
    7. Taler SJ,
    8. Jowsey SG,
    9. Beebe TJ,
    10. Matas AJ,
    11. Odim J,
    12. Ibrahim HN
    ; RELIVE Study Group: Emotional and financial experiences of kidney donors over the past 50 years: The RELIVE study. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 10: 2221–2231, 2015
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. Muzaale AD,
    2. Massie AB,
    3. Wang M-C,
    4. Montgomery RA,
    5. McBride MA,
    6. Wainright JL,
    7. Segev DL
    : Risk of end-stage renal disease following live kidney donation. JAMA 311: 579–586, 2014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Garg AX,
    2. Nevis IF,
    3. McArthur E,
    4. Sontrop JM,
    5. Koval JJ,
    6. Lam NN,
    7. Hildebrand AM,
    8. Reese PP,
    9. Storsley L,
    10. Gill JS,
    11. Segev DL,
    12. Habbous S,
    13. Bugeja A,
    14. Knoll GA,
    15. Dipchand C,
    16. Monroy-Cuadros M,
    17. Lentine KL
    ; DONOR Network: Gestational hypertension and preeclampsia in living kidney donors. N Engl J Med 372: 124–133, 2015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Garg AX,
    2. Meirambayeva A,
    3. Huang A,
    4. Kim J,
    5. Prasad GVR,
    6. Knoll G,
    7. Boudville N,
    8. Lok C,
    9. McFarlane P,
    10. Karpinski M,
    11. Storsley L,
    12. Klarenbach S,
    13. Lam N,
    14. Thomas SM,
    15. Dipchand C,
    16. Reese P,
    17. Doshi M,
    18. Gibney E,
    19. Taub K,
    20. Young A
    ; Donor Nephrectomy Outcomes Research Network: Cardiovascular disease in kidney donors: Matched cohort study. BMJ 344: e1203, 2012
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Garg AX,
    2. Pouget J,
    3. Young A,
    4. Huang A,
    5. Boudville N,
    6. Hodsman A,
    7. Adachi JD,
    8. Leslie WD,
    9. Cadarette SM,
    10. Lok CE,
    11. Monroy-Cuadros M,
    12. Prasad GVR,
    13. Thomas SM,
    14. Naylor K,
    15. Treleavan D
    ; Donor Nephrectomy Outcomes Research (DONOR) Network: Fracture risk in living kidney donors: A matched cohort study. Am J Kidney Dis 59: 770–776, 2012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lam NN,
    2. McArthur E,
    3. Kim SJ,
    4. Prasad GVR,
    5. Lentine KL,
    6. Reese PP,
    7. Kasiske BL,
    8. Lok CE,
    9. Feldman LS,
    10. Garg AX
    ; Donor Nephrectomy Outcomes Research (DONOR) Network; Donor Nephrectomy Outcomes Research DONOR Network: Gout after living kidney donation: A matched cohort study. Am J Kidney Dis 65: 925–932, 2015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Boudville N,
    2. Prasad GVR,
    3. Knoll G,
    4. Muirhead N,
    5. Thiessen-Philbrook H,
    6. Yang RC,
    7. Rosas-Arellano MP,
    8. Housawi A,
    9. Garg AX
    ; Donor Nephrectomy Outcomes Research (DONOR) Network: Meta-analysis: Risk for hypertension in living kidney donors. Ann Intern Med 145: 185–196, 2006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Clemens K,
    2. Boudville N,
    3. Dew MA,
    4. Geddes C,
    5. Gill JS,
    6. Jassal V,
    7. Klarenbach S,
    8. Knoll G,
    9. Muirhead N,
    10. Prasad GVR,
    11. Storsley L,
    12. Treleaven D,
    13. Garg AX
    ; Donor Nephrectomy Outcomes Research (DONOR) Network: The long-term quality of life of living kidney donors: A multicenter cohort study. Am J Transplant 11: 463–469, 2011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 13 (12)
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 13, Issue 12
December 07, 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Sign up for Alerts
Email Article
Thank you for your help in sharing the high-quality science in CJASN.
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Helping More Patients Receive a Living Donor Kidney Transplant
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Helping More Patients Receive a Living Donor Kidney Transplant
Amit X. Garg
CJASN Dec 2018, 13 (12) 1918-1923; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.00760118

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Helping More Patients Receive a Living Donor Kidney Transplant
Amit X. Garg
CJASN Dec 2018, 13 (12) 1918-1923; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.00760118
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Barriers to Living Kidney Donor Transplantation
    • Solutions to Improve Patient Experiences and Safely Increase Access to Living Donor Kidney Transplantation
    • Promoting Living Kidney Donation in a Defensible System of Practice
    • Disclosures
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Integrating Patient Priorities with Science by Community Engagement in the Kidney Precision Medicine Project
  • Risk Factors for CKD Progression
  • Toward Patient-Centered Innovation
Show more Features

Cited By...

  • Self-Referral Patterns of Living Kidney Donors via Social Media: Examining an Expanding Platform
  • Application of the 2017 KDIGO Guideline for the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors to Clinical Practice
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Keywords

  • Living Donors
  • kidney transplantation
  • renal dialysis
  • renal insufficiency
  • Tissue and Organ Harvesting
  • Renal Replacement Therapy
  • kidney

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Access
  • Subject Collections
  • Article Archive
  • ASN Meeting Abstracts

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Trainee of the Year
  • Author Resources
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • CJASN
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About CJASN
  • CJASN Email Alerts
  • CJASN Key Impact Information
  • CJASN Podcasts
  • CJASN RSS Feeds
  • Editorial Board

More Information

  • Advertise
  • ASN Podcasts
  • ASN Publications
  • Become an ASN Member
  • Feedback
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Password/Email Address Changes
  • Subscribe

© 2021 American Society of Nephrology

Print ISSN - 1555-9041 Online ISSN - 1555-905X

Powered by HighWire