Outcomes of living liver donor candidate evaluations in the Living Donor Collective pilot registry

the Living Donor Collective participants

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: To gather information on long-term outcomes after living donation, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) conducted a pilot on the feasibility of establishing a comprehensive donor candidate registry. Methods: A convenience sample of 6 US living liver donor programs evaluated 398 consecutive donor candidates in 2018, ending with the March 12, 2020, COVID-19 emergency. Results: For 333/398 (83.7%), the donor or program decided whether to donate; 166/333 (49.8%) were approved, and 167/333 (50.2%) were not or opted out. Approval rates varied by program, from 27.0% to 63.3% (median, 46%; intraquartile range, 37.3–51.1%). Of those approved, 90.4% were white, 57.2% were women, 83.1% were < 50 years, and 85.5% had more than a high school education. Of 167 candidates, 131 (78.4%) were not approved or opted out because of: medical risk (10.7%); chronic liver disease risk (11.5%); psychosocial reasons (5.3%); candidate declined (6.1%); anatomical reasons increasing recipient risk (26.0%); recipient-related reasons (33.6%); finances (1.5%); or other (5.3%). Conclusions: A comprehensive national registry is feasible and necessary to better understand candidate selection and long-term outcomes. As a result, the US Health Resources and Services Administration asked SRTR to expand the pilot to include all US living donor programs.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere14394
JournalClinical Transplantation
Volume35
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2021

Keywords

  • decision making
  • liver failure
  • liver transplantation
  • risk assessment
  • scientific registry of transplant recipients

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Outcomes of living liver donor candidate evaluations in the Living Donor Collective pilot registry'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this