Doctors routinely refuse donation offers from prospective living kidney donors with certain comorbidities such as diabetes or obesity out of concern for donor wellbeing. This refusal occurs despite the ongoing shortage of kidney transplants and the superior performance of living donor kidney transplants compared to those from deceased donors. In this paper, we argue that this paternalistic refusal by doctors is unjustified and that, within limits, there should be greater acceptance of such donations. We begin by describing possible weak and strong paternalistic justifications of current conservative donor acceptance guidelines and practices. We then justify our position by outlining the frequently under-recognised benefits and the routinely overestimated harms of such donation, before discussing the need to respect the autonomy of willing donors with certain comorbidities. Finally, we respond to a number of possible objections to our proposal for more liberal kidney donor acceptance criteria. We use the situation in Australia as our case study, but our argument is applicable to comparable situations around the world.

Living kidney donation has been advocated as a means to ameliorate the chronic shortage of organs for transplantation. Significant rates of comorbidity and familial risk for kidney disease may limit this approach in the local context; there is currently limited data describing living donation in Africa.

We assessed reasons for non-donation and outcomes following donation in a cohort of 1208 ethnically diverse potential living donors evaluated over a 32-year period at a single transplant centre in South Africa.

Medical contraindications were the commonest reason for donor exclusion. Black donors were more frequently excluded (52.1% vs. 39.3%; p<0.001), particularly for medical contraindications (44% vs. 35%; p<0.001); 298 donors proceeded to donor nephrectomy (24.7%). Although no donor required kidney replacement therapy, an estimated glomerular filtration rate below 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 was recorded in 27% of donors at a median follow-up of 3.7 years, new onset albuminuria >300 mg/day was observed in 4%, and 12.8% developed new-onset hypertension. Black ethnicity was not associated with an increased risk of adverse post-donation outcomes.

This study highlights the difficulties of pursuing live donation in a population with significant medical comorbidity, but provides reassurance of the safety of the procedure in carefully selected donors in the developing world.

Over the past few decades, the shortage in the kidney donor pool as compared to the increasing number of candidates on the kidney transplant waitlist led to loosening of kidney donors' acceptance criteria. Hypertension and obesity represent risk factors for chronic kidney disease, both in native kidneys and those in kidney transplant recipients. While great progress has been made in kidney transplantation from living donors to benefit the recipient survival and quality of life, progress has been slow to fully risk-characterize the donors. This review critically reassesses the current state of understanding regarding the risk of end-stage kidney disease in those donors with obesity, hypertension or both. Accurate risk assessment tools need to be developed urgently to fully understand the risk glomerular filtration rate compensation failure in the remaining kidney of the donors.

Introduction Living donor kidney transplantation is the best replacement therapy for patients with end-stage renal disease. It offers more benefits than deceased donor transplantation. However, living kidney donors (LKDs) undergo an extensive evaluation to ensure their suitability for donation, and this can result in rejection of many potential donors. Aim The aim of this study was to recognize the reasons for declining LKDs in our Organ Transplant Center at King Abdulaziz Medical City. Settings and Design This was a retrospective study to determine the various reasons to reject an LKD at the Organ Transplant Center. Methods and Material All the LKDs from January 2016 to December 2019 were included. Declined donors were reviewed and data were obtained from the electronic database and transplant nephrology shared files. Statistical analysis We performed data analysis using SPSS version 24.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Data for continuous variables were presented as mean ± standard deviation and were compared using t-test. Categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages; chi-square test was used to test for main association and then Bonferroni adjustment was used for post-hoc testing. Statistical significance was considered if a two-tailed p-value of <0.05 was achieved. Results A total of 410 potential LKDs were evaluated, of whom 241 (58.8%) successfully underwent donor nephrectomy and 169 (41.2%) were unable to proceed for kidney donation. The most common reasons for rejection of LKDs were medical (47.9%) followed by immunological reasons mainly blood group incompatibility (19.5%). Other reasons were donor withdrawal (15.4%), recipient-related reasons (7.1%), surgically unfit to proceed for nephrectomy (4.7%), or psychological reasons (2.3%). Conclusions A significant proportion of potential LKDs did not complete the kidney donation process due to medical, immunological, and surgical reasons. In addition, a proportion of LKDs decided to withdraw at some point during the evaluation process. Investing in donors' educational programs and implementing a standardized evaluation process are essential to increase LKDs pool.

Development of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in living kidney donors is associated with increased graft loss in the recipients of their kidneys. Our goal was to investigate if this relationship was reflected at an earlier stage postdonation, possibly early enough for recipient risk prediction based on donor response to nephrectomy. Using national registry data, we studied 29 464 recipients and their donors from 2008-2016 to determine the association between donor 6-month postnephrectomy estimated GFR (eGFR) and recipient death-censored graft failure (DCGF). We explored donor BMI as an effect modifier, given the association between obesity and hyperfiltration. On average, risk of DCGF increased with each 10 mL/min decrement in postdonation eGFR (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.10, P = .007). The association was attenuated with higher donor BMI (interaction P = .049): recipients from donors with BMI = 20 (aHR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04-1.19, P = .002) and BMI = 25 (aHR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03-1.12, P = .001) had a higher risk of DCGF with each 10 mL/min decrement in postdonation eGFR, whereas recipients from donors with BMI = 30 and BMI = 35 did not have a higher risk. The relationship between postdonation eGFR, donor BMI, and recipient graft loss can inform counseling and management of living donor kidney transplant recipients.

The process of evaluating candidates for living kidney donation can be inefficient. A structured review of existing information on this topic can provide a necessary foundation for quality improvement.

We conducted a scoping review to map the published literature to different themes related to an efficient donor candidate evaluation. We reviewed the websites of living donor programs to describe information provided to candidates about the nature and length of the evaluation process.

We reviewed of 273 published articles and 296 websites. Surveys of living donor programs show variability in donor evaluation protocols. Computed tomography (a routinely done test for all successful candidates) may be used to assess split renal volume instead of nuclear renography when the 2 kidneys differ in size. Depending on the candidate's estimated glomerular filtration rate, a nuclear medicine scan for measured glomerular filtration rate may not be needed. When reported, the time to complete the evaluation varied from 3 months to over a year. The potential for undesirable outcomes was reported in 23 studies, including missed opportunities for living donation and/or preemptive transplants. According to living donor websites, programs generally evaluate 1 candidate at a time when multiple come forward for assessment, and few programs describe completing most of the evaluation in a single in-person visit.

Data on the efficiency of the living donor evaluation are limited. Future efforts can better define, collect, and report indicators of an efficient living donor evaluation to promote quality improvement and better patient outcomes.