Kidney transplantation remains the treatment of choice for suitable patients with end-stage renal failure because it offers superior survival, improved quality of life, and lower long-term healthcare costs than dialysis. In the UK, contemporary practice is shaped by the persistent imbalance between rising demand and limited organ supply, driving increasing use of living donation through sharing schemes, incompatible transplantation, and more selective use of higher risk deceased donor kidneys. Despite this, short- and medium-term outcomes remain excellent. This review provides a practical overview of modern kidney transplantation with a surgical focus, including organ retrieval, preservation, implantation, and the management of post-transplant patients.

Transplant patients face complex medical and psychosocial challenges that require multidisciplinary protocols and care plans. Despite this, mental health support remains varied across centers and countries, leading to unmet mental health needs. The psychological impact of transplantation is evident before and after transplantation. Transplant patients at any stage face several challenges. Non-adherence to medications is common and can be a result of the psychological burden. A transplant mental health service could address these problems and, consequently, help improve quality of life and adherence, reduce complications, and prolong graft survival. We believe this might be beneficial from an economic perspective as well, even though further research is needed. We propose a comprehensive approach based on the biopsychosocial care model for integrating specialized mental health professionals into transplant teams across all phases of care. We call upon transplant centers, medical societies, insurance providers, and policymakers to recognize the importance of mental health expertise in transplantation.

Background:Unspecified living kidney donation, where an individual donates a kidney to a stranger, is practised in very few countries. Since the Human Tissue Act 2006, the practice has been increasingly prevalent in the United Kingdom. However, evidence exists of uncertainty from healthcare professionals as to whether this is appropriate or manageable. Objectives:The Barriers and Outcomes in Unspecified Donation study is a mixed-methods study designed to determine the answers to three research questions: Is there variation in transplant professionals' practice and attitudes, which is preventing some unspecified donations? Are psychosocial and physical outcomes after unspecified donation equivalent to those after specified donation? What is the economic benefit from unspecified donation? Design:For RQ1, a qualitative study of healthcare professionals using focus groups and interviews was performed. Additionally, a quantitative, questionnaire-based study, including healthcare professionals from all United Kingdom transplant centres, was carried out. For RQ2, a qualitative study of unspecified kidney donors, including those who did not donate, was performed. A prospective, questionnaire study of both specified kidney donors and unspecified kidney donors across the United Kingdom was completed, and linked to data recorded by National Health Service Blood and Transplant. For RQ3, data on utilisation and quality of life were collected pre- and postoperatively using health economic and quality-of-life questionnaires to allow calculation of costs and comparisons between unspecified kidney donors and specified kidney donors. Results:Fifty-nine interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals at six United Kingdom centres. There was broad support for unspecified donation, but key themes included the need for further training and information, consistency in approach across the United Kingdom, and uncertainty about age limits and psychological assessments. Managing donor expectations was a major concern. One hundred and fifty-three healthcare professionals, from all 23 United Kingdom transplant units, were recruited into the questionnaire study. The themes above were confirmed, and the need for more resource, particularly training and staffing, were emphasised. RQ2:Eight hundred and thirty-seven participants including (59.3%) specified kidney donors and (40.7%) unspecified kidney donors were recruited to the prospective questionnaire study, of whom 373 went on to donate. We found no difference in psychosocial or physical outcomes, withdrawal rates [hazard ratio: unspecified kidney donors vs. specified kidney donors 1.12 (95% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.67)] or regret, although unspecified kidney donors experienced fewer positive perceptions [specified kidney donors 319 (86.2%) vs. unspecified kidney donors 247 (79.9%); p = 0.034]. In the qualitative study of 35 unspecified kidney donors (15 donated, 20 withdrawn), we found evidence of psychological distress in those not proceeding to donation, with a need for consistency and management of expectations. Data from the RQ2 prospective study showed a wide variation in withdrawal rates of donors across the United Kingdom, with withdrawal less likely in high volume, well-staffed centres. Fifty-eight per cent of unspecified kidney donors came from just five centres. RQ3:We found no difference in costs between the two groups (£937 vs. £778; ns). We calculated that a 10% increase in unspecified kidney donors nationally would save at least £5 million. Conclusions:This study suggests that unspecified donation is a safe and acceptable practice. Training and information should be disseminated across United Kingdom centres, with increased resource for unspecified donation where necessary. Consistency in approach and support for donors who do not proceed is important. Funding:This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme as award number 13/54/54.

Unspecified kidney donors (UKDs) increase the number of high-quality kidneys available for transplantation. This study aimed to determine whether the practice was acceptable, based on the noninferiority of donor physical and psychosocial outcomes when compared to specified kidney donors (SKDs). This longitudinal, prospective cohort study investigated potential living kidney donors from across all 23 UK adult kidney transplant centers. Participants completed validated questionnaires at 4 time points (recruitment, 2-4 weeks predonation, 3- and 12-months postdonation). Clinical outcome data were collected from National Health Service Blood and Transplant. Three hundred seventy-three (of 837 recruited; 45.7%) went on to donate (November 2016 to January 2021). There were no differences in donation rates (204 SKDs [54.7%] vs 169 UKDs [45.3%]; P = .944). Both groups reported being motivated by the desire to help someone (P = .157). Tests for noninferiority indicated that UKDs do no worse than SKDs on psychosocial or clinical outcomes over 12 months, and costs are similar (P > .05). This is the world's largest prospective observational study comparing SKDs and UKDs. It demonstrates no differences in primary motivation, donation rates, regret, cost, or psychosocial and physical outcomes. These data should reassure transplant professionals and potential donors and can bolster confidence in the practice around the world.

Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) accounts for 35% of kidney transplants in the UK. The Organ Donation and Transplantation 2030 initiative underscores the necessity to enhance LDKT rates to meet growing demand. There is limited data on national variations in live donor workup pathways from initial referral to long-term follow-up. We conducted an online survey across all 23 UK transplant centres performing LDKT, covering the entire living donor pathway. We aimed to explore and highlight practice variation and identify opportunities for improvement. Responses were received from 21 centres (91.3%). Marked variation was identified in donor acceptance criteria, including age limits, body mass index thresholds, and donor evaluation timelines (6–36 weeks). Differences were also noted in multidisciplinary team processes, kidney laterality decisions, and perioperative enhanced recovery protocols. All centres used laparoscopic techniques, with hand-assisted transperitoneal nephrectomy being most common (57.1%). Donor nephrectomy and implantation were conducted sequentially in 15 (71.4%) of centres, and in parallel in six (28.6%). Variation was also seen in follow-up duration with 47.6% of centres offering lifelong follow-up. Despite excellent national outcomes, this survey highlights significant variation. Standardising key processes could streamline donor pathways, improve experiences, and support increased LDKT activity in the UK.

Background Access to deceased donor kidney transplantation may be restricted in the event of resource limitation induced by extreme peaks in activity or local major incidents, which exceed centre capacity. An organ-sharing protocol was developed by the five London transplant units in 2019 to establish a system for safe transfer of organs and recipients between five regional kidney transplant units. We describe the activity and outcomes over the initial 20-month period.Methods National data on kidney transplants performed via the collaborative scheme were obtained from National Health Service Blood and Transplant. Outcomes data was collected locally and analysed.Results Sixteen recipients were transplanted between November 2020 and July 2022. The reasons for referral were theatre capacity and an information technology systems failure. Donor kidneys were from 10 brainstem death donors (62.5%) and six circulatory death donors (37.5%). Half of the donors fulfilled standard criteria. Twelve patients (75%) were first transplant recipients. Three (18.75%) were highly sensitized (calculated reaction frequency >= 85%). Three (18.75%) patients required arterial reconstruction. Seven patients (43.75%) had delayed graft function. Median creatinine at 12 months post-transplantation was 134 mu mol/L. The median length of stay was 7.5 days. Three recipients (18.75%) died within the first year, two from SARS-CoV-2 infection.Conclusions This unique organ sharing collaborative scheme involving five hospitals in London enabled 16 transplants to proceed which otherwise would not have occurred. Although initially established for low-risk donors and recipients, the scheme has evolved to enable transplantation for a wide variety of recipients of varying complexity.

Advances in medicine allow children with previously fatal conditions to survive longer and present as transplant candidates; some requiring multiple solid-organ transplants (MSOT). There is limited data on clinical outcomes and no data on quality of life (QoL). In this mixed methods cohort study clinical outcomes from the NHSBT registry were analysed for all patients who received a kidney and one other solid-organ transplant as a child between 2000 and 2021 in the UK. QoL was measured using the PedsQL 3.0 Transplant Module questionnaire. 92 children met the inclusion criteria: heart/heart-lung and kidney (n = 15), liver and kidney (n = 72), pancreas and kidney (n = 4) and multivisceral (n = 1). Results showed excellent patient and graft survival, comparable to single-organ transplants. Allograft survival and rejection were significantly better in patients with combined liver and kidney transplants compared to patients with sequential liver and kidney transplants. QoL was excellent with a mean score of 74%. Key findings included a significant improvement in QoL post-transplant. This is the first study to look at clinical and QoL outcomes in MSOT recipients. The results indicate excellent long-term outcomes. All children born with conditions leading to end-stage disease in multiple solid-organs should be assessed as transplant candidates.

Public solicitation within the context of organ transplantation involves an individual attempting to source a living or deceased donor organ from beyond their immediate social network. This chapter focuses on living donation and discusses the reasons why people may choose to pursue public solicitation, and why it remains shrouded in controversy. It will discuss where public solicitation sits within the continuum of raising awareness of organ donation to brokering of organ ‘deals’ and the organ trade. The views of healthcare professionals, and the moral and ethical issues inherent to the practice are also addressed. The role of social media and the policing of campaigns is considered, followed by national guidance from the UK and general recommendations for transplant professionals.

Debilitating fatigue is common in people living with kidney disease and often persists after a kidney transplant. Current understanding of fatigue is centered around pathophysiological processes. Little is known about the role of cognitive and behavioral factors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the contribution of these factors to fatigue among kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). A cross-sectional study of 174 adult KTRs who completed online measures of fatigue, distress, illness perceptions, and cognitive and behavioral responses to fatigue. Sociodemographic and illness-related information was also collected. 63.2% of KTRs experienced clinically significant fatigue. Sociodemographic and clinical factors explained 16.1% and 31.2% of the variance in the fatigue severity and fatigue impairment, respectively, increasing by 28% and 26.8% after adding distress. In adjusted models, all the cognitive and behavioral factors except for illness perceptions were positively associated with increased fatigue-related impairment, but not severity. Embarrassment avoidance emerged as a key cognition. In conclusion, fatigue is common following kidney transplantation and associated with distress and cognitive and behavioral responses to symptoms, particularly embarrassment avoidance. Given the commonality and impact of fatigue in KTRs, treatment is a clinical need. Psychological interventions targeting distress and specific beliefs and behaviors related to fatigue may be beneficial.

Unspecified kidney donors (UKDs) are approached cautiously by some transplant professionals. The aim of this study was to interrogate the views of UK transplant professionals towards UKDs and identify potential barriers. A purposely designed questionnaire was validated, piloted and distributed amongst transplant professionals at each of the 23 UK transplant centres. Data captured included personal experiences, attitudes towards organ donation, and specific concerns about UKD. 153 responses were obtained, with representation from all UK centres and professional groups. The majority reported a positive experience with UKDs (81.7%; p < 0.001) and were comfortable with UKDs undergoing major surgery (85.7%; p < 0.001). 43.8% reported UKDs to be more time consuming and 52% felt that a mental health assessment should take place before any medical tests. 77% indicated the need for a lower age limit. The suggested age range was broad (16–50 years). Adjusted mean acceptance scores did not differ by profession ( p = 0.68) but higher volume centres were more accepting (46.2 vs. 52.9; p < 0.001). This is the first quantitative study of acceptance by transplant professionals to a large national UKD programme. Support is broad, however potential barriers to donation have been identified, including lack of training. Unified national guidance is needed to address these.

Unspecified kidney donation (UKD) has made substantial contributions to the UK living donor programme. Nevertheless, some transplant professionals are uncomfortable with these individuals undergoing surgery. This study aimed to qualitatively explore the attitudes of UK healthcare professionals towards UKD. An opportunistic sample was recruited through the Barriers and Outcomes in Unspecified Donation (BOUnD) study covering six UK transplant centres: three high volume and three low volume centres. Interview transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. The study provided comprehensive coverage of the UK transplant community, involving 59 transplant professionals. We identified five themes: staff's conception of the ethics of UKD; presence of the known recipient in the donor-recipient dyad; need for better management of patient expectations; managing visceral reactions about the "typical" unspecified kidney donor; complex attitudes toward a promising new practice. This is the first in-depth qualitative study of attitudes of transplant professionals towards UKD. The data uncovered findings with strong clinical implications for the UKD programme, including the need for a uniform approach towards younger candidates that is adhered to by all transplant centres, the need to equally extend the rigorous assessment to both specified and unspecified donors, and a new approach to managing donor expectations.

OPINION article Front. Transplant., 29 September 2023Sec. Transplantation Immunology Volume 2 - 2023 | https://doi.org/10.3389/frtra.2023.1277053

The European Society of Organ Transplantation (ESOT) strives to promote equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) across all its activities. We surveyed the transplant community's experiences and perspectives regarding EDI within ESOT as an organization and its educational activities, and research in general. A total of 299 respondents completed the questionnaire. About half agreed that ESOT's Executive Committee, Council, and Sections/Committees are diverse and inclusive (51%) and that ESOT promotes EDI in its live and digital educational activities (54%). Forty percent of respondents agreed that scientific and clinical trials in the field of transplantation are diverse and inclusive. Despite the wide distribution of the survey, most of the respondents self-identified as White and were either physician or surgeon. However, the results contribute a unique insight into the experiences and perspectives of the transplantation community regarding EDI. Whilst ESOT is committed to the principles of EDI, perceptions and the high number of proposals show the apparent need to prioritize efforts to embed EDI across ESOT and transplantation science. These data should constitute a starting point for change and provide guidance for future efforts to promote EDI within the transplantation community.