BACKGROUND: The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network requires that United States transplant centers maintain follow-up with living donors for 2 years postdonation, but lack of donor follow-up is pervasive. Donor characteristics, including younger age, minority race, and lower education, have been associated with incomplete follow-up, but it is unknown whether altruistic donors, having no previous connection to their recipient, differ from traditional donors in their likelihood of follow-up. METHODS: Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data, we examined all adult living kidney donors from 2005 to 2015 (n = 63 592) classified as altruistic or traditional, and compared likelihood of 6-month medical follow-up using modified Poisson regression. RESULTS: Altruistic donors did not differ from traditional donors in likelihood of follow-up (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.06). Among previously identified at-risk subgroups, however, altruistic donors were more likely to have follow-up than their traditional counterparts, including those who were younger (aRR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.09), had less than college education (aRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.00-1.11), and were unmarried (aRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.12). Having medical follow-up at 6 months was significantly associated with having follow-up at 1 year (aRR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.75-1.93) and 2 years (aRR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.56-1.70) postdonation. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide additional granularity on living donor phenotypes associated with short-term (6 month) postdonation follow-up, which is important given its association with future likelihood of follow-up. These findings offer the opportunity to tailor and direct educational efforts to increase living donor follow-up, particularly among groups at higher risk of loss to follow-up.
BACKGROUND: The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network requires that United States transplant centers maintain follow-up with living donors for 2 years postdonation, but lack of donor follow-up is pervasive. Donor characteristics, including younger age, minority race, and lower education, have been associated with incomplete follow-up, but it is unknown whether altruistic donors, having no previous connection to their recipient, differ from traditional donors in their likelihood of follow-up. METHODS: Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data, we examined all adult living kidney donors from 2005 to 2015 (n = 63 592) classified as altruistic or traditional, and compared likelihood of 6-month medical follow-up using modified Poisson regression. RESULTS: Altruistic donors did not differ from traditional donors in likelihood of follow-up (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.06). Among previously identified at-risk subgroups, however, altruistic donors were more likely to have follow-up than their traditional counterparts, including those who were younger (aRR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.09), had less than college education (aRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.00-1.11), and were unmarried (aRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.12). Having medical follow-up at 6 months was significantly associated with having follow-up at 1 year (aRR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.75-1.93) and 2 years (aRR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.56-1.70) postdonation. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide additional granularity on living donor phenotypes associated with short-term (6 month) postdonation follow-up, which is important given its association with future likelihood of follow-up. These findings offer the opportunity to tailor and direct educational efforts to increase living donor follow-up, particularly among groups at higher risk of loss to follow-up.
Authors: J D Schold; L D Buccini; J R Rodrigue; D Mandelbrot; D A Goldfarb; S M Flechner; L K Kayler; E D Poggio Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Antonia J Z Henderson; Monica A Landolt; Michael F McDonald; William M Barrable; John G Soos; William Gourlay; Colleen J Allison; David N Landsberg Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: M L Henderson; A G Thomas; A Shaffer; A B Massie; X Luo; C M Holscher; T S Purnell; K L Lentine; D L Segev Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2017-06-30 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Monica A Landolt; Antonia J Z Henderson; William Gourlay; Michael F McDonald; John G Soos; William M Barrable; David N Landsberg Journal: Transplantation Date: 2003-11-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Patricia L Adams; David J Cohen; Gabriel M Danovitch; Reverend Mark D Edington; Robert S Gaston; Cheryl L Jacobs; Richard S Luskin; Robert A Metzger; Thomas G Peters; Laura A Siminoff; Robert M Veatch; Lynn Rothberg-Wegman; Stephen T Bartlett; Lori Brigham; James Burdick; Susan Gunderson; William Harmon; Arthur J Matas; J Richard Thistlethwaite; Francis L Delmonico Journal: Transplantation Date: 2002-08-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Hannah Maple; Joseph Chilcot; Lisa Burnapp; Paul Gibbs; Alastair Santhouse; Sam Norton; John Weinman; Nizam Mamode Journal: Transplantation Date: 2014-12-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Rhiannon D Reed; Paul A MacLennan; Brittany A Shelton; Margaux N Mustian; Justin Blackburn; Sharmene C Smith; Kristin B Terry; Raynesha Grant; Deirdre Sawinski; Jayme E Locke Journal: Transplantation Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Courtenay M Holscher; Sunjae Bae; Alvin G Thomas; Macey L Henderson; Christine E Haugen; Sandra R DiBrito; Abimereki D Muzaale; Jacqueline M Garonzik Wang; Allan B Massie; Krista L Lentine; Dorry L Segev Journal: Transplantation Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Courtenay M Holscher; Tanveen Ishaque; Christine E Haugen; Kyle R Jackson; Jacqueline M Garonzik Wang; Yifan Yu; Fawaz Al Ammary; Dorry L Segev; Allan B Massie Journal: Transplantation Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 5.385