Clinical, immunological and ethical aspects of selecting a recipient for cadaver kidney transplantation
Authors: Vatazin V. A. , Zulkarnaev A. B. , Stepanov V. A. 
Published: April 2020

The decision to choose a particular patient for kidney transplantation is made through two consecutive decisions: decision to include the patient on the waiting list and decision to select a patient competitively among several candidates for transplant. Both decisions are taken amidst many competing priorities and require a multidisciplinary approach. This paper provides comparative analysis of the principles of maintaining a waitlist and selecting a donor–recipient pair in Russia, Europe (Eurotransplant) and the USA (UNOS). Donor–recipient pair is selected based on the traditional hierarchical scheme of decision rules. Unlike Eurotransplant and UNOS, there are no uniform standards in Russia for assessing the quality of a donor organ. The widespread and largely vague «old for old» principle should be harmoniously fitted into the general outline of donor kidney distribution. The second difference in the national distribution system of donor kidneys is the choice in favor of a candidate with a lesser degree of sensitization. With high frequency of positive cross-test, this principle, in a synergistic manner, greatly reduces the availability of transplantation for highly sensitized candidates. The quality of donor organ and unconditional priority on highly sensitized candidates are the conceptual fundamental principles of organ distribution in the US and Europe. Under donor kidney shortage, selecting a recipient is always competitive. The choice of a candidate can be based on a patient-oriented approach (a choice in favor of the candidate whose transplantation will most likely reduce the risk of death; for example, an «emergency» waiting list) or an alternative – a utilitarian approach (choosing the candidate with the longest predictable life expectancy). However, radical commitment to one of these approaches inevitably reduces availability of kidney transplantation for a specific category of patients. For a justified choice of recipient, it is necessary to correlate such factors as comorbidity, waiting time, age, histocompatibility and quality of donor kidney. This would achieve a shaky balance between utilitarian approach and patient-oriented approach. The principles of creating a waiting list and a system for efficient distribution of donor organs practiced by foreign organizations cannot be simply copied and reproduced in Russia. It is necessary to adapt and validate such principles for the local patient population. The objective difficulties of such an analysis dictate the need to address it on a national scale. This would ensure equitable distribution of donor organs to all patients in need and obtain the best transplant results. Moreover, this would make it possible to achieve the full potential of donor organs. Conclusions. The situation in transplantological and nephrological care in Russia is gradually changing. This determines the need to adapt and standardize approaches to allocation of cadaveric donor kidneys in order to ensure equal access to transplantation for different patients and fullest realization of their potential. Removing organ distribution from the area of responsibility of local coordination councils, introducing a unified policy for distribution of donor organs and choosing a specific recipient will reduce the subjectivity of decisions and, possibly, improve transplantation results.