UNLABELLED: ABO type B and O kidney transplant candidates have increased difficulty identifying a compatible donor for living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) and are harder to match in kidney paired donation registries. A2-incompatible (A2i) LDKT increases access to LDKT for these patients. To better inform living donor selection, we evaluated the association between A2i LDKT and patient and graft survival. METHODS: We used weighted Cox regression to compare mortality, death-censored graft failure, and all-cause graft loss in A2i versus ABO-compatible (ABOc) recipients. RESULTS: Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data 2000-2019, we identified 345 A2i LDKT recipients. Mortality was comparable among A2i and ABOc recipients; weighted 1-/5-/10-y mortality was 0.9%/6.5%/24.2%, respectively, among A2i LDKT recipients versus 1.4%/7.7%/22.2%, respectively, among ABOc LDKT recipients (weighted hazard ratio [wHR], 0.811.041.33; P = 0.8). However, A2i recipients faced higher risk of death-censored graft failure; weighted 1-/5-/10-y graft failure was 5.7%/11.6%/22.4% for A2i versus 1.7%/7.5%/17.2% for ABOc recipients (wHR in year 1 = 2.243.565.66; through year 5 = 1.251.782.53; through year 10 = 1.151.552.07). By comparison, 1-/5-/10-y wHRs for A1-incompatible recipients were 0.631.966.08/0.390.942.27/0.390.831.74. CONCLUSIONS: A2i LDKT is generally safe, but A2i donor/recipient pairs should be counseled about the increased risk of graft failure and be monitored as closely as their A1-incompatible counterparts posttransplant.

UNLABELLED: The framework currently used for living kidney donor selection is based on estimation of acceptable donor risk, under the premise that benefits are only experienced by the recipient. However, some interdependent donors might experience tangible benefits from donation that cannot be considered in the current framework (ie, benefits experienced directly by the donor that improve their daily life, well-being, or livelihood). METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 56 living kidney donors regarding benefits experienced from donation. Using a qualitative descriptive and constant comparative approach, themes were derived inductively from interview transcripts by 2 independent coders; differences in coding were reconciled by consensus. RESULTS: Of 56 participants, 30 were in interdependent relationships with their recipients (shared household and/or significant caregiving responsibilities). Tangible benefits identified by participants fell into 3 major categories: health and wellness benefits, time and financial benefits, and interpersonal benefits. Participants described motivations to donate a kidney based on a more nuanced understanding of the benefits of donation than accounted for by the current acceptable risk paradigm. DISCUSSION: Tangible benefits for interdependent donors may shift the acceptable risk paradigm (where no benefit is assumed) of kidney donor evaluation to a risk/benefit paradigm more consistent with other surgical decision-making.