In Search of a Better Outcome: Opting Into the Live Donor Paired Kidney Exchange Program

Background: Live donor (LD) kidney transplantation is the best option for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). However, this may not be the best option if a patient’s donor is older and considerably smaller in weight. Patient (A) with a less than ideal donor (Donor A) might enter into a li...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Amanda J. Vinson, Bryce A. Kiberd, Karthik K. Tennankore
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2021-05-01
Series:Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1177/20543581211017412
_version_ 1818612455662682112
author Amanda J. Vinson
Bryce A. Kiberd
Karthik K. Tennankore
author_facet Amanda J. Vinson
Bryce A. Kiberd
Karthik K. Tennankore
author_sort Amanda J. Vinson
collection DOAJ
description Background: Live donor (LD) kidney transplantation is the best option for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). However, this may not be the best option if a patient’s donor is older and considerably smaller in weight. Patient (A) with a less than ideal donor (Donor A) might enter into a live donor paired exchange (LDPE) program with the hopes of swapping for a better-quality organ. A second patient (B) who is in the LDPE may or may not benefit from this exchange with Donor A. Methods: This medical decision analysis examines the conditions that favor Patient A entering into the LDPE compared to directly accepting a kidney from their intended donor, as well as the circumstances where Patient B also benefits by accepting a lower-quality organ. Results: Under select circumstances, a paired exchange could benefit both Patients A and B. For example, a 30-year-old Patient A with a lower-quality donor might gain 1.20 1.52 1.84 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) by entering into a LDPE for a better-quality kidney, whereas a 60-year-old Patient B might gain 0.93 1.03 1.13 QALYs by accepting Donor A’s kidney rather than waiting longer in the LDPE. The net benefit (or loss) of entering the LDPE differs by recipient age, donor organ quality, likelihood of Patient B being transplanted in LDPE, and likelihood of Patient A finding an ideal donor in the LDPE. Conclusion: This study shows there are ways to increase live donor utilization and effectiveness that require further research and potentially changes to the LDPE process.
first_indexed 2024-12-16T15:46:30Z
format Article
id doaj.art-415f35c27f434abeac27c7ba9d52d464
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2054-3581
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-16T15:46:30Z
publishDate 2021-05-01
publisher SAGE Publishing
record_format Article
series Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease
spelling doaj.art-415f35c27f434abeac27c7ba9d52d4642022-12-21T22:25:47ZengSAGE PublishingCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease2054-35812021-05-01810.1177/20543581211017412In Search of a Better Outcome: Opting Into the Live Donor Paired Kidney Exchange ProgramAmanda J. Vinson0Bryce A. Kiberd1Karthik K. Tennankore2Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, CanadaDepartment of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, CanadaDepartment of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, CanadaBackground: Live donor (LD) kidney transplantation is the best option for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). However, this may not be the best option if a patient’s donor is older and considerably smaller in weight. Patient (A) with a less than ideal donor (Donor A) might enter into a live donor paired exchange (LDPE) program with the hopes of swapping for a better-quality organ. A second patient (B) who is in the LDPE may or may not benefit from this exchange with Donor A. Methods: This medical decision analysis examines the conditions that favor Patient A entering into the LDPE compared to directly accepting a kidney from their intended donor, as well as the circumstances where Patient B also benefits by accepting a lower-quality organ. Results: Under select circumstances, a paired exchange could benefit both Patients A and B. For example, a 30-year-old Patient A with a lower-quality donor might gain 1.20 1.52 1.84 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) by entering into a LDPE for a better-quality kidney, whereas a 60-year-old Patient B might gain 0.93 1.03 1.13 QALYs by accepting Donor A’s kidney rather than waiting longer in the LDPE. The net benefit (or loss) of entering the LDPE differs by recipient age, donor organ quality, likelihood of Patient B being transplanted in LDPE, and likelihood of Patient A finding an ideal donor in the LDPE. Conclusion: This study shows there are ways to increase live donor utilization and effectiveness that require further research and potentially changes to the LDPE process.https://doi.org/10.1177/20543581211017412
spellingShingle Amanda J. Vinson
Bryce A. Kiberd
Karthik K. Tennankore
In Search of a Better Outcome: Opting Into the Live Donor Paired Kidney Exchange Program
Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease
title In Search of a Better Outcome: Opting Into the Live Donor Paired Kidney Exchange Program
title_full In Search of a Better Outcome: Opting Into the Live Donor Paired Kidney Exchange Program
title_fullStr In Search of a Better Outcome: Opting Into the Live Donor Paired Kidney Exchange Program
title_full_unstemmed In Search of a Better Outcome: Opting Into the Live Donor Paired Kidney Exchange Program
title_short In Search of a Better Outcome: Opting Into the Live Donor Paired Kidney Exchange Program
title_sort in search of a better outcome opting into the live donor paired kidney exchange program
url https://doi.org/10.1177/20543581211017412
work_keys_str_mv AT amandajvinson insearchofabetteroutcomeoptingintothelivedonorpairedkidneyexchangeprogram
AT bryceakiberd insearchofabetteroutcomeoptingintothelivedonorpairedkidneyexchangeprogram
AT karthikktennankore insearchofabetteroutcomeoptingintothelivedonorpairedkidneyexchangeprogram