Context

For adults with end-stage kidney disease, live donor kidney transplant (LDKT) has better outcomes than long-term dialysis and deceased donor kidney transplant. However, black patients receive LDKT at a much lower rate than adults of any other race or ethnicity.

Objective

To examine the LDKT readiness stage of black patients on the transplant waiting list and its association with LDKT knowledge, concerns, and willingness.

Design

Cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a randomized controlled trial to improve knowledge and reduce concerns about LDKT.Patients and Setting-One hundred fifty-two black patients on the kidney transplant waiting list at a single transplant center in the northeastern United States.

Main outcome measures

LDKT readiness stage, knowledge, concerns, and willingness to talk to others about living donation.

Results

Sixty percent of patients were not considering or not yet ready to pursue LDKT, and only 11% had taken action to talk to family members or friends about the possibility of living kidney donation. Patients in later stages of LDKT readiness (ie, who had talked to others about donation or were preparing to do so) had significantly more knowledge (P<.001), fewer concerns (P=.002), and more willingness (P=.001) to talk to others about living donation than those in earlier readiness stages.

Conclusions

The large percentage of black patients who are in the earlier stages of LDKT readiness may account for the low rate of LDKT in this patient population at our transplant center. Innovative and tailored LDKT educational strategies for black patients are needed to help reduce racial disparities in LDKT.

Background

Blacks receive live donor kidney transplant (LDKT) less often than patients of all other races. We evaluated the effectiveness of educational interventions in removing barriers to LDKT for blacks.

Methods

Patients were randomized to three interventions in which health educator(s) delivered an intervention to (a) the patient and his/her guests in the patient's home (house calls [HC], n=54), (b) clusters of patients and their guests in the transplant center (group based [GB], n=49), and (c) the individual patient alone in the transplant center (individual counseling [IC], n=49).

Results

At the 2-year endpoint, 15% (n=8), 8% (n=4), and 6% (n=3) of HC, GB, and IC patients, respectively, received LDKT (P=0.30). Patients in the HC group were more likely than patients in the GB and IC groups to have at least one donor inquiry (82% vs. 61% vs. 47%, P=0.001) and evaluation (65% vs. 39% vs. 27%, P<0.001). Patients in the HC group also were more likely to have higher knowledge, fewer concerns, and higher willingness to talk to others about donation 6 weeks after intervention.

Conclusions

These findings underscore the importance of including the patient's social network in LDKT education and the potential of the HC intervention to reduce racial disparity in LDKT rates.

Despite the continued improvements in pancreas transplant outcomes in recent decades, a subset of recipients experience graft failure and can experience substantial morbidity and mortality. Here, we summarize what is known about the failed pancreas allograft and what factors are important for consideration of retransplantation. The current definition of pancreas allograft failure and its challenges for the transplant community are explored. The impacts of a failed pancreas allograft are presented, including patient survival and resultant morbidities. The signs, symptoms, and medical and surgical management of a failed pancreas allograft are described, whereas the options and consequences of immunosuppression withdrawal are reviewed. Medical and surgical factors necessary for successful retransplant candidacy are detailed with emphasis on how well-selected patients may achieve excellent retransplant outcomes. To achieve substantial medical mitigation and even pancreas retransplantation, patients with a failed pancreas allograft warrant special attention to their residual renal, cardiovascular, and pulmonary function. Future studies of the failed pancreas allograft will require improved reporting of graft failure from transplant centers and continued investigation from experienced centers.

The management of failing kidney allograft and transition of care to general nephrologists (GN) remain a complex process. The Kidney Pancreas Community of Practice (KPCOP) Failing Allograft Workgroup designed and distributed a survey to GN between May and September 2021. Participants were invited via mail and email invitations. There were 103 respondents with primarily adult nephrology practices, of whom 41% had an academic affiliation. More than 60% reported listing for a second kidney as the most important concern in caring for patients with a failing allograft, followed by immunosuppression management (46%) and risk of mortality (38%), while resistant anemia was considered less of a concern. For the initial approach to immunosuppression reduction, 60% stop antimetabolites first, and 26% defer to the transplant nephrologist. Communicating with transplant centers about immunosuppression cessation was reported to occur always by 60%, and sometimes by 29%, while 12% reported making the decision independently. Nephrologists with academic appointments communicate with transplant providers more than private nephrologists (74% vs. 49%, p = 0.015). There are heterogeneous approaches to the care of patients with a failing allograft. Efforts to strengthen transitions of care and to develop practical practice guidelines are needed to improve the outcomes of this vulnerable population.