- Welcome to Living Donors Online Message Board.
By and For Living Donors
Recent posts
#31
Living Donation Forum / September 2025 Living Donor An...
Last post by Clark - September 01, 2025, 01:21:22 PMhttps://livingdonorsonline.org/donor-experiences/donation-anniversaries/
Can you believe it? Twenty-five years ago, Michael had a great idea! He had questions about his health as a living kidney donor and there weren't ready answers to be found. There was no way to find other living donors he could talk to about his experiences, feelings, and questions. He started livingdonorsonline.org, has kept it going, and we've done our best to help him since. We try to keep it full of useful, easy to find, accurate information for living organ donors, donor candidates on the path to donation, recipients and would be recipients, family members, transplant professionals, media, and interested members of the general public. We've expanded on to multiple platforms over time, but maintained our presence here as our primary source. Thank you, Michael, for decades of invaluable service!
As we do often here, we celebrate and commiserate with folks who've offered reminders of their situations from years past on our anniversary calendar, linked above. So many gifts given, in hope and trust, so many lives changed for the better. Thank you all, reading this, for your interest. Have questions for those of us who've done it? Ask away!
Take good care, all!
Thirty-fourth anniversary:
Lee donated a kidney to his father on September 11th, 1991
Thirty-second anniversary:
Rory Eckmann donated part of his liver to his niece, Megan, on September 7th, 1993
Twenty-fifth anniversary of LDO! and:
Cindy Leuty Jones donated a kidney to her brother on September 20th, 2000
Twenty-fourth anniversary:
Becky Bailey donated a kidney to her daughter, Brittney, on September 5th, 2001
Christine donated a kidney to a stranger on September 13th, 2001
Suzanne Hunter donated a kidney to her son, Ian, on September 17th, 2001. The graft failed four years later and Ian has been back on dialysis.
Marcia Pitlor donated a kidney to her brother on September 18th, 2001
Irene Lewis donated a kidney to her husband's ex's daughter on September 19th, 2001
Twenty-third anniversary:
The Reverend Ronda L. Hawkins donated a kidney to one of her parishioners on September 4th, 2002[/font]
Brandi Wittman donated a kidney to a co-worker on September 25th, 2002
Wendy Miller donated a kidney to her sister on September 25th, 2002
Joe Zangara donated a kidney to his mother, Audrey, on September 30th, 2002
Twenty-second anniversary:
Howard donated a kidney to his brother on September 3rd, 2003
Beth Wilson donated a kidney to her mother, Lola, on September 16th, 2003
Clay donated a kidney to a stranger on September 26th, 2003
Christopher Yanakos donated part of his liver to his mother on September 28th, 2003
Twenty-first anniversary:
Joyce A. Falsey donated a kidney to a stranger on September 7th, 2004
Emalene Englestad donated a kidney to her sister-in-law on September 9th, 2004
Nancy Foster donated part of her l[/font]iver to her brother on September 13th, 2004
Debbie Petway donated a kidney to her father, Melvin, on September 21st, 2004
Shelby Humberg Richardson donated a kidney to her brother on September 22nd, 2004
Twentieth anniversary:
Chaya Lipschutz donated a kidney to a stranger in September 2005
Cindy Fox donated part of her liver to her husband, Victor, on September 1st, 2005
Jenn donated a kidney to her brother on September 20th, 2005
Lisa Branting donated a kidney to her best friend's husband on September 25th, 2005
Suzanne Weiner donated a kidney to a friend on September 26th, 2005
Lillie donated a kidney to an unrelated recipient on September 27th, 2005
Rose Crawford donated a kidney to her brother on September 30th, 2005
Nineteenth anniversary:
Janice Kost donated a kidney to her nephew on September 5th, 2006
Christina Dobosiewicz donated a kidney to her stepfather, John Fattorusso, now deceased, [/font]on September 6th, 2006
Kelvin Hockstock do[/font]nated a kidney to his wife on September 8th, 2006
Kathie Jackson donated a kidney to Ken Singer, no relation, on September 26th, 2006
Malkah Buchweitz donated a kidney to her brother on September 28th, 2006
Eighteenth anniversary:
Kimberly Hill donated a kidney to her brother, Tim Edgar, on September 5th, 2007
Kim Alice donated a kidney to her stepfather on September 12th, 2007
Ray Vidic donated a kidney to his friend, Troy Kahklen, on September 13th, 2007
Stacey Canas donated a kidney to her best friend's mom on September 13th, 2007
Gabrielle Benson donated a kidney to her husband on September 24th, 2007
Seventeenth anniversary:
Ailey donated a kidney to a church associate on September 16th, 2008
Carmen Spanglers donated a kidney to her friend's husband on September 22nd, 2008
Diane donated a kidney to her brother-in-law, Mark, on September 23rd, 2008
Margaret Florence donated a kidney to her cousin on September 23rd, 2008
Krystal Star Garcia donated a kidney to her husband, Manuel, on September 24th, 2008
Jill Andahazy donated a kidney to her husband's cousin Katie on September 25th, 2008
Carla Giampaglia donated a kidney to an unrelated person on September 26th, 2008
Angi Kaltenbach donated a kidney to a friend on September 30th, 2008
Jeff Hill donated a kidney to Eric Miller on September 30th, 2008
Tammy Stickney donated a kidney to her father on September 30th, 2008
Sixteenth anniversary:
Tom Stalsitz donated a kidney to his friend, Joseph R. Brugger, on September 4th, 2009
Cathleen Aliberti donated part of her liver to her sister, Maureen Manning, on September 9th, 2009
Melissa Foskett Goleno donated a piece of her liver to her then 12 year old niece on September 10th, 2009
Leonard Spogis donated part of his liv[/font]er to his brother-in-law, Michael Olson, on September 23rd, 2009
Terri O'Brien donated her left kidney to her cousin's wife on September 29th, 2009
Fifteenth anniversary:
Julie Coronel donated a kidney to her husband, Ruben, on September 7th, 2010
Brett Hartmann donated a kidney to a friend's son on September 18th, 2010
Andria donated a kidney to her son, Daniel, on September 28th, 2010
George Taniwaki made a non-directed kidney donation on September 10th 2010
Fourteenth anniversary:
Michelle Wortman donated a kidney to her sister on September 1st, 2011
Jeff Smith made a non-directed kidney donation on September 5th, 2011
Tori Neese Bergstrom donated "Billy the Kidney" to her friend on September 6th, 2011
Angela Stimpson became a non-directed kidney donor on September 22nd, 2011
Thirteenth anniversary:
Pam donated part of her liver to her brother, Edwin Dudley, on September 4th, 2012
Sue donated a kidney to her husband, Jeff, on September 4th, 2012
Sara Stallings donated a kidney to her son, Mac Yeida, on September 12th, 2012
Dawn donated a kidney to her daughter, Mandy, on September 27th, 2012
Twelfth anniversary:
Brian Hartung donated a kidney to his brother, Brad, on September 9th, 2013
Sally Obrien donated a kidney to her friend, Sally Busset, on September 18th, 2013
Patty Hogan Jack donated part of her liver to her sister on September 24th, 2013
Terry Hunter made a non-directed kidney donation on September 30th, 2013
Tenth anniversary:
Julianne Bancroft made a non-directed kidney donation on September 16th, 2015
Archie White donated a kidney to his daughter, Carrie, on September 30th, 2015
Ninth anniversary:
Susan Huizenga donated a kidney to Buddi Subba, found through their church bulletin, on September 12th, 2016
Natasha Richards donated a kidney to her step-father, Bernardo Bermudez, on September 20th, 2016
Sixth anniversary:
Constance M. Smith made a non-directed donation to Connie Cull on September 27th 2019
Second anniversary:
Julee Morrissy donated a kidney to one of her best friends, Brian Chilla, on September 5th, 2023
Can you believe it? Twenty-five years ago, Michael had a great idea! He had questions about his health as a living kidney donor and there weren't ready answers to be found. There was no way to find other living donors he could talk to about his experiences, feelings, and questions. He started livingdonorsonline.org, has kept it going, and we've done our best to help him since. We try to keep it full of useful, easy to find, accurate information for living organ donors, donor candidates on the path to donation, recipients and would be recipients, family members, transplant professionals, media, and interested members of the general public. We've expanded on to multiple platforms over time, but maintained our presence here as our primary source. Thank you, Michael, for decades of invaluable service!
As we do often here, we celebrate and commiserate with folks who've offered reminders of their situations from years past on our anniversary calendar, linked above. So many gifts given, in hope and trust, so many lives changed for the better. Thank you all, reading this, for your interest. Have questions for those of us who've done it? Ask away!
Take good care, all!
Thirty-fourth anniversary:
Lee donated a kidney to his father on September 11th, 1991
Thirty-second anniversary:
Rory Eckmann donated part of his liver to his niece, Megan, on September 7th, 1993
Twenty-fifth anniversary of LDO! and:
Cindy Leuty Jones donated a kidney to her brother on September 20th, 2000
Twenty-fourth anniversary:
Becky Bailey donated a kidney to her daughter, Brittney, on September 5th, 2001
Christine donated a kidney to a stranger on September 13th, 2001
Suzanne Hunter donated a kidney to her son, Ian, on September 17th, 2001. The graft failed four years later and Ian has been back on dialysis.
Marcia Pitlor donated a kidney to her brother on September 18th, 2001
Irene Lewis donated a kidney to her husband's ex's daughter on September 19th, 2001
Twenty-third anniversary:
The Reverend Ronda L. Hawkins donated a kidney to one of her parishioners on September 4th, 2002[/font]
Brandi Wittman donated a kidney to a co-worker on September 25th, 2002
Wendy Miller donated a kidney to her sister on September 25th, 2002
Joe Zangara donated a kidney to his mother, Audrey, on September 30th, 2002
Twenty-second anniversary:
Howard donated a kidney to his brother on September 3rd, 2003
Beth Wilson donated a kidney to her mother, Lola, on September 16th, 2003
Clay donated a kidney to a stranger on September 26th, 2003
Christopher Yanakos donated part of his liver to his mother on September 28th, 2003
Twenty-first anniversary:
Joyce A. Falsey donated a kidney to a stranger on September 7th, 2004
Emalene Englestad donated a kidney to her sister-in-law on September 9th, 2004
Nancy Foster donated part of her l[/font]iver to her brother on September 13th, 2004
Debbie Petway donated a kidney to her father, Melvin, on September 21st, 2004
Shelby Humberg Richardson donated a kidney to her brother on September 22nd, 2004
Twentieth anniversary:
Chaya Lipschutz donated a kidney to a stranger in September 2005
Cindy Fox donated part of her liver to her husband, Victor, on September 1st, 2005
Jenn donated a kidney to her brother on September 20th, 2005
Lisa Branting donated a kidney to her best friend's husband on September 25th, 2005
Suzanne Weiner donated a kidney to a friend on September 26th, 2005
Lillie donated a kidney to an unrelated recipient on September 27th, 2005
Rose Crawford donated a kidney to her brother on September 30th, 2005
Nineteenth anniversary:
Janice Kost donated a kidney to her nephew on September 5th, 2006
Christina Dobosiewicz donated a kidney to her stepfather, John Fattorusso, now deceased, [/font]on September 6th, 2006
Kelvin Hockstock do[/font]nated a kidney to his wife on September 8th, 2006
Kathie Jackson donated a kidney to Ken Singer, no relation, on September 26th, 2006
Malkah Buchweitz donated a kidney to her brother on September 28th, 2006
Eighteenth anniversary:
Kimberly Hill donated a kidney to her brother, Tim Edgar, on September 5th, 2007
Kim Alice donated a kidney to her stepfather on September 12th, 2007
Ray Vidic donated a kidney to his friend, Troy Kahklen, on September 13th, 2007
Stacey Canas donated a kidney to her best friend's mom on September 13th, 2007
Gabrielle Benson donated a kidney to her husband on September 24th, 2007
Seventeenth anniversary:
Ailey donated a kidney to a church associate on September 16th, 2008
Carmen Spanglers donated a kidney to her friend's husband on September 22nd, 2008
Diane donated a kidney to her brother-in-law, Mark, on September 23rd, 2008
Margaret Florence donated a kidney to her cousin on September 23rd, 2008
Krystal Star Garcia donated a kidney to her husband, Manuel, on September 24th, 2008
Jill Andahazy donated a kidney to her husband's cousin Katie on September 25th, 2008
Carla Giampaglia donated a kidney to an unrelated person on September 26th, 2008
Angi Kaltenbach donated a kidney to a friend on September 30th, 2008
Jeff Hill donated a kidney to Eric Miller on September 30th, 2008
Tammy Stickney donated a kidney to her father on September 30th, 2008
Sixteenth anniversary:
Tom Stalsitz donated a kidney to his friend, Joseph R. Brugger, on September 4th, 2009
Cathleen Aliberti donated part of her liver to her sister, Maureen Manning, on September 9th, 2009
Melissa Foskett Goleno donated a piece of her liver to her then 12 year old niece on September 10th, 2009
Leonard Spogis donated part of his liv[/font]er to his brother-in-law, Michael Olson, on September 23rd, 2009
Terri O'Brien donated her left kidney to her cousin's wife on September 29th, 2009
Fifteenth anniversary:
Julie Coronel donated a kidney to her husband, Ruben, on September 7th, 2010
Brett Hartmann donated a kidney to a friend's son on September 18th, 2010
Andria donated a kidney to her son, Daniel, on September 28th, 2010
George Taniwaki made a non-directed kidney donation on September 10th 2010
Fourteenth anniversary:
Michelle Wortman donated a kidney to her sister on September 1st, 2011
Jeff Smith made a non-directed kidney donation on September 5th, 2011
Tori Neese Bergstrom donated "Billy the Kidney" to her friend on September 6th, 2011
Angela Stimpson became a non-directed kidney donor on September 22nd, 2011
Thirteenth anniversary:
Pam donated part of her liver to her brother, Edwin Dudley, on September 4th, 2012
Sue donated a kidney to her husband, Jeff, on September 4th, 2012
Sara Stallings donated a kidney to her son, Mac Yeida, on September 12th, 2012
Dawn donated a kidney to her daughter, Mandy, on September 27th, 2012
Twelfth anniversary:
Brian Hartung donated a kidney to his brother, Brad, on September 9th, 2013
Sally Obrien donated a kidney to her friend, Sally Busset, on September 18th, 2013
Patty Hogan Jack donated part of her liver to her sister on September 24th, 2013
Terry Hunter made a non-directed kidney donation on September 30th, 2013
Tenth anniversary:
Julianne Bancroft made a non-directed kidney donation on September 16th, 2015
Archie White donated a kidney to his daughter, Carrie, on September 30th, 2015
Ninth anniversary:
Susan Huizenga donated a kidney to Buddi Subba, found through their church bulletin, on September 12th, 2016
Natasha Richards donated a kidney to her step-father, Bernardo Bermudez, on September 20th, 2016
Sixth anniversary:
Constance M. Smith made a non-directed donation to Connie Cull on September 27th 2019
Second anniversary:
Julee Morrissy donated a kidney to one of her best friends, Brian Chilla, on September 5th, 2023
#32
Living Donation in the News / National Attitudes Toward Livi...
Last post by Clark - August 26, 2025, 11:11:11 AMhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590059523002066
National Attitudes Toward Living Kidney Donation in the United States: Results of a Public Opinion Survey
Katya Kaplow, et al.
Kidney Medicine
Volume 6, Issue 3,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xkme.2023.100788
Rationale & Objective
Understanding national attitudes about living kidney donation will enable us to identify and address existing disincentives to living kidney donation. We performed a national survey to describe living kidney donation perceptions, perceived factors that affect the willingness to donate, and analyzed differences by demographic subgroups.
Study Design
The survey items captured living kidney donation awareness, living kidney donation knowledge, willingness to donate, and barriers and facilitators to living kidney donation.
Setting & Population
We surveyed 802 US adults (aged 25-65 years) in June 2021, randomly selected from an online platform with diverse representation.
Analytical Approach
We developed summed, scaled indices to assess the association between the living kidney donation knowledge (9 items) and the willingness to donate (8 items) to self-reported demographic characteristics and other variables of interest using analysis of variance. All other associations for categorical questions were calculated using Pearson's χ2 and Fisher exact tests. We inductively evaluated free-text responses to identify additional barriers and facilitators to living kidney donation.
Results
Most (86.6%) of the respondents reported that they might or would definitely consider donating a kidney while they were still living. Barriers to living kidney donation included concerns about the risk of the surgery, paying for medical expenses, and potential health effects. Facilitators to living kidney donation included having information on the donation surgery's safety, knowing that the donor would not have to pay for medical expenses related to the donation, and hearing living kidney donation success stories. Awareness of the ability to participate in kidney-paired donation was associated with a higher willingness to donate.
Limitations
Potential for selection bias resulting from the use of survey panels and varied incentive amounts, and measurement error related to respondents' attention level.
Conclusions
Most people would consider becoming a living kidney donor. Increased rates of living kidney donation may be possible with investment in culturally competent educational interventions that address risks associated with donating, policies that reduce financial disincentives, and communication campaigns that raise awareness of kidney-paired donation and living kidney donation.
Plain-Language Summary
Understanding what the general public thinks about living kidney donation will help to develop better education and increase the number of living kidney donors. We surveyed the public to find out: (1) how aware they are about the opportunity to donate a kidney while alive; (2) how much they know about living kidney donation; (3) whether they would be willing to donate; and (4) what would affect their willingness to donate. We found that teaching people about the risks of donating, decreasing costs related to donation, and raising awareness about it could increase the number of people willing to donate.
National Attitudes Toward Living Kidney Donation in the United States: Results of a Public Opinion Survey
Katya Kaplow, et al.
Kidney Medicine
Volume 6, Issue 3,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xkme.2023.100788
Rationale & Objective
Understanding national attitudes about living kidney donation will enable us to identify and address existing disincentives to living kidney donation. We performed a national survey to describe living kidney donation perceptions, perceived factors that affect the willingness to donate, and analyzed differences by demographic subgroups.
Study Design
The survey items captured living kidney donation awareness, living kidney donation knowledge, willingness to donate, and barriers and facilitators to living kidney donation.
Setting & Population
We surveyed 802 US adults (aged 25-65 years) in June 2021, randomly selected from an online platform with diverse representation.
Analytical Approach
We developed summed, scaled indices to assess the association between the living kidney donation knowledge (9 items) and the willingness to donate (8 items) to self-reported demographic characteristics and other variables of interest using analysis of variance. All other associations for categorical questions were calculated using Pearson's χ2 and Fisher exact tests. We inductively evaluated free-text responses to identify additional barriers and facilitators to living kidney donation.
Results
Most (86.6%) of the respondents reported that they might or would definitely consider donating a kidney while they were still living. Barriers to living kidney donation included concerns about the risk of the surgery, paying for medical expenses, and potential health effects. Facilitators to living kidney donation included having information on the donation surgery's safety, knowing that the donor would not have to pay for medical expenses related to the donation, and hearing living kidney donation success stories. Awareness of the ability to participate in kidney-paired donation was associated with a higher willingness to donate.
Limitations
Potential for selection bias resulting from the use of survey panels and varied incentive amounts, and measurement error related to respondents' attention level.
Conclusions
Most people would consider becoming a living kidney donor. Increased rates of living kidney donation may be possible with investment in culturally competent educational interventions that address risks associated with donating, policies that reduce financial disincentives, and communication campaigns that raise awareness of kidney-paired donation and living kidney donation.
Plain-Language Summary
Understanding what the general public thinks about living kidney donation will help to develop better education and increase the number of living kidney donors. We surveyed the public to find out: (1) how aware they are about the opportunity to donate a kidney while alive; (2) how much they know about living kidney donation; (3) whether they would be willing to donate; and (4) what would affect their willingness to donate. We found that teaching people about the risks of donating, decreasing costs related to donation, and raising awareness about it could increase the number of people willing to donate.
#33
Living Donation in the News / Thirty-Year Trends in Perioper...
Last post by Clark - August 26, 2025, 11:06:46 AMhttps://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2822922
Thirty-Year Trends in Perioperative Mortality Risk for Living Kidney Donors Allan B. Massie, et al.
JAMA
2024;332;(12):1015-1017. doi:10.1001/jama.2024.14527
Living kidney donor candidates must be accurately informed of the risks of perioperative mortality. The best current estimate, 3.1 deaths within 90 days per 10 000 donations, comes from a study of donors from 1994 to 2009.1 Open donor nephrectomy, standard of care in the 1990s, has now been replaced almost completely by laparoscopic nephrectomy.2,3 Because of this transition, as well as improvements in donor selection, perioperative care, and surgical technique,4 prior estimates of perioperative mortality may not accurately represent current risk to donors. We performed a national registry study to characterize temporal trends in perioperative mortality in donors and risk factors associated with this event.
...
Discussion
Perioperative mortality after living donation declined substantially in the past decade compared with prior decades, to fewer than 1 event per 10 000 donations. Risk was higher for male donors and donors with a history of hypertension. Current guidelines5 for donor informed consent, based on 2009 data, should be updated to reflect this information.
Study limitations include that with only 36 perioperative deaths in 30 years, power to estimate relative risks is limited. Additionally, follow-up may be incomplete. However, OPTN requirements for donor follow-up have grown stricter, with 6-month follow-up required for donors since 2013; as such, missingness would bias toward lower mortality in earlier eras, the opposite of what the study found.
#34
Living Donation in the News / Second Time Around: Increased ...
Last post by Clark - August 26, 2025, 11:00:23 AMhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ctr.70049
Second Time Around: Increased Rate of Living Donation From Repeat Organ Donors
Carolyn N. Sidoti, et al.
Clinical Transplantation
Volume39, Issue1
January 2025
https://doi.org/10.1111/ctr.70049
ABSTRACT
Introduction
Some living organ donors will decide to donate again at a later date. Evidence has indicated that this practice may have increased in recent years. We evaluated the incidence and outcomes of this practice to inform counseling of potential repeat donors.
Methods
Using SRTR data from 1994 to 2023, we identified 220 repeat living donors and their 415 recipients. We constructed donor comparison groups using weighting by the odds. We described clinical and lab results at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years post-donation separately for kidney-second donors and liver-second donors. We compared all-cause graft failure for their recipients with those of comparison donors.
Results
The annual count of repeat living donors increased from 5 in 2018 to 25 in 2019 (p < 0.001). Of 220 donors, 159 were liver-second donors (72.3%) and 55 were kidney-second donors (25.0). The percentage of nondirected donations increased from 30.5% at first donation to 53.2% at second donation (p < 0.001). Liver-second donors had one death approximately 2.5 years post-donation. Seventeen were re-admitted and 20 experienced complications requiring an interventional procedure or re-operation. Among kidney-second donors, no deaths, re-admissions, or post-donation complications were reported. Post-donation outcomes in both groups were comparable when evaluated against organ-specific comparison donors. Recipients of repeat living donors experienced graft survival similar to recipients of comparison donors.
Conclusions
Repeat living donation may be a safe practice for carefully selected living donors in the short term; however, long term safety is unknown. Outcomes for recipients are similar to recipients of comparison donors.
Second Time Around: Increased Rate of Living Donation From Repeat Organ Donors
Carolyn N. Sidoti, et al.
Clinical Transplantation
Volume39, Issue1
January 2025
https://doi.org/10.1111/ctr.70049
ABSTRACT
Introduction
Some living organ donors will decide to donate again at a later date. Evidence has indicated that this practice may have increased in recent years. We evaluated the incidence and outcomes of this practice to inform counseling of potential repeat donors.
Methods
Using SRTR data from 1994 to 2023, we identified 220 repeat living donors and their 415 recipients. We constructed donor comparison groups using weighting by the odds. We described clinical and lab results at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years post-donation separately for kidney-second donors and liver-second donors. We compared all-cause graft failure for their recipients with those of comparison donors.
Results
The annual count of repeat living donors increased from 5 in 2018 to 25 in 2019 (p < 0.001). Of 220 donors, 159 were liver-second donors (72.3%) and 55 were kidney-second donors (25.0). The percentage of nondirected donations increased from 30.5% at first donation to 53.2% at second donation (p < 0.001). Liver-second donors had one death approximately 2.5 years post-donation. Seventeen were re-admitted and 20 experienced complications requiring an interventional procedure or re-operation. Among kidney-second donors, no deaths, re-admissions, or post-donation complications were reported. Post-donation outcomes in both groups were comparable when evaluated against organ-specific comparison donors. Recipients of repeat living donors experienced graft survival similar to recipients of comparison donors.
Conclusions
Repeat living donation may be a safe practice for carefully selected living donors in the short term; however, long term safety is unknown. Outcomes for recipients are similar to recipients of comparison donors.
#35
Living Donation in the News / Education Priorities and What ...
Last post by Clark - August 26, 2025, 10:54:58 AMhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1526924820978599
Education Priorities and What Matters to Those Considering Living Kidney Donation
Kara Schick-Makaroff, et al.
Progress in Transplantation
Volume 31, Issue 1
https://doi.org/10.1177/1526924820978599
Abstract
Introduction:
Although informed consent content elements are prescribed in detailed regulatory guidance, many live kidney donors describe feeling underprepared and under informed. The goal of this pilot study was to explore the educational components needed to support an informed decision-making process for living kidney donors.
Methods/Approach:
A qualitative description design was conducted with thematic analysis of 5 focus groups with 2 cohorts: living kidney donor candidates (n = 11) and living kidney donors (n = 8).
Findings:
The educational components needed to engage in an informed decision-making process were: 1) contingent upon, and motivated by, personal circumstances; 2) supported through explanation of risks and benefits; 3) enhanced by understanding the overall donation experience; and 4) personalized by talking to another donor.
Discussion:
Tailoring education to meet the needs for fully informed decision-making is essential. Current education requirements, as defined by regulatory bodies, remain challenging to transplant teams attempting to ensure fully informed consent of living kidney donor candidates. Information on the emotional, financial, and overall life impact is needed, along with acknowledgement of relational ties driving donor motivations and the hoped-for recipient outcomes. Discussion of care practices, and access to peer mentoring may further strengthen the informed decision-making process.
Education Priorities and What Matters to Those Considering Living Kidney Donation
Kara Schick-Makaroff, et al.
Progress in Transplantation
Volume 31, Issue 1
https://doi.org/10.1177/1526924820978599
Abstract
Introduction:
Although informed consent content elements are prescribed in detailed regulatory guidance, many live kidney donors describe feeling underprepared and under informed. The goal of this pilot study was to explore the educational components needed to support an informed decision-making process for living kidney donors.
Methods/Approach:
A qualitative description design was conducted with thematic analysis of 5 focus groups with 2 cohorts: living kidney donor candidates (n = 11) and living kidney donors (n = 8).
Findings:
The educational components needed to engage in an informed decision-making process were: 1) contingent upon, and motivated by, personal circumstances; 2) supported through explanation of risks and benefits; 3) enhanced by understanding the overall donation experience; and 4) personalized by talking to another donor.
Discussion:
Tailoring education to meet the needs for fully informed decision-making is essential. Current education requirements, as defined by regulatory bodies, remain challenging to transplant teams attempting to ensure fully informed consent of living kidney donor candidates. Information on the emotional, financial, and overall life impact is needed, along with acknowledgement of relational ties driving donor motivations and the hoped-for recipient outcomes. Discussion of care practices, and access to peer mentoring may further strengthen the informed decision-making process.
#36
Living Donation in the News / Outcomes of living liver donor...
Last post by Clark - August 26, 2025, 10:52:02 AMhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ctr.14394
Outcomes of living liver donor candidate evaluations in the Living Donor Collective pilot registry
Bertram L. Kasiske, et al.
Clinical Transplantation
Volume35, Issue9
September 2021
https://doi.org/10.1111/ctr.14394
Abstract
Background
To gather information on long-term outcomes after living donation, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) conducted a pilot on the feasibility of establishing a comprehensive donor candidate registry.
Methods
A convenience sample of 6 US living liver donor programs evaluated 398 consecutive donor candidates in 2018, ending with the March 12, 2020, COVID-19 emergency.
Results
For 333/398 (83.7%), the donor or program decided whether to donate; 166/333 (49.8%) were approved, and 167/333 (50.2%) were not or opted out. Approval rates varied by program, from 27.0% to 63.3% (median, 46%; intraquartile range, 37.3–51.1%). Of those approved, 90.4% were white, 57.2% were women, 83.1% were < 50 years, and 85.5% had more than a high school education. Of 167 candidates, 131 (78.4%) were not approved or opted out because of: medical risk (10.7%); chronic liver disease risk (11.5%); psychosocial reasons (5.3%); candidate declined (6.1%); anatomical reasons increasing recipient risk (26.0%); recipient-related reasons (33.6%); finances (1.5%); or other (5.3%).
Conclusions
A comprehensive national registry is feasible and necessary to better understand candidate selection and long-term outcomes. As a result, the US Health Resources and Services Administration asked SRTR to expand the pilot to include all US living donor programs.
Outcomes of living liver donor candidate evaluations in the Living Donor Collective pilot registry
Bertram L. Kasiske, et al.
Clinical Transplantation
Volume35, Issue9
September 2021
https://doi.org/10.1111/ctr.14394
Abstract
Background
To gather information on long-term outcomes after living donation, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) conducted a pilot on the feasibility of establishing a comprehensive donor candidate registry.
Methods
A convenience sample of 6 US living liver donor programs evaluated 398 consecutive donor candidates in 2018, ending with the March 12, 2020, COVID-19 emergency.
Results
For 333/398 (83.7%), the donor or program decided whether to donate; 166/333 (49.8%) were approved, and 167/333 (50.2%) were not or opted out. Approval rates varied by program, from 27.0% to 63.3% (median, 46%; intraquartile range, 37.3–51.1%). Of those approved, 90.4% were white, 57.2% were women, 83.1% were < 50 years, and 85.5% had more than a high school education. Of 167 candidates, 131 (78.4%) were not approved or opted out because of: medical risk (10.7%); chronic liver disease risk (11.5%); psychosocial reasons (5.3%); candidate declined (6.1%); anatomical reasons increasing recipient risk (26.0%); recipient-related reasons (33.6%); finances (1.5%); or other (5.3%).
Conclusions
A comprehensive national registry is feasible and necessary to better understand candidate selection and long-term outcomes. As a result, the US Health Resources and Services Administration asked SRTR to expand the pilot to include all US living donor programs.
#37
Living Donation in the News / Influence of surgical techniqu...
Last post by Clark - August 26, 2025, 10:48:42 AMhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ctr.14703
Influence of surgical technique in donor hepatectomy on immediate and short-term living donor outcomes – A systematic review of the literature, meta-analysis, and expert panel recommendations
Yee L Cheah, et al.
Clinical Transplantation
Volume36, Issue10
October 2022
https://doi.org/10.1111/ctr.14703
Abstract
Background
There are currently no guidelines pertaining to ERAS pathways in living donor hepatectomy.
Objectives
The aim of this study was to identify whether surgical technique influences immediate and short-term outcomes after living liver donation surgery.
Data sources
Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central.
Methods
Systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel (CRD42021260707). Endpoints were mortality, overall complications, serious complications, bile eaks, pulmonary complications, estimated blood loss and length of stay.
Results
Of the 2410 screened articles, 21 articles were included for final analysis; three observational, 13 retrospective cohort, four prospective cohort studies, and one randomized trial. Overall complications were higher with right versus left hepatectomy (26.8% vs. 20.8%; OR 1.4, P = .010). Donors after left hepatectomy had shorter length of stay (MD 1.4 days) compared to right hepatectomy. There was no difference in outcomes after right donor hepatectomy with versus without middle hepatic vein. We had limited data on the influence of incision type and minimally invasive approaches on living donor outcomes, and no data on the effect of operative time on donor outcomes.
Conclusions
Left donor hepatectomy should be preferred over right hepatectomy, as it is related to improved donor short-term outcomes (QOE; Moderate | Grade of Recommendation; Strong). Right donor hepatectomy with or without MHV has equivalent outcomes (QOE; Moderate | Grade of Recommendation; Strong); no preference is recommended, decision should be based on program's experience and expertise. No difference in outcomes was observed related to incision type, minimally invasive vs. open (QOE; Low | Grade of Recommendation; Weak); no preference can be recommended.
Influence of surgical technique in donor hepatectomy on immediate and short-term living donor outcomes – A systematic review of the literature, meta-analysis, and expert panel recommendations
Yee L Cheah, et al.
Clinical Transplantation
Volume36, Issue10
October 2022
https://doi.org/10.1111/ctr.14703
Abstract
Background
There are currently no guidelines pertaining to ERAS pathways in living donor hepatectomy.
Objectives
The aim of this study was to identify whether surgical technique influences immediate and short-term outcomes after living liver donation surgery.
Data sources
Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central.
Methods
Systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel (CRD42021260707). Endpoints were mortality, overall complications, serious complications, bile eaks, pulmonary complications, estimated blood loss and length of stay.
Results
Of the 2410 screened articles, 21 articles were included for final analysis; three observational, 13 retrospective cohort, four prospective cohort studies, and one randomized trial. Overall complications were higher with right versus left hepatectomy (26.8% vs. 20.8%; OR 1.4, P = .010). Donors after left hepatectomy had shorter length of stay (MD 1.4 days) compared to right hepatectomy. There was no difference in outcomes after right donor hepatectomy with versus without middle hepatic vein. We had limited data on the influence of incision type and minimally invasive approaches on living donor outcomes, and no data on the effect of operative time on donor outcomes.
Conclusions
Left donor hepatectomy should be preferred over right hepatectomy, as it is related to improved donor short-term outcomes (QOE; Moderate | Grade of Recommendation; Strong). Right donor hepatectomy with or without MHV has equivalent outcomes (QOE; Moderate | Grade of Recommendation; Strong); no preference is recommended, decision should be based on program's experience and expertise. No difference in outcomes was observed related to incision type, minimally invasive vs. open (QOE; Low | Grade of Recommendation; Weak); no preference can be recommended.
#38
Living Donation in the News / Outcomes of Living Kidney Dono...
Last post by Clark - August 26, 2025, 10:45:04 AMhttps://journals.lww.com/transplantationdirect/fulltext/2021/05000/Outcomes_of_Living_Kidney_Donor_Candidate.1.aspx?context=LatestArticles
Outcomes of Living Kidney Donor Candidate Evaluations in the Living Donor Collective Pilot Registry
Kasiske, Bertram L. et al.
Transplantation Direct 7(5):p e689, May 2021. | DOI: 10.1097/TXD.0000000000001143
Abstract
Background.
Gaps in our knowledge of long-term outcomes affect decision making for potential living kidney donors.
Methods.
The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was asked to determine the feasibility of a candidate registry.
Results.
Ten living kidney donor programs evaluated 2107 consecutive kidney donor candidates; 2099 of 2107 (99.6%) completed evaluations, 1578 of 2099 (75.2%) had a decision, and 790 of 1578 (50.1%) were approved to donate as of March 12, 2020. By logistic regression, candidates most likely to be approved were married or had attended college or technical school; those least likely to be approved had ≥1 of the following characteristics: Black race, history of cigarette smoking, and higher blood pressure, higher triglycerides, or higher urine albumin-to-creatinine ratios. Reasons for 617 candidates not being approved included medical issues other than chronic kidney disease risk (25.3%), chronic kidney disease risk (18.5%), candidate withdrawal (15.2%), recipient reason (13.6%), anatomical risk to the recipient (10.3%), noneconomic psychosocial (10.3%), economic (0.5%), and other reasons (6.4%).
Conclusions.
These results suggest that a comprehensive living donor registry is both feasible and necessary to assess long-term outcomes that may inform decision making for future living donor candidates. There may be socioeconomic barriers to donation that require more granular identification so that active measures can address inequities. Some candidates who did not donate may be suitable controls for discerning the appropriateness of acceptance decisions and the long-term outcomes attributable to donation. We anticipate that these issues will be better identified with modifications to the data collection and expansion of the registry to all centers over the next several years.
Outcomes of Living Kidney Donor Candidate Evaluations in the Living Donor Collective Pilot Registry
Kasiske, Bertram L. et al.
Transplantation Direct 7(5):p e689, May 2021. | DOI: 10.1097/TXD.0000000000001143
Abstract
Background.
Gaps in our knowledge of long-term outcomes affect decision making for potential living kidney donors.
Methods.
The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was asked to determine the feasibility of a candidate registry.
Results.
Ten living kidney donor programs evaluated 2107 consecutive kidney donor candidates; 2099 of 2107 (99.6%) completed evaluations, 1578 of 2099 (75.2%) had a decision, and 790 of 1578 (50.1%) were approved to donate as of March 12, 2020. By logistic regression, candidates most likely to be approved were married or had attended college or technical school; those least likely to be approved had ≥1 of the following characteristics: Black race, history of cigarette smoking, and higher blood pressure, higher triglycerides, or higher urine albumin-to-creatinine ratios. Reasons for 617 candidates not being approved included medical issues other than chronic kidney disease risk (25.3%), chronic kidney disease risk (18.5%), candidate withdrawal (15.2%), recipient reason (13.6%), anatomical risk to the recipient (10.3%), noneconomic psychosocial (10.3%), economic (0.5%), and other reasons (6.4%).
Conclusions.
These results suggest that a comprehensive living donor registry is both feasible and necessary to assess long-term outcomes that may inform decision making for future living donor candidates. There may be socioeconomic barriers to donation that require more granular identification so that active measures can address inequities. Some candidates who did not donate may be suitable controls for discerning the appropriateness of acceptance decisions and the long-term outcomes attributable to donation. We anticipate that these issues will be better identified with modifications to the data collection and expansion of the registry to all centers over the next several years.
#39
Living Donation in the News / Psychosocial Evaluation of Liv...
Last post by Clark - August 26, 2025, 10:39:59 AMhttps://journals.lww.com/transplantjournal/abstract/2024/11000/psychosocial_evaluation_of_living_kidney_donors__a.21.aspx
Psychosocial Evaluation of Living Kidney Donors: A Survey of Current Practices in the United States
Clifton, Erin PhD1; et al.
Transplantation 108(11):p e382-e389, November 2024. | DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000005095
Abstract
Background.
Best practices in psychosocial evaluation and care of living donor candidates and donors are not well established.
Methods.
We surveyed 195 living kidney donor (LKD) transplant centers in United States from October 2021 to April 2022 querying (1) composition of psychosocial teams, (2) evaluation processes including clinical tools and domains assessed, (3) selection criteria, and (4) psychosocial follow-up post-donation.
Results.
We received 161 responses from 104 programs, representing 53% of active LKD programs and 67% of LKD transplant volume in 2019. Most respondents (63%) were social workers/independent living donor advocates. Over 90% of respondents indicated donor candidates with known mental health or substance use disorders were initially evaluated by the psychosocial team. Validated psychometric or transplant-specific tools were rarely utilized but domains assessed were consistent. Active suicidality, self-harm, and psychosis were considered absolute contraindications in >90% of programs. Active depression was absolute contraindication in 50% of programs; active anxiety disorder was excluded 27%. Conditions not contraindicated to donation include those in remission: anxiety (56%), depression (53%), and posttraumatic stress disorder (41%). There was acceptance of donor candidates using alcohol, tobacco, or cannabis recreationally, but not if pattern met criteria for active use disorder. Seventy-one percent of programs conducted post-donation psychosocial assessment and use local resources to support donors.
Conclusions.
There was variation in acceptance of donor candidates with mental health or substance use disorders. Although most programs conducted psychosocial screening post-donation, support is not standardized and unclear if adequate. Future studies are needed for consensus building among transplant centers to form guidelines for donor evaluation, acceptance, and support.
Psychosocial Evaluation of Living Kidney Donors: A Survey of Current Practices in the United States
Clifton, Erin PhD1; et al.
Transplantation 108(11):p e382-e389, November 2024. | DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000005095
Abstract
Background.
Best practices in psychosocial evaluation and care of living donor candidates and donors are not well established.
Methods.
We surveyed 195 living kidney donor (LKD) transplant centers in United States from October 2021 to April 2022 querying (1) composition of psychosocial teams, (2) evaluation processes including clinical tools and domains assessed, (3) selection criteria, and (4) psychosocial follow-up post-donation.
Results.
We received 161 responses from 104 programs, representing 53% of active LKD programs and 67% of LKD transplant volume in 2019. Most respondents (63%) were social workers/independent living donor advocates. Over 90% of respondents indicated donor candidates with known mental health or substance use disorders were initially evaluated by the psychosocial team. Validated psychometric or transplant-specific tools were rarely utilized but domains assessed were consistent. Active suicidality, self-harm, and psychosis were considered absolute contraindications in >90% of programs. Active depression was absolute contraindication in 50% of programs; active anxiety disorder was excluded 27%. Conditions not contraindicated to donation include those in remission: anxiety (56%), depression (53%), and posttraumatic stress disorder (41%). There was acceptance of donor candidates using alcohol, tobacco, or cannabis recreationally, but not if pattern met criteria for active use disorder. Seventy-one percent of programs conducted post-donation psychosocial assessment and use local resources to support donors.
Conclusions.
There was variation in acceptance of donor candidates with mental health or substance use disorders. Although most programs conducted psychosocial screening post-donation, support is not standardized and unclear if adequate. Future studies are needed for consensus building among transplant centers to form guidelines for donor evaluation, acceptance, and support.
#40
Living Donation in the News / The Psychosocial Evaluation of...
Last post by Clark - August 26, 2025, 10:36:47 AMhttps://journals.lww.com/transplantjournal/fulltext/2024/11000/the_psychosocial_evaluation_of_living_kidney.6.aspx
The Psychosocial Evaluation of Living Kidney Donation: Time for Standardization in Practice
Levan, Macey L. JD, PhD1; LaPointe Rudow, Dianne ANP-BC, DNP, FAAN2
Transplantation 108(11):p e342-e343, November 2024. | DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000005084
INTRODUCTION
The transplant community has an opportunity to improve clinical follow-up and data collection opportunities, to implement standardized psychometrics instruments in the living kidney donor evaluation process and optimize psychosocial team structures. Clifton et al1 was an American Society of Transplantation Living Donor Community of Practice Mental Health Working Group product. Their survey reached 53% of active US living donor programs with the intent of understanding composition of psychosocial teams evaluating donor candidates, what the evaluation process entailed, and postdonation psychosocial follow-up. Although policy has been established for more than a decade, there is much transplant hospital variation in living donor evaluation screening mechanisms, acceptance practices, and support offered.
...
The Psychosocial Evaluation of Living Kidney Donation: Time for Standardization in Practice
Levan, Macey L. JD, PhD1; LaPointe Rudow, Dianne ANP-BC, DNP, FAAN2
Transplantation 108(11):p e342-e343, November 2024. | DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000005084
INTRODUCTION
The transplant community has an opportunity to improve clinical follow-up and data collection opportunities, to implement standardized psychometrics instruments in the living kidney donor evaluation process and optimize psychosocial team structures. Clifton et al1 was an American Society of Transplantation Living Donor Community of Practice Mental Health Working Group product. Their survey reached 53% of active US living donor programs with the intent of understanding composition of psychosocial teams evaluating donor candidates, what the evaluation process entailed, and postdonation psychosocial follow-up. Although policy has been established for more than a decade, there is much transplant hospital variation in living donor evaluation screening mechanisms, acceptance practices, and support offered.
...