Regional and racial disparities in the use of live non-directed kidney donors

D. L. Segev, R. A. Montgomery

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

19 Scopus citations


Use of live non-directed donors (LNDDs), or altruistic donors, has increased significantly over the past decade and has fueled debate regarding the ethics and allocation of this new source of live donor kidneys. Three allocation philosophies are currently in use, including donor-centric, recipient-centric and socio-centric models, and our group has also advocated the use of LNDDs in paired donation. However, no universally accepted allocation policy exists, nor does national oversight. To determine allocation patterns resulting from current practice models, we analyzed the 372 LNDD kidney transplants performed in the United States since 1998. Most LNDD transplants occurred at a minority of centers, with only five centers performing over 10, and over 28% of LNDDs traveled out-of-state to donate. Furthermore, a center's use of LNDD kidneys did not correlate with that center's organ shortage. Finally, African Americans were significantly under-represented among recipients who were allocated LNDD kidneys, even after accounting for differences in the racial makeup of the waiting list representing centers using LNDD kidneys. These disparities suggest the need for continued monitoring and discussion of LNDD at a national level. If non-directed donation continues to rise at its current rate, a national allocation policy may be reasonable.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1051-1055
Number of pages5
JournalAmerican Journal of Transplantation
Issue number5
StatePublished - May 2008
Externally publishedYes


  • Altruistic donation
  • Kidney allocation
  • Kidney transplantation
  • Live donation
  • Live donor transplantation
  • Non-directed donors
  • Organ allocation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Immunology and Allergy
  • Transplantation
  • Pharmacology (medical)


Dive into the research topics of 'Regional and racial disparities in the use of live non-directed kidney donors'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this