Paired kidney donation: are we going beyond reasonable limits in living-donor transplantation?

Abstract

The growing demand for transplant kidneys requires strategies to increase organ supply and avoid long waiting periods on the list. The increase in the number of transplants from living donors involves the growth in the use of unrelated donors and paired kidney donation. Most of these transplants are performed in the USA, where they already represent, respectively, 34% and 16% of total transplants from living donors. In Latin America, and especially in Brazil, there is no collective enthusiasm for these modalities, either at the request of transplanters or that of the community, with the region's priority being to increase transplants from deceased donors, which growth can be up to three-fold. Concerning transplants from matched donors, the possible conflicting results between donors can generate public challenges and they risk compromise the concepts of equal opportunities for transplant candidates, with the possibility of generating resistance to organ donation, especially in regions with socioeconomic limitations and disparities in access to qualified health care and education. This donation model involves challenging ethical and logistical issues, which are subject to questionings, starting with an act of exchange between two pairs until reaching embarrassing proposals, which can compromise the altruistic character of organ donation, and thus not be universally incorporated.

Keywords:
Kidney Transplantation; Paired Kidney Donation; Living Donors

Resumo

A demanda crescente por rins para transplante requer estratégias para aumentar a oferta de órgãos e evitar longos períodos de espera em lista. O aumento no número de transplantes com doador vivo envolve o crescimento da utilização de doadores não aparentados e a doação renal pareada. A maior parte desses transplantes são realizados nos EUA, onde já representam, respectivamente, 34% e 16% do total de transplantes com doador vivo. Na América Latina, e especialmente no Brasil, não existe entusiasmo coletivo por essas modalidades, quer por demanda dos transplantadores ou da comunidade, sendo prioridade da região incrementar o transplante com doador falecido, cujo crescimento pode ser de até três vezes. Na modalidade de transplantes com doadores pareados, os possíveis resultados conflitantes entre doadores podem gerar questionamentos públicos e riscos que comprometem os conceitos de equidade de oportunidades para os candidatos a transplante, com possibilidade de gerar resistência à doação de órgãos, especialmente em regiões com limitações socioeconômicas e disparidades de acesso aos atendimentos de saúde e educação qualificados. Esse modelo de doação envolve questões éticas e logísticas desafiadoras, que estão sujeitas a questionamentos, começando por um ato de troca entre dois pares até alcançar propostas constrangedoras, o que pode comprometer o caráter altruístico da doação de órgãos, e assim não ser universalmente incorporado.

Descritores:
Transplante de Rim; Doação Renal Pareada; Doadores Vivos

Introduction

In certain countries, such as South Korea, the USA, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Australia, Canada and India, donation models have been developed through the paired exchange of donors between two or more pairs to enable transplantation to recipients whose living donors are ABO -incompatible or have positive HLA crossmatch^1-6. The approval of this procedure is not universal and, among others, in Japan, paired donation is not allowed, for ethical reasons within that culture⁷. In Brazil, a country with great socioeconomic disparities, there is an additional concern with the repercussions of these models, concerning the stability of a growing national transplant program from deceased donors⁸.

Although controversial, the growth of this model has been based on two pillars: the option for carrying out a transplant from a deceased donor is remote, due to the progressive growth of the waiting list; and both life quality and expectancy provided by transplantation are much better than what is provided by dialysis⁹.

This modality of transplantation, which started more than 20 years ago, was first performed with the exchange between two pairs in the same center in South Korea, in 1991¹⁰, then followed by the chain of exchanges between several pairs, also in the same center, followed by geographic expansion, until reaching international status, using the same criteria as local exchanges^11-16.

The level of criteria flexibilization expanded to include a new feature, the altruistic donor, who, without a chronic renal partner, triggers a sequence of domino transplants by donating to a recipient whose incompatible donor donates to the next compatible recipient, all the way to the end of the chain, when a last donor undergoes nephrectomy for the first on the waiting list for deceased donors¹⁷.

Other bolder modalities, due to the greater clinical and ethical risk, were idealized. In the trans-organ exchange, a potential kidney donor, discarded due to a clinical impediment, but without clinical limitations for donating part of the liver, realizes the paired donation to a recipient whose donor, unable to donate the liver, would be a kidney donor¹⁸. A little more complex is the anticipated donation, when a donor undergoes nephrectomy to ensure a future donor to his family member with chronic kidney disease, but not yet requiring a transplant, as in the case of a father with a young child with polycystic kidney, which anticipated his donation, guaranteeing a "voucher" for a preemptive transplant to the child when transplantation is needed because of the polycystic disease, decades later^19,20. Extremely controversial is the so-called global exchange of kidneys, which proposes the involvement of a pair from a developed country and another from a developing country, with financial limitations that prevent their access to transplantation and specialized monitoring. Savings from suspending the dialysis in the developed country would be directed towards the expenses with carrying out monitoring the transplant for a certain period for the couple from the developing country^21-25. Figure 1 depicts the temporal sequence of implementing these exchange proposals between donors.

Figure 1
Modalities assimilated in paired donation between 2 pairs in 1991 to the last two concepts involving the global chain of paired donation in 2015 and the paired trans-organ exchange in 2019.

In addition to the contradictory issues associated with ethics and logistics, there are arguments concerning the risks for the live donor, both immediate and long-term, which, as they are not identical between the exchanged pairs, can result in asymmetric losses and generate conflicts that compromise the concepts of living donation between family members or even compromise the development of transplant programs from deceased donors, especially in countries with more socioeconomic limitations^26-28.

Discussion

The growing demand for kidneys for transplantation and the continuing shortage of donors demand the search for strategies to increase the supply of organs and avoid long waiting periods on the list. In recent years, deceased donor strategies have had greater international success in increasing the pool of donors, particularly using older and expanded criteria donors. Some countries have also increased their pool of deceased donors based on post-cardiac arrest diagnosis, which is limited to countries with better health and logistics programs²⁹.

Living donor-based increases involve the growing use of unrelated donors and paired kidney donation, which has been a tool used to overcome immunological incompatibility in the living donor context, with a particular focus on recipients with high lymphocyte panel reactivity, with difficulty finding an HLA compatible donor³⁰.

International data on the number of transplants using the different modalities of paired donation are shown in Figures 2, 3 and 4. The largest number is carried out in the USA, where it is growing and more than a thousand transplants with paired donors are carried out annually, already representing 16% of all transplants from living donors. Figure 2 also shows the growth in the number of transplants with deceased donors in parallel with the number of unrelated donors and the progressive reduction in the number of family donors. The interpretation of the relationship between these numbers over the years, shown in the figure, may suggest a lower willingness to donate among family members, considering the benefits of the other options.

Figure 2
Evolution curves in the number of kidney transplants from living donors performed in the USA between 2010 and 2019, according to the relationship between pairs.

Figure 3
Evolution curves in the number of kidney transplants from living or deceased donors in Latin America, from 2010 to 2019.

Figure 4
Evolution curves of the number of kidney transplants from living and deceased donors in Brazil, according to the type of donor and the relationship between the pairs.

In Latin America, there is no collective enthusiasm, either due to transplantation or community demand for this modality; however, although regulated in Peru, Argentina and Chile, no consistent program is active in the region. On the contrary, there is an increase in the number of transplants from deceased donors (53%) and a reduction in transplants from living donors (7.8%) in the last decade, clearly represented in Figure 3. This trend is even more pronounced in Brazil, where the reduction in the number of living donors was of 35.0%, against a 74.0% increase in transplants from deceased donors in the same period (Figure 4). In addition to the greater focus on the growth of organ harvesting systems from deceased donors, there has been a gradual trend towards a reduction in the number of procedures from living donors, especially unrelated donors, or even young donors, such as children.

Medical procedures are not always safe and without risk, but they must always be based on prudence, considering the individual and the collective benefits and risks they may bring. The proposal of a transplant program with donor exchanges can compromise the development of transplant programs across countries and cultures in different ways³¹. In the US and some European countries with a more effective social care and assistance network and well-established transplant programs from deceased donors, it might be individually challenged, but subject to less risk of interfering with existing programs, such as increasing the transplantation from deceased donor. On the other hand, in countries with different cultures, such as Japan, or with greater social and economic disparity, such as in Latin America, possible conflicting results can generate public challenges that can compromise the concepts of equality of opportunity for transplant candidates and generate resistance to organ donation.

Even nephrectomy for donation is not a risk-free procedure for the living donor, and there is some controversy considering the surgical risk, which mortality is reported to be between 1 in 3 in 10,000 donors, as well as the long-term damage, considering that the current life expectancy for healthy people in a compatible age group for donation is close to 90 years, bringing risks and discomfort to the donor²⁸. Many consider that these risks, when taken on by the donor, are based on a consistent and lasting affective relationship, such as the donation that occurs from parents to children.

Concerning these decisions, we must not discard the fact that quality of life, as well as life expectancy in dialysis, especially in the daily modality, compared to transplantation, has been declining³², and a transplant from a living donor may not be the best option in many a case. We must also consider that the very successful kidney transplant recipient will still be subjected to permanent immunosuppression, with a high risk of opportunistic and neoplastic diseases, which became very evident due to the lack of vaccine response to covid-19 and the ten-fold higher lethality in this population.

Conclusion

This transplant modality should be considered, especially in regions with socioeconomic limitations and great disparities in terms of access to quality health care and education. This donation model involves challenging ethical and logistical issues that are subject to further questioning, and which involves, among other factors, the impossibility of guaranteeing both the recipient and the donor the same benefits, as well as the risks between the various exchanged pairs. It started as an act of exchange between two pairs until reaching embarrassing proposals that could compromise the altruistic nature of organ donation.

We must use our judgment ​​and prudence according to our stage of social evolution and not run the risk of jeopardizing the achievement of our society in this highly complex and delicately balanced field of medical practice, because it involves emotional and technical issues that are difficult to understand, such as the diagnosis of brain death, the use of drugs with high risk of health impairment -such as immunosuppressants, and also having dialysis as an option, which, although it provides a life with some limitations, mainly related to the time spent for the procedure almost daily, it may not justify going beyond the limits of safety to benefit only a few³³.

References

• ¹
  Segev DL, Kucirka LM, Gentry SE, Montgomery RA. Utilization and outcomes of kidney paired donation in the United States. Transplantation. 2008;86(4):502-10.
• ²
  Park K, Lee JH, Huh KH, Kim SI, Kim YS. Exchange living-donor kidney transplantation: diminution of donor organ shortage. Transplant Proc. 2004 Dec;36(10):2949-51.
• ³
  Kute VB, Patel HV, Shah PR, Vanikar AV, Trivedi HL. National kidney paired donation programme in India: challenges, solution, future direction. Nephrology (Carlton). 2015 Jun;20(6):442.
• ⁴
  Klerk M, Keizer KM, Claas FH, Witvliet M, Haase-Kromwijk BJ, Weimar W. The Dutch national living donor kidney exchange program. Am J Transplant. 2005 Set;5(9):2302-5.
• ⁵
  Ferrari P, Woodroffe C, Christiansen FT. Paired kidney donations to expand the living donor pool: the Western Australian experience. Med J Aust. 2009 Jun;190(12):700-3.
• ⁶
  Malik S, Cole E. Foundations and principles of the Canadian living donor paired exchange program. Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2014 May;1:6.
• ⁷
  Uchida J, Kosoku A, Naganuma T, Tanaka T, Nakatani T. Latest insights on ABO-incompatible living-donor renal transplantation. Int J Urol. 2020 Jan;27(1):30-8.
• ⁸
  Abbud-Filho M, Garcia VD. Letter to the editor. Transpl Int. 2021 Jul;34(10):1756.
• ⁹
  Wolfe RA, Ashby VB, Milford EL, Ojo AO, Ettenger RE, Agodoa LY, et al. Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation, and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant. N Engl J Med. 1999 Dec;341(23):1725-30.
• ¹⁰
  Kwon OJ, Lee KS, Kang CM, Park HY, Kim JH. Exchange-donor program in renal transplantation: a single-center experience. Transplant Proc. 1999;31(1-2):344-5.
• ¹¹
  Kher V, Jha PK. Paired kidney exchange transplantation - pushing the boundaries. Transpl Int. 2020 Sep;33(9):975-84.
• ¹²
  Hanto RL, Reitsma W, Delmonico FL. The development of a successful multiregional kidney paired donation program. Transplantation. 2008 Dec;86(12):1744-8.
• ¹³
  Rees MA, Kopke JE, Pelletier RP, Segev DL, Rutter ME, Fabrega AJ, et al. A nonsimultaneous, extended, altruistic-donor chain. N Engl J Med. 2009 Mar;360(11):1096-101.
• ¹⁴
  Melcher ML, Leeser DB, Gritsch HA, Milner J, Kapur S, Busque S, et al. Chain transplantation: initial experience of a large multicenter program. Am J Transplant. 2012;12(9):2429-36.
• ¹⁵
  Thiel G, Vogelbach P, Gürke L, Gasser T, Lehmann K, Voegele T, et al. Crossover renal transplantation: hurdles to be cleared! Transplant Proc. 2001;33(1-2):811-6.
• ¹⁶
  Tuncer M, Tekin S, Yuksel Y, Yucetin L, Dosemeci L, Sengul A, et al. First international paired exchange kidney transplantations of Turkey. Transplant Proc. 2015;47(5):1294-5.
• ¹⁷
  Furian L, Nicolo A, Di Bella C, Cardillo M, Cozzi E, Rigotti P. Kidney exchange strategies: new aspects and applications with a focus on deceased donor-initiated chains. Transpl Int. 2020 Oct;33(10):1177-84.
• ¹⁸
  Torres AM, Wong F, Pearson S, Weinberg S, Roberts JP, Ascher NL, et al. Bi-organ paired exchange-sentinel case of a liver-kidney swap. Am J Transplant. 2019 Sep;19(9):2646-9.
• ¹⁹
  Veale JL, Capron AM, Nassiri N, Danovitch G, Gritsch HA, Waterman A, et al. Vouchers for future kidney transplants to overcome "chronological incompatibility" between living donors and recipients. Transplantation. 2017 Sep;101(9):2115-9.
• ²⁰
  Veale JL, Nassiri N, Capron AM, Danovitch GM, Gritsch HA, Cooper M, et al. Voucher-based kidney donation and redemption for future transplant. JAMA Surg. 2021 Sep;156(9):812-7.
• ²¹
  Rees MA, Dunn TB, Kuhr CS, Marsh CL, Rogers J, Rees SE, et al. Kidney exchange to overcome financial barriers to kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2017 Mar;17(3):782-90.
• ²²
  Pullen LC. Global kidney exchange: overcoming the barrier of poverty. Am J Transplant. 2017 Sep;17(10):2499-500.
• ²³
  Delmonico FL, Ascher NL. Opposition to irresponsible global kidney exchange. Am J Transplant. 2017 Oct;17(10):2745-6.
• ²⁴
  Minerva F, Savulescu J, Singer P. The ethics of the global kidney exchange programme. Lancet. 2019 Nov;394(10210):1775-8.
• ²⁵
  Bozek DN, Dunn TB, Kuhr CS, Marsh CL, Rogers J, Rees SE, et al. Complete chain of the first global kidney exchange transplant and 3-yr follow-up. Eur Urol Focus. 2018 Mar;4(2):190-7.
• ²⁶
  Ommen ES, Winston JA, Murphy B. Medical risks in living kidney donors: absence of proof is not proof of absence. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006 Jul;1(4):885-95.
• ²⁷
  Lentine KL, Lam NN, Segev DL. Risks of living kidney donation: current state of knowledge on outcomes important to donors. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019 Apr;14(4):597-608.
• ²⁸
  Mjoen G, Hallan S, Hartmann A, Foss A, Midtvedt K, Oyen O, et al. Long-term risks for kidney donors. Kidney Int. 2014 Jul;86(1):162-7.
• ²⁹
  Monteoliva PB, Redondo-Pachon D, Garcia EM, Calabria ER. Kidney transplant outcome of expanded criteria donors after circulatory death. Nefrologia (Engl Ed). 2021 Jun 18; [Epub ahead of print]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nefro.2021.01.014
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nefro.2021.01.014
• ³⁰
  Pham TA, Lee JI, Melcher ML. Kidney paired exchange and desensitization: strategies to transplant the difficult to match kidney patients with living donors. Transplant Rev (Orlando). 2017 Jan;31(1):29-34.
• ³¹
  Ross LF, Rubin DT, Siegler M, Josephson MA, Thistlethwaite Junior JR, Woodle ES. Ethics of a paired-kidney-exchange program. N Engl J Med. 1997;336(24):1752-5.
• ³²
  Kjellstrand CM, Buoncristiani U, Ting G, Traeger J, Piccoli GB, Sibai-Galland R, et al. Short daily haemodialysis: survival in 415 patients treated for 1006 patient-years. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008 Oct;23(10):3283-9.
• ³³
  Waterman AD, Wood EH, Thomas A. High interest, low payoff: understanding opportunities for intervention for those exploring but not pursuing paired kidney donation. In: Proceedings of American Transplant Congress (ATC). Seattle, Washington, United States, 2021 Jun 4-9. Seattle, WA: ATC; 2021. p. 473.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  19 Jan 2022
• Date of issue
  Jul-Sep 2022

History

• Received
  23 Sept 2021
• Accepted
  19 Oct 2021