BACKGROUND A report from a high-volume single center indicated a survival benefit of receiving a kidney transplant from an HLA-incompatible live donor as compared with remaining on the waiting list, whether or not a kidney from a deceased donor was received. The generalizability of that finding is unclear. METHODS In a 22-center study, we estimated the survival benefit for 1025 recipients of kidney transplants from HLA-incompatible live donors who were matched with controls who remained on the waiting list or received a transplant from a deceased donor (waiting-list-or-transplant control group) and controls who remained on the waiting list but did not receive a transplant (waiting-list-only control group). We analyzed the data with and without patients from the highest-volume center in the study. RESULTS Recipients of kidney transplants from incompatible live donors had a higher survival rate than either control group at 1 year (95.0%, vs. 94.0% for the waiting-list-or-transplant control group and 89.6% for the waiting-list-only control group), 3 years (91.7% vs. 83.6% and 72.7%, respectively), 5 years (86.0% vs. 74.4% and 59.2%), and 8 years (76.5% vs. 62.9% and 43.9%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons with the two control groups). The survival benefit was significant at 8 years across all levels of donor-specific antibody: 89.2% for recipients of kidney transplants from incompatible live donors who had a positive Luminex assay for anti-HLA antibody but a negative flow-cytometric cross-match versus 65.0% for the waiting-list-or-transplant control group and 47.1% for the waiting-list-only control group; 76.3% for recipients with a positive flow-cytometric cross-match but a negative cytotoxic cross-match versus 63.3% and 43.0% in the two control groups, respectively; and 71.0% for recipients with a positive cytotoxic cross-match versus 61.5% and 43.7%, respectively. The findings did not change when patients from the highest-volume center were excluded. CONCLUSIONS This multicenter study validated single-center evidence that patients who received kidney transplants from HLA-incompatible live donors had a substantial survival benefit as compared with patients who did not undergo transplantation and those who waited for transplants from deceased donors. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.)

The majority of preconditioning protocols developed to allow ABO-incompatible (ABOi) renal transplantation include concurrent splenectomy as a prerequisite to successful engraftment. Our center has developed a preconditioning protocol that includes plasmapheresis (PP), low-dose CMV hyperimmune globulin (CMVIg), and anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (rituximab) to allow ABOi renal transplantation without splenectomy. Our initial experience has included treatment of six recipients and successful transplantation from blood group A 1 , A 2 , and group B living donors. Mean (± ± SD) serum creatinine was 1.3 ± ± 0.1 mg/dL among the six recipients and no episodes of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) occurred at a median follow-up of 12 months. ABO antibody titers have remained below pretreatment levels. The absence of AMR and stable allograft function in this series show the potential of this preconditioning protocol to increase ABOi renal transplantation. The use of rituximab, allowing avoidance of splenectomy, may further remove one of the significant disincentives to ABOi transplantation, and eliminate the risk of post-splenectomy infections.

HE NUMBER OF PATIENTS WAIT-ing for a kidney transplant continues to grow at an alarming pace 1 and any significant gains in closing the gap between organ supply and demand are likely to come from the increased use of live donors. The 2 most significant barriers to greater use of live donors are blood type incom-For editorial comment see p 1691.

Conclusions: Almost one quarter of living donors have medical conditions that may be associated with future health risk. Close follow-up and a registry of these donors are necessary. Only then will we be able to inform prospective living donors most accurately of the real risk of donation on their health and survival. Additionally, these data speak to the need for a national discussion on the provision of health insurance for living donors.