Living kidney donors make a significant contribution to alleviating the organ shortage. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of mid- and long-term (≥12 mo) living donor psychosocial outcomes and highlight areas that have been understudied and should be immediately addressed in both research and clinical practice. We conducted a narrative review by searching 3 databases. A total of 206 articles were included. Living donors can be divided into those who donate to an emotionally or genetically related person, the so-called directed donors, or to an emotionally or genetically unrelated recipient, the so-called nondirected donors. The most commonly investigated (bio)psychosocial outcome after living donation was health-related quality of life. Other generic (bio)psychological outcomes include specific aspects of mental health such as depression, and fatigue and pain. Social outcomes include financial and employment burdens and problems with insurance. Donation-specific psychosocial outcomes include regret, satisfaction, feelings of abandonment and unmet needs, and benefits of living kidney donation. The experience of living donation is complex and multifaceted, reflected in the co-occurrence of both benefits and burden after donation. Noticeably, no interventions have been developed to improve mid- or long-term psychosocial outcomes among living donors. We highlight areas for methodological improvement and identified 3 areas requiring immediate attention from the transplant community in both research and clinical care: (1) recognizing and providing care for the minority of donors who have poorer long-term psychosocial outcomes after donation, (2) minimizing donation-related financial burden, and (3) studying interventions to minimize long-term psychosocial problems.

Living-donor kidney transplantation is the preferred treatment for kidney failure. In the United States, rates of living kidney donation have been stagnant, which is partly related to concerns over medical and financial risks. Recent research has better characterized the risks of living kidney donation, although the field is limited by a lack of robust registries. Available evidence supports small increases in the risks of end-stage kidney disease and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in living donors. For most donors, the 15-year risk of kidney failure is less than 1%, but for certain populations this risk may be higher. New tools such as genetic kidney disease panels may assist with risk stratification. Living kidney donors generally have similar or improved psychosocial health following donation compared to prior to donation and nondonor experience. Postdonation care allows for preventative care measures to mitigate risk as well as ongoing surveillance of donor outcomes. Continuing efforts to capture and report outcomes of living donation are necessary to safely expand living donation worldwide.

Accurate preoperative evaluation of renal function in living kidney donor candidates (LKDCs) is crucial to prevent kidney failure after nephrectomy. We examined the performance of various estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) equations, including the new chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation in LKDCs.

We analyzed 752 LKDCs who were assessed for measured GFR by inulin clearance as part of routine pretransplant examination from 2006 to 2020. CKD-EPI2012 from cystatin C (CKD-EPI12cys), CKD-EPI2021 from creatinine (CKD-EPI21cr), CKD-EPI21cr-cys, Japanese modified (JPN) eGFRcr, and JPN eGFRcys were compared in determining the suitability for LKDCs.

CKD-EPI12cys had the lowest absolute and relative biases, with higher P30 and P10, followed by JPN eGFRcys, CKD-EPI21cr, and CKD-EPI21cr-cys. The root mean square error was least for CKD-EPI12cys, then JPN eGFRcys, CKD-EPI21cr-cys, CKD-EPI21cr, and JPN eGFRcr. CKD-EPI21cr, CKD-EPI12cys, and CKD-EPI21cr-cys estimated GFR higher, whereas JPN eGFRcr estimated GFR lower. At the threshold of 90 mL/min/1.73 m2, CKD-EPI21cr had the highest percentage of misclassification at 37.37%, whereas JPN eGFRcr had the lowest percentage of misclassification at 6.91%. Using the age-adapted approach, JPN eGFRcr had the lowest percentage of misclassification into overestimation at 7.31%. All eGFR had >5.0%, and CKD-EPI21cr had the highest percentage of misclassification at 21.94%. Conversely, CKD-EPI21cr-cys had the lowest percentage of misclassification into underestimation at 3.19%, both at the threshold of 90 mL/min/1.73 m2 and the age-adapted approach. JPN eGFRcr had the highest percentage at 33.38% and 40.69%, respectively.

In evaluating the renal function of Japanese LKDCs, the new CKD-EPI equation had a lower rate of underestimation but a relatively high rate of overestimation. New GFR estimation formulas are needed to be tailored to each ethnic group to enhance the accuracy and reliability of donor selection processes.

Live donor kidney transplantation has been popularized to help mitigate the organ shortage crisis. At the time of living donor nephrectomy, living donors lose 50% of their kidney function or glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Studies have shown that in healthy living donors, the remaining kidney is able to adapt and recover 10% to 25% of postdonation lost GFR. GFR recovery is critical to long-term kidney health, particularly for Black Americans who disproportionately suffer from kidney disease with an incidence 2.5 times White Americans. To date, no study has examined whether health inequities in renal recovery postdonation exist.

We retrospectively analyzed 100,121 living kidney donors reported to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients between 1999 and 2021. We estimated GFR (eGFR) using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration 2021 equation and predicted the likelihood (logistic regression) and time (Cox regression) to recovery of 60% and 75% predonation eGFR. Models adjusted for age, sex, race, BMI, and predonation eGFR.

Black patients were 47% (adjusted odds ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.56, p < 0.001) and 43% (adjusted odds ratio 0.57, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.60, p < 0.001) less likely to recover 60% and 75% of predonation eGFR, respectively, compared with their White counterparts. The hazard ratio for time to renal recovery of 60% and 75% of predonation eGFR was 22% (adjusted hazard ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.80, p < 0.001) and 38% (adjusted hazard ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.65, p < 0.001) lower, respectively, than White patients.

Black living kidney donors were less likely to recover predonation eGFR, and time to renal recovery was significantly longer than their White counterparts. These data highlight the need for enhanced living kidney donor follow-up, particularly for Black living kidney donors who are at greatest future risk of end-stage kidney disease.

Blood pressure variability (BPV) is an independent cardiovascular risk factor in CKD. Kidney transplantation (KTx) is associated with improved BP levels for kidney transplant recipient (KTRs), without evoking significant changes in donors. The aim of this study was to assess the short- and mid-time effects of KTx and donation on short-term BPV in KTRs and their respective living kidney donors.

Forty KTRs and their respective donors were evaluated with 24-h ABPM (Mobil-O-Graph-NG) at baseline (1 month before), 3-months and 12-months after KTx. Standard-deviation (SD), weighted-SD (wSD), coefficient-of-variation (CV), average-real-variability (ARV) and variability independent of mean (VIM) for SBP/DBP were calculated with validated formulas.

All 24-h systolic and diastolic BPV indexes studied did not change significantly from baseline to 3-month (SBP-wSD: 12.8 ± 3.0 vs 13.2 ± 3.4 mmHg, p = 0.608; SBP-ARV: 10.3 ± 2.4 vs 10.8 ± 2.6 mmHg, p = 0.463) and 12-month evaluation (SBP-wSD 12.8 ± 3.0 vs 12.1 ± 2.8; p = 0.424 and SBP-ARV: 10.3 ± 2.4 vs 10.2 ± 2.5; p = 0.615) after kidney transplantation in the KTRs.In kidney donors, all 24-h systolic BPV indices displayed a trend towards higher values at 3 months compared to baseline, but without reaching statistical significance (SBP-wSD: 12.2 ± 2.8 vs 13.6 ± 4.2 mmHg, p = 0.107 and SBP-ARV: 10.1 ± 2.1 vs 11.2 ± 3.1 mmHg, p = 0.099), the levels of 24-h systolic SBP indices at 12-months were almost identical to baseline values. 24-h diastolic BPV indices at 3-month and 12-month evaluation were similar to baseline.

Short-term BPV did not change significantly 3 and 12 months after kidney transplantation/donation neither in KTRs nor in living kidney donors. Longitudinal studies examining associations of BPV with adverse outcomes in these individuals are needed.

Patients with end-stage renal disease in Greece are facing long waiting times to receive a kidney transplant from a deceased donor. Living kidney donation offers a valuable alternative that provides optimal outcomes and significantly expands the donor pool but still remains relatively underutilised. Developments around the world in the field of kidney transplantation mandate a change in current practice to include additional options for living donation through paired exchange, antibody-incompatible transplantation and other strategies, following careful consideration of the cultural and ethical factors involved in these complex clinical decisions. An increase in living donation rates may be achieved in several ways, including targeted campaigning to overcome potential barriers. Educating clinicians on transplantation will prove as equally important as informing patients and prospective donors but requires training and resources. Adoption of established practices and implementation of new strategies must be tailored to the needs of the Greek donor and recipient population. Local beliefs about donation, perception of associated risk and other social characteristics must be considered in the design of future strategies. Facilitating living donation in a safe environment with appropriate donor and recipient education will form the solid foundation of a new era of kidney transplantation in Greece.

This Guide for Living Donor Kidney Transplantation (LDKT) has been prepared with the sponsorship of the Spanish Society of Nephrology (SEN), the Spanish Transplant Society (SET), and the Spanish National Transplant Organization (ONT). It updates evidence to offer the best chronic renal failure treatment when a potential living donor is available. The core aim of this Guide is to supply clinicians who evaluate living donors and transplant recipients with the best decision-making tools, to optimise their outcomes. Moreover, the role of living donors in the current KT context should recover the level of importance it had until recently. To this end the new forms of incompatible HLA and/or ABO donation, as well as the paired donation which is possible in several hospitals with experience in LDKT, offer additional ways to treat renal patients with an incompatible donor. Good results in terms of patient and graft survival have expanded the range of circumstances under which living renal donors are accepted. Older donors are now accepted, as are others with factors that affect the decision, such as a borderline clinical history or alterations, which when evaluated may lead to an additional number of transplantations. This Guide does not forget that LDKT may lead to risk for the donor. Pre-donation evaluation has to centre on the problems which may arise over the short or long-term, and these have to be described to the potential donor so that they are able take them into account. Experience over recent years has led to progress in risk analysis, to protect donors' health. This aspect always has to be taken into account by LDKT programmes when evaluating potential donors. Finally, this Guide has been designed to aid decision-making, with recommendations and suggestions when uncertainties arise in pre-donation studies. Its overarching aim is to ensure that informed consent is based on high quality studies and information supplied to donors and recipients, offering the strongest possible guarantees.

Historically, to minimize risks, living kidney donors have been highly selected and healthy. Operative risks are well-defined, yet concern remains about long-term risks. In the general population, even a mild reduction in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is associated with cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). However, reduction in GFR in the general population is due to kidney or systemic disease. Retrospective studies comparing donors with matched general population controls have found no increased donor risk. Prospective studies comparing donors with controls (maximum follow-up, 9 years) have reported that donor GFR is stable or increases slightly, whereas GFR decreases in controls. However, these same studies identified metabolic and vascular donor abnormalities. There are a few retrospective studies comparing donors with controls. Each has limitations in selection of the control group, statistical analyses, and/or length of follow-up. One such study reported increased donor mortality; 2 reported a small increase in absolute risk of ESKD. Risk factors for donor ESKD are similar to those in the general population. Postdonation pregnancies are also associated with increased risk of hypertension and preeclampsia. There is a critical need for long-term follow-up studies comparing donors with controls from the same era, geographic area, and socioeconomic status who are healthy, with normal renal function on the date matching the date of donation, and are matched on demographic characteristics with the donors. These data are needed to optimize donor candidate counseling and informed consent.

Living kidney donation has been an established practice for many years. Although studies from the past decade have uncovered risks to the donor, living kidney donation is still promoted. In this review, the most recent studies are summarized.

Retrospective studies with long follow-up have detected an increased risk of hypertension among donors. Donors with hypertension at the time of donation may be at increased risk of adverse outcomes, but results differ. Recent studies have not found increased long-term mortality, but follow-up is short and control groups are of different quality.

In all, the most recent findings more or less corroborate previous knowledge in the field of living donation. There is still a need for new studies on mortality with appropriate control groups and long enough follow-up.

Effective follow-up after living kidney donation is important for maintaining the renal function of the donor. We investigated whether the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urinary protein and enzyme levels can provide important information regarding the state of the remaining kidney after donor nephrectomy.

Seventy-five living donations were included (prospective/retrospective) in the study. The following parameters were measured up to 1 year after donor nephrectomy: serum creatinine and cystatin C as markers of the GFR; the high-molecular-weight urinary proteins as markers of glomerular injury; and the low-molecular-weight urinary proteins and urinary enzymes as markers of tubular function.

One year after kidney donation, the creatinine and cystatin C values were 1.38-fold increased than their initial values, while the eGFR was 32% lower. At that time, 38% of donors had a moderate or high risk of CKD progression. The biochemical urinary glomerular and tubular kidney markers examined showed different behaviors. After a transient increase, the glomerular proteins normalized. Conversely, the detection of low-molecular-weight urinary proteins and enzymes reflected mild tubular damage at the end of the study period.

Our findings suggest that for the evaluation of mild tubular damage, low-molecular-weight marker proteins should be included in the urine diagnostic of a personalized living kidney donor follow-up.

Reduced renal function is associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD); however, how living donor nephrectomy affects the risk of CVD remains controversial. We conducted a nationwide cohort study including living kidney donors in Denmark from 1996 to 2018 to assess the risk of hypertension, atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and death) and death after living kidney donation. As comparisons we identified: a cohort of healthy individuals from the general population and an external blood donor cohort. We followed kidney donors (1,103 when compared with the general population cohort; 1,007 when compared with blood donors) for a median of 8 years. Kidney donors had an increased risk of initiating treatment for hypertension when compared with blood donors (standardized incidence ratio [SIR], 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17-1.66) but they did not have increased risk of MACE neither when compared with the general population cohort (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.89) nor with blood donors (SIR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.88-1.55). Neither did they have increased risks of AF and death. Thus, living kidney donation may be associated with increased risk of hypertension; however, we did not identify increased risks of CVD or death.

With increasing demands for living organ donations, understanding the prevalence of depression and anxiety, which are the commonest psychiatric disorders in donors following organ transplantation, will serve to improve psychiatric care to safeguard donors' mental wellbeing. This descriptive systematic review examines all observational studies in English investigating prevalence of depression and anxiety in adult transplant donors using bibliographic databases. Sixty-two papers were included (kidney, n = 25; liver, n = 25; bone marrow, n = 7; uterus, n = 2; lung, n = 1; kidney and lung concurrently, n = 2). Post-transplantation depression and anxiety prevalence rates (Depression: 0-46.9%, Anxiety: 0-66.7%) did not differ significantly from pre-transplantation and were largely comparable to the general population. Other psychiatric disorders observed included bipolar disorder, conversion disorder, adjustment disorder and sleep disorder. Other psychological outcomes observed included lower quality of life, lower satisfaction of life and regret after donation. Pre-donation risk factors such as poor physical/psychological health status, and post-donation risk factors such as complicated post-surgical recovery and poor physical/psychological health in recipients were identified, predisposing donors to poor psychological outcomes. Individuals with risk factors should be monitored and provided with social support, psychoeducation, psychotherapy and long-term follow up. Future studies should adopt consistent methodological approaches to improve comparability between various studies. More research investigating poor psychological outcomes in other organ donors besides kidney and liver donors, donors who have past psychiatric history, unrelated and parent donors is warranted.