Persistently low transplantation rate of ABO blood type O and highly sensitised patients despite alternative transplantation programs

ABO blood type O and highly sensitised patients have the smallest chance to receive kidney transplantation. Do alternative donation programs increase this chance? In the period studied: 2323 patients were enlisted on the Rotterdam waiting list for a renal transplantation: 435 patients still waiting (WL), 464 delisted without transplantation (DWT). 1424 received deceased donor (DD, 535) or living donor (LD, 889, including 204 alternative) transplantation. Alternative LD programs in our centre are: paired kidney‐exchange, altruistic with domino‐paired donation and ABO‐incompatible donation (ABOi). Compared to populations not transplanted, blood type O recipients are significantly underrepresented in DD and all LD transplantation populations, except the ABOi program. Highly sensitised patients are overrepresented in DD, but underrepresented in all LD transplantation populations. The high transplantation rate of highly sensitised patients was the result of Eurotransplant Acceptable mismatch program (AM). The LD ABOi and DD AM programs are the only alternative donation programs favourable for patients with low chances. While the contribution of direct LD transplantations will increase in time, the relative success rate of low‐chance patients will decrease. Beside increasing LD ABOi transplantation, a new DD allocation model favouring both highly immunised and blood type O patients is essential.     

It takes six to boogie: allocating cadaver kidneys in Eurotransplant

In March 1996, a new allocation point system for cadaver kidneys, the Eurotransplant (ET) Kidney Allocation System (KAS), was introduced in ET, the first multinational organ exchange organization. The aims of ETKAS were to reduce average and maximum waiting time, to allow patients with rare human leukocyte antigen (HLA) phenotypes or combinations to receive an "optimal" offer, to keep the exchange rates between the participating countries balanced, and finally to keep optimal graft survival, by means of HLA matching. Elderly patients and highly sensitized patients profit in addition from special programs, the ET Senior Program and the Acceptable Mismatch Program, respectively. All kidneys are offered to the pool and are allocated according to the degree of HLA matching, mismatch probability, waiting time, distance from the donor center, and balance between the countries participating in ET. A summary of 6 years' experience with the ETKAS is presented in this article.     

Renal transplantation of highly sensitised patients via prioritised renal allocation programs. Shorter waiting time and above-average graft survival

BACKGROUND: Highly sensitised renal transplant candidates (HSP) have a reduced chance of receiving a transplant. In Eurotransplant (ET), two special allocation programs have been made available for such patients: the Highly Immunised Tray (HIT) program and the Acceptable Mismatch program (AM), albeit with different inclusion and exclusion criteria (HIT, current PRA% >or=85%; AM, current and/or historical PRA% >or=85%). When a suitable kidney is available for a patient, included in these special programs, the kidney is mandatory offered. In contrast, in the point score system of the standard ET kidney allocation procedure (ETKAS), HSP (PRA >or=85%) only get a marginal bonus according to their current sensitisation. It was tested whether the allocation priority of the two special allocation programs is justified from the perspective of transplant outcome. METHODS: The post- transplant outcomes of recent consecutive cohorts of AM, HIT and HSP-ETKAS transplants were compared. The end points were initial graft function, rejection episodes during the first three months post-transplant, and 1-year kidney graft outcome. RESULTS: Between January 1, 1997 and June 30, 1998, 101 HSP received a kidney-only transplant: 29 via AM, 39 via HIT and 33 via ETKAS. HLA-A,B,DR matching was more favourable in the AM and HIT allocation groups and their waiting times till transplantation were much shorter than those of the HSP-ETKAS allocation group. The incidence of initial graft non-function was similar among the three HSP allocation groups, averaging 50%. Recovery of the initial non-function was more likely for AM and HIT transplants. No difference was present with regard to the percentage of patients who experienced at least one rejection episode during the first three months post-transplant, averaging 43%. However, the AM group had less severe and/or less recurrent rejection episodes. The 1-year kidney graft survival, censored for death with functional graft, was 96% for AM, 82% for HIT and 75% for HSP-ETKAS transplants (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The two special allocation programs for HSP do yield adequate results and offer a shorter waiting time, compared to the standard kidney allocation procedure. The AM approach might be preferred because of the smoother post-transplant management and the better graft survival, keeping the HIT approach as a back up. Since the allocation priority is justified in view of efficiency, the renal transplant community should support the incorporation of a special allocation program for HSP in their respective organ exchange program.     

A new allocation plan for renal transplantation

BACKGROUND: A novel plan of renal allograft allocation has been conducted by United Network for Organ Sharing Region 1 transplant centers since September 3, 1996, based upon HLA matching, time waiting, and population distance points. The objectives of this plan were to achieve a balance between increasing the opportunity of renal transplantation for those patients listed with long waiting times and promoting local organ donor availability. METHODS: A single list of candidates was formulated for each cadaver donor, assigning a maximum of 8 points for time waiting, a maximum of 8 points for population distance from the donor hospital, and HLA points based upon the degree of B/DR mismatch. Additional points were awarded to a cross-match-negative patient with a panel-reactive antibody of >80%, and to pediatric patients. RESULTS: The total number of kidneys transplanted to patients who had waited >3 years was 100 (46%), and to patients who had waited >2.5-3 years was 29 (13%). However, the total number of kidneys transplanted to patients with the maximum population distance points was only 72 (33%). Thus, although the plan achieved a favorable distribution of kidneys to patients with longer waiting times (nearly 60%), the other, equally important objective of promoting local donor availability was not initially accomplished. Moreover, minor HLA B/DR differences between the donor and the recipient (i.e., not phenotypically matched) were unexpectedly consequential in determining allocation. As a result of these observations, the following adjustments were made in the plan (as of December 3, 1997): a maximum of 10 points for population distance, a maximum of 8 points for time waiting (both by a linear correlation), and the retention of HLA points for 0 B/DR mismatch only. After these interval changes, the percentage of patients receiving a kidney with some population distance points increased from 85% to 96%. Conclusions. We have shown that a heterogeneous region of multiple transplant centers can devise (and modify) an innovative and balanced plan that provides an equitable system of allocation for an ever-increasing number of patients.     

An algorithm for cadaver kidney allocation based on a multivariate analysis of factors impacting on cadaver kidney graft survival and function

Abstract The large imbalance between cadaver kidney supply and demand makes the implementation of equitable and effective organ allocation systems an urgent need. This has triggered a revision of the criteria used so far for cadaver kidney allocation within the North Italy Transplant program, not least in the light of the many changes that have occurred recently with respect to broader criteria for admission of patients to the waiting list, donor selection, tissue‐typing methods, organ preservation and immunosuppressive protocols. We based the critical revision of our cadaver kidney allocation algorithm on univariate and multivariate analysis of a number of immunological, clinical, social and administrative factors that impacted on the transplant outcome in 2,917 patients transplanted in the 12 transplant centers operating within our organization from 1 January 1990 to 30 September 1997. This analysis indicated that younger donor age, absence of pretransplant transfusions, patient dialysis center and level of HLA match showed statistically significant positive associations with graft survival. Younger donor age and male donor gender showed a statistically significant association with excellent graft function at 4 years. The results of this analysis were used to develop a new computer‐assisted version of our adult kidney allocation algorithm. It works in two steps (local pool first, then the entire waiting list) and four levels (0‐1 HLA MM, PRA +; 2 HLA MM, PRA +; 0‐1 MM, PRA‐; 2‐4 HLA MM, PRA‐); within each level, selection takes into account waiting time and age difference from donor age. The evaluation of 731 transplants allocated in 19 months with the new algorithm, as against 698 transplants allocated in the preceding 19 months according to the previous algorithm, showed a significantly higher proportion of recipients who had been on the waiting list for more than 3 years (33.2% versus 22.6%). The use of the new algorithm was also associated with a significantly increased number of transplanted alloimmunized patients (18.8% versus 9.2% with the previous algorithm) and recipients with 0‐1 HLA mismatches (22% versus 14.3%). Furthermore, the number of kidneys used locally has steadily increased. Differences in 6‐month graft survival and percentage of patients with excellent function at 6 months were not statistically significant in recipients transplanted with the new versus the previous algorithm. Survivals were 93.7% versus 91.8%. Percentages of patients with excellent renal function were 69.9% and 71.8%, respectively. These preliminary data suggest that the new algorithm improves HLA match and reduces the number of patients on the waiting list for 3 or more years without determining significant modifications of 6‐month graft survival and function. Moreover, it facilitates the achievement of a fair local balance between organs retrieved and transplanted, the compliance of operators with objective allocation rules and the documentation of the whole allocation process.     

Management of the sensitized patient awaiting a cadaver allograft

One of the most difficult problems in renal transplantation, and one that is steadily worsening, is finding acceptable kidneys for the highly sensitized transplant candidate whose antibody level may translate into years of waiting for a cadaver kidney. The causes of such sensitization are well known to be prior allografts, pregnancies, and transfusions. The longer a transplant center has been in existence, the larger is its pool of such highly sensitized patients. Patients who have rejected a previous transplant are a major contributor to this pool, especially when that transplant was poorly matched. Even though rejection losses have been cut from about 50 to 25% since 1973, the dramatic increase in the number of transplants and the sharply lower mortality rate together have led to twice as many patients being returned to waiting lists. As a preventive measure, better human lymphocyte antigen (HLA) matching would help to reduce rejection rates further and, for those that do reject, would lessen their sensitization levels and their waiting time for a second kidney. Measures to diminish the consequences of sensitization have included determining a patient's antibody specificities in order to create a profile of safe donor antigens. Making sensitized patients priority patients and sharing kidneys for them are important measures as well, but the proper definition of a highly sensitized patient requires more than a simple panel reactive antibody (PRA) value. The calculation of the combined probability (pc) of transplantation, based on HLA and ABO gene frequencies, more accurately reflects the true transplantability of a potential recipient.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Increasing access to kidney transplantation in countries with limited resources: The Indian experience with Kidney Paired Donation

According to the Indian chronic kidney disease registry, in 2010 only 2% of end stage kidney disease patients were managed with kidney transplantation, 37% were managed with dialysis and 61% were treated conservatively without renal replacement therapy. In countries like India, where a well‐organized deceased donor kidney transplantation program is not available, living donor kidney transplantation is the major source of organs for kidney transplantation. The most common reason to decline a donor for directed living donation is ABO incompatibility, which eliminates up to one third of the potential living donor pool. Because access to transplantation with human leukocyte antigen (HLA)‐desensitization protocols and ABO incompatible transplantation is very limited due to high costs and increased risk of infections from more intense immunosuppression, kidney paired donation (KPD) promises hope to a growing number of end stage kidney disease patients. KPD is a rapidly growing and cost‐effective living donor kidney transplantation strategy for patients who are incompatible with their healthy, willing living donor. In principle, KPD is feasible for any centre that performs living donor kidney transplantation. In transplant centres with a large living donor kidney transplantation program KPD does not require extra infrastructure, decreases waiting time, avoids transplant tourism and prevents commercial trafficking. Although KPD is still underutilized in India, it has been performed more frequently in recent times. To substantially increase donor pool and transplant rates, transplant centres should work together towards a national KPD program and frame a uniform acceptable allocation policy.     

Simulated waiting list prioritization for equitable allocation of donor lungs.

BACKGROUND: In lung transplantation (LTx), allocation of donor lungs is usually based on blood group, height and waiting time. Long waiting times favor patients with a slowly progressive end-stage lung disease and make the current allocation system the subject of discussion. In an attempt to equalize the chances for transplantation for every patient, irrespective of diagnosis, we investigated the effect of diagnosis-dependent prioritization on the waiting list, using a simulation model. METHODS: For the main disease categories on the waiting list, the relative risks of dying while on the waiting list were calculated using empirical data from the Dutch LTx program gathered over a period of 10 years. In a microsimulation model of the Dutch LTx program based on data from the actual situation, patients with diagnoses associated with a statistically significant increased risk of death while on the waiting list were prioritized by multiplying the time on the waiting list by the relative risk. RESULTS: Relative risks of death on the waiting list were increased significantly in patients with cystic fibrosis, primary pulmonary hypertension and pulmonary fibrosis. Prioritization resulted in an increased chance of transplantation for the prioritized diagnoses and a decreased chance for the non-prioritized diagnoses. The distribution of diagnoses after LTx was almost equal to the distribution of diagnoses on the waiting list. CONCLUSION: The simulated method of prioritization on the waiting list is a step forward to a more equitable allocation of donor lungs. Moreover, this method is clinically feasible, as long as the waiting list is updated frequently.     

For the many: permitting deceased donor kidney transplantation across low‐titre blood group antibodies can reduce wait times for blood group B recipients,and improve the overall number of 000MM transplants ‐ a multicentre observational cohort study

Blood group O or B recipients wait longer for a kidney transplant. We studied the distribution of anti‐ABO blood group antibody titres in patients awaiting a kidney transplant, and modelled the effect of altering the UK National Kidney Allocation Scheme to allow for patients with ‘LOW’ titres (≤1:8, ≤3 dilutions) to receive a deceased donor ABOi (ddABOi) transplant. In a prospective study of 239 adult patients on the waiting list for a transplant in 2 UK centres, ABO‐antibody titres (anti‐A and anti‐B) were measured. Based on the proportions of ‘LOW’ anti‐A or anti‐B antibodies, four simulations were performed to model the current allocation rules compared with variations allowing ddABOi allocation under various conditions of blood group, HLA matching, and waiting time. The simulations permitting ddABOi resulted in more blood group B recipients being transplanted, with median waiting time reduced for this group of recipients, and more equitable waiting times across blood groups. Additionally, permitting ddABOi resulted in greater numbers of 000MM allocations overall in compatible transplants under modelled conditions. Changing allocation in the UK to permit ddABOi in patients with ‘LOW’ titres would not change the total number of transplants, but redistributes allocation more equitably amongst blood groups, altering waiting times accordingly.     

Kidney transplantation in highly sensitized patients: are there options to overcome a positive crossmatch?

Presensitization against a broad array of human leukocyte antigens (HLA) is associated with prolonged waiting times and inferior graft survival in kidney transplantation. Since the late 1960s, a positive lymphocytotoxic crossmatch has been considered a contraindication for kidney transplantation and solutions, such as enrollment of eligible patients in the Acceptable Mismatch Program of Eurotransplant and kidney paired donation in the case of living donor kidney transplantation, have been proposed to avoid this barrier. Alternatively, a positive crossmatch might not be considered as a contraindication for kidney transplantation and one can try to overcome this hurdle by desensitization. In principle, there are three different ways to overcome the crossmatch barrier by desensitization. The highly sensitized patient awaiting a cadaveric kidney transplant may be desensitized either immediately pretransplant when an organ is offered or in advance, during the time on the waiting list, to increase his chance of having a negative crossmatch at the time of transplantation. In the case of living donor kidney transplantation, the patient can be desensitized for days to weeks until the positive crossmatch with his intended living kidney donor becomes negative. “Heidelberg algorithm” is a combination of different measures, such as pretransplant risk estimation, good HLA match, inclusion of patients in the Eurotransplant Acceptable Mismatch program, and desensitization, which leads to timely transplantation and excellent survival rates in highly sensitized patients at a low rate of toxicity. We believe that all available options should be utilized in an integrated manner for the transplantation of kidney transplant recipients who are at a high risk of antibody-mediated rejection.     

Non‐HLA‐matched 3rd party vascular allograft in renal transplant may lead to sensitization against donor HLA

3rd party donor vessels are often used for vascular reconstruction in organ transplantation. While current practice ensures that 3rd party vessels are blood group matched, HLA matching to the non‐intended recipient is not performed. This practice potentially sensitizes the recipient and may reduce their future chance of renal transplant from a larger pool of donors. We examined our cohort of renal transplant recipients who received non‐HLA‐matched 3rd party vessels for the de‐novo development of donor‐specific HLA antibodies. Our institution's Human Tissue Authority (HTA) blood vessel registers were examined to identify stored donor vessels and their non‐intended recipients. Donor vessel HLA status was cross‐referenced with the recipient HLA status. Between 2004 and 2014, five patients were identified that received 3rd party non‐HLA‐matched vessels for vascular reconstruction during renal transplantation. Three patients (60%) subsequently developed donor‐specific HLA antibodies. These data provide evidence that use of non‐HLA‐matched stored 3rd party vascular grafts may lead to sensitization in the recipient. Where time permits, HLA matching should be performed to avoid this allogeneic response. Laboratories monitoring DSA should be aware of any patient receiving a non‐HLA‐matched 3rd party vascular graft, and recipients may benefit from increased post‐transplant immunological vigilance.     

Long‐ and short‐term outcomes in renal allografts with deceased donors: A large recipient and donor genome‐wide association study

Improvements in immunosuppression have modified short‐term survival of deceased‐donor allografts, but not their rate of long‐term failure. Mismatches between donor and recipient HLA play an important role in the acute and chronic allogeneic immune response against the graft. Perfect matching at clinically relevant HLA loci does not obviate the need for immunosuppression, suggesting that additional genetic variation plays a critical role in both short‐ and long‐term graft outcomes. By combining patient data and samples from supranational cohorts across the United Kingdom and European Union, we performed the first large‐scale genome‐wide association study analyzing both donor and recipient DNA in 2094 complete renal transplant‐pairs with replication in 5866 complete pairs. We studied deceased‐donor grafts allocated on the basis of preferential HLA matching, which provided some control for HLA genetic effects. No strong donor or recipient genetic effects contributing to long‐ or short‐term allograft survival were found outside the HLA region. We discuss the implications for future research and clinical application.     

Hidden perils in a highly sensitized kidney transplant recipient

Highly sensitised patients are at increased risk for antibody mediated rejection (AMR) and reduced graft survival. Highly sensitive assays for detecting recipient preformed anti-HLA antibodies have been developed and identify high immunological risk donors. A 62yo male with end stage renal failure secondary to glomerulonephritis received a T-cell crossmatch negative, deceased donor, renal transplant mismatched at 3 of 6 HLA loci. A donor specific antibody (DSAb) to DR17 (MFI 2073) was present. Given his advancing age, multiple medical comorbidities and broad HLA sensitisation the transplant was accepted, however, shortly before transplantation two atypical results were made available. Firstly a B-cell crossmatch was performed and found to be negative in current serum but strongly positive in peak serum, secondly a further potential DSAb was predicted based on linkage disequilibrium with known donor HLA typing. The donor HLA typing would not be clarified until after the transplant. Despite the increased risk of AMR the transplant proceeded with pre-emptive plasma exchange. The patient developed severe AMR requiring extensive therapy. Incomplete prospective donor HLA typing can generate uncertainty in the interpretation of the virtual crossmatch performed for deceased donor transplants. This may result in clinically relevant sequelae. Advances in antibody detection techniques need to be matched by timely donor HLA typing for its full benefit to be realised.     

Evolution in allocation rules for renal, hepatic, pancreatic and intestinal grafts

Organ transplantation is the victim of his own success. The results of transplantation are excellent and more patients are activated on the waiting list. The need for organs exceeds the supply. Which criteria are used to allocate available grafts to patients on the waiting list ? Organ allocation and finding the "best match" between donor and recipients, is the goal of Eurotransplant, the organ sharing organization for seven European countries (Austria, Croatia, Germany, Luxemburg, Slovenia, The Netherlands and Belgium). Last decade, the allocation system has switched from a "center-driven" (organ allocated to a center) to a "patient-driven" system (organ allocated to a particular patient). For the allocation of abdominal organs some general allocation rules are followed: blood group compatibility, priority for high urgencies. The allocation of kidneys is based on a point score system based on waiting time, HLA and donor location (to reduce the cold ischemia time). In addition to this standard allocation procedure, there are still specific procedures for pediatric recipients and for candidates > or = 65 year old. There is also an "acceptable" mismatch program for recipients at high immunological risk. The liver allocation system recently changed and is now based on the MELD score, a formula that calculates the probability of death within 3 months on the waiting list. For pancreas and intestine, the system is based on blood group, medical urgency, waiting time, donor region and weight (for intestine).     

Access to quality: evaluation of the allocation of deceased donor kidneys for transplantation

Disparities in both access to the kidney transplant waiting list and waiting times for transplant candidates have been extensively documented with regard to ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic factors, and region. However, the issue of access to equivalent quality organs has garnered less attention. The principal aim of this study was to determine whether certain patient populations were more likely to receive lower quality organs. This was a retrospective cohort study of all deceased-donor adult renal transplant recipients in the United States from 1996 to 2002 (n = 45,832). Using previously reported categorization of donor quality (I to V), the propensity of transplant recipients to receive lower-quality kidneys in a cumulative logit model was evaluated. Older patients were progressively more likely to receive lower-quality organs (age > or = 65 yr, odds ratio [OR] = 2.1, P < 0.01) relative to recipients aged 18 to 24 yr. African American and Asian recipients had a greater likelihood of receiving lower-quality organs relative to non-Hispanic Caucasians. Regional allocation networks were highly variable with regard to donor quality. Neither recipient gender (OR = 1.00, P = 0.81) nor patient's primary diagnosis were associated with donor quality. Findings suggest that disparities in the quality of deceased donor kidneys to transplant recipients exist among certain patient groups that have previously documented access barriers. The extent to which these disparities are in line with broad policies of equity and potentially modifiable will have to be examined in the context of allocation policy.     

Expanding the donor pool to increase renal transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: The goal of the Eurotransplant renal allocation scheme is to provide every patient on the waiting list with a reasonably balanced opportunity for a donor offer. New initiatives were taken in order to maximize donor usage while maintaining a successful transplant outcome. METHODS: Two Eurotransplant projects were launched in order to accommodate changes in donor and recipient profiles. A re-addressing of the non-heart-beating donor pool was undertaken and an allocation scheme in which organs from donors aged >65 are allocated to recipients aged >65 [the Eurotransplant Senior Programme (ESP)] was introduced. RESULTS: Especially in The Netherlands, an enormous increase in the number of non-heart-beating donor kidneys has been observed, however with a pace-keeping reduction in heart-beating donors. The organization-wide implementation of the ESP has been successful. The 3 year graft survival rates for these age-matched transplants were as good as the human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-matched transplants (64 vs 67%) (P = 0.4). CONCLUSION: Within the framework of sound research, the utmost flexibility and creativity is needed to keep or even increase the number of renal transplants when faced with a quantitatively stagnating but qualitatively deteriorating donor pool. Both the non-heart-beating donor protocol and the ESP have proven to be quite successful in achieving this goal without compromising the outcome for the individual end-stage renal disease patient.     

Enhancing the Expanded Criteria Donor Policy as an Intervention to Improve Kidney Allocation: Is It Actually a ’Net‐Zero’ Model?

In the United States, relatively little progress has been made in recent years to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of deceased donor kidney allocation. Despite enactment of the Expanded Criteria Donor (ECD) Policy in 2002, known inequities and suboptimal utility of donated kidneys persist. In contrast with dialysis patients with shorter predicted life expectancies, those with longer predicted lifetimes can often improve their survival by waiting longer for a Standard Criteria Donor (SCD) kidney. Yet, a substantial fraction of these candidates accept ECD kidneys, often poorly HLA matched. Meanwhile, waitlist mortality continues to rise, particularly among older transplant candidates. Despite required consent processes for candidates to list for ECD kidneys, centers appear to interpret and implement ECD policy differently—some list candidates selectively while others list nearly their entire candidate pool. To ensure more efficient and effective implementation of ECD policy across centers, we advocate for (1) more oversight and guidance in directing patients to the ECD list who stand to benefit the most from receipt of an ECD kidney; and (2) enhanced transparency of center‐level ECD consent and listing practices. More uniform implementation of ECD policy could improve efficiency and effectiveness of deceased donor kidney allocation without deleteriously impacting equity.     

Allocation of cadaver donor kidneys in Australia

The national allocation of kidneys in Australia is based on a combination of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching and equity factors designed to make transplantation accessible to as many patients as possible. A points system has been designed that deducts points for HLA mismatches but adds points for factors such as levels of HLA sensitization, waiting time on dialysis, and a loading for pediatric patients. Kidneys that do not reach the level of matching required for national allocation are transplanted in the donor state using both matching and waiting time criteria, which caters to minority groups with rare HLA types.     

Cross sectional survey on the concerns and anxiety of patients waiting for organ transplants

Aim: We aimed to gain an understanding of patient concerns while on a transplantation waiting list in areas with long transplant waiting time. Methods: The study population comprised patients with organ failure on the transplant waiting list in Hong Kong. They were invited to complete a questionnaire survey. Demographic data and waiting time were collected. Respondents rated their chance of getting transplanted, their subjective concerns and feelings, level of happiness and support received. Results: A total of 442 patients on the waiting list for kidney, liver, lung and heart‐lung transplants completed the questionnaire survey. The majority of patients (93.0%) were waiting for kidney transplantation. More than half of the respondents (63.3%) had been waiting for more than 3 years. Patients with longer transplant waiting times had lower self‐estimated chance of receiving a transplant (P = 0.004). Self‐estimated chance of getting transplanted was positively associated with the happiness score (P < 0.0001). Issues of most concerns to the patients waiting for organ transplants were: inconvenience of therapy (48.2%), disease progression (47.9%), burden to family (59.5%) and financial difficulties (52.3%). More female patients on the waiting list (50.0% vs 25.7% in male) reported concerns about suffering associated with the illnesses. 21.7% of patients considered the level of support received inadequate. Conclusions: Our patients had long waiting time for transplantation, which is associated with a lower perceived chance of getting a transplant. Attention to more psychosocial support to these patients waiting for organ transplant is important. Promoting and improving organ donation would be the ultimate way to help these patients.     

Recipient race does not influence waiting time for a cadaveric renal transplant--one organ procurement organization's experience

There was no statistical significance to the differences in waiting time for cadaveric renal transplant by race. Whether for first transplant or second or greater, any differences in waiting time could not be accounted for by the recipient's race. CAUC made up 58% of the waiting list, 65% of the recipients, and 87% of the donors. The corresponding numbers for AA are: 38%, 29%, and 10%, respectively. More regional serum-sharing trays may be needed in order to expose recipients with high PRA to as many donors as possible in order to lessen their waiting time. It should be noted that fewer HLA mismatches occurred when donor and recipient race were identical. In light of this data, more study is needed to determine the relationship between donor and recipient race, corresponding HLA mismatches, and graft survival. If antigen-matching is found to increase graft survival, then an increase in minority donations will be required. Until that time, under the current allocation system and with the predominance of Caucasian donors, it is likely that Afro-Americans will continue to receive kidneys that have more HLA antigen mismatches than if Afro-Americans donated in numbers equivalent to their percentage of the waiting list.