Importance The field of transplantation has made tremendous progress since the first successful kidney transplant in 1954. 
 
 Objective To determine the survival benefit of solid-organ transplant as recorded during a 25-year study period in the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database and the Social Security Administration Death Master File. 
 
 Design, Setting, and Participants In this retrospective analysis of UNOS data for solid-organ transplant during a 25-year period (September 1, 1987, through December 31, 2012), we reviewed the records of 1 112 835 patients: 533 329 recipients who underwent a transplant and 579 506 patients who were placed on the waiting list but did not undergo a transplant. 
 
 Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was patient death while on the waiting list or after transplant. Kaplan-Meier survival functions were used for time-to-event analysis. 
 
 Results We found that 2 270 859 life-years (2 150 200 life-years from the matched analysis) were saved to date during the 25 years of solid-organ transplant. A mean of 4.3 life-years were saved (observed to date) per solid-organ transplant recipient. Kidney transplant saved 1 372 969 life-years; liver transplant, 465 296 life-years; heart transplant, 269 715 life-years; lung transplant, 64 575 life-years; pancreas-kidney transplant, 79 198 life-years; pancreas transplant, 14 903 life-years; and intestine transplant, 4402 life-years. 
 
 Conclusions and Relevance Our analysis demonstrated that more than 2 million life-years were saved to date by solid-organ transplants during a 25-year study period. Transplants should be supported and organ donation encouraged. ||||| Hearts, kidneys and other donated organs have added more than 2 million years to the lives of the American patients who received them, according to a new analysis. 
 
 That tally, published this week by the journal JAMA Surgery, covers 25 years of organ donation in the U.S. Researchers started with 1987, the year when the United Network for Organ Sharing began keeping track of all organ transplants in the U.S. 
 
 Between Sept. 1, 1987, and Dec. 31, 2012, 533,329 patients received a donated organ (or perhaps two). Another 579,506 patients were put on the UNOS waiting list but didn’t get an organ. By comparing the outcomes for patients in both groups, the researchers were able to calculate how much longer the transplant recipients lived as a result of their new organs. 
 
 So far, that number adds up to 2,270,859 years – a “stellar accomplishment,” according to the study authors. And that number will keep on getting bigger as long as any of the transplant recipients are still alive. 
 
 More than half of those extra years – 1,372,969 of them – have been lived by people who had kidney transplants, the researchers calculated. Another 465,296 extra years have been lived by recipients of new livers, and 269,715 years have been lived by people who got new hearts. The other beneficiaries included people who received new lungs (64,575 extra years), a new pancreas (14,903 extra years), a pancreas and a kidney (79,198 extra years) and intestines (4,402 extra years). 
 
 The analysis does not include patients who had rare kinds of transplants, such as heart-pancreas transplants and liver-lung transplants, because there were too few of these procedures to be able to make good comparisons with patients who needed such transplants but didn’t get them. 
 
 The researchers also calculated the number of years gained per patient, based on the type of transplant they received. By this measure, heart transplants were the most successful, giving patients an extra 4.9 years, on average. Patients who had a combined pancreas-kidney transplant (to treat kidney failure due to type 1 diabetes) lived an average of 4.6 years longer than their counterparts who went on the wait list but didn’t get new organs. Kidney recipients averaged 4.4 extra years, liver recipients averaged 4.3 extra years, intestine recipients averaged 2.8 extra years and pancreas recipients averaged 2.6 extra years, according to the study. 
 
 These results may cause some people to rethink the benefits of organ transplants, the researchers wrote. For instance, a kidney transplant is often viewed as “merely a life-enhancing” surgery, since someone who doesn’t get a new kidney can make do on dialysis. But with a typical kidney transplant patient benefiting more than a typical liver transplant patient, the operation should be considered “a lifesaving procedure,” they wrote. 
 
 The same argument can be made for transplants involving a pancreas, which are sometimes viewed as “simply a convenient insulin replacement therapy,” they added. 
 
 All of this good news was tempered by one statistic, however: only 48% of patients sick enough to be put on the UNOS waiting list are able to get new organs, according to the study. That means more people need to be willing to donate their organs. 
 
 “The critical shortage of donors continues to hamper this field,” the researchers wrote. If more donors come forward and more transplants are performed, Americans can make good on the “tremendous potential to do even more good for humankind in the future.” 
 
 For more medical news, follow me on Twitter @LATkarenkaplan and "like" Los Angeles Times Science & Health on Facebook. ||||| (Reuters Health) – When Sigrid Fry-Revere decided to donate a kidney to a friend in 2010, she thought she knew what to expect. 
 
 She was medically compatible and insured. She planned surgery during the Christmas holidays, so her husband and college-aged sons could take time off to help her recover at their 10-acre Virginia farm. 
 
 What she didn’t consider was the factor that ultimately disqualified her: personal expenses. 
 
 The transplant team required an eight-week recovery plan. Her caregivers, however, could only be home for a month, so she would need to hire a farmhand. With this unanticipated and unaffordable expense, she was quickly eliminated. 
 
 “I was dumbfounded,” Fry-Revere said. “They would rather let him die than give me time to figure out how to take care of myself.” 
 
 According to the American Journal of Nephrology, living donors incur out-of-pocket expenses averaging $5,000, and sometimes up to four times that amount. 
 
 Fry-Revere’s friend did die. Last fall, she established the non-profit American Living Organ Donor Fund to help donors cover lost wages and donor-related costs. With donations from an online Kickstarter campaign, the fund has granted three requests so far. Three others are under review. 
 
 According to the U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, more than 123,000 Americans are waiting for organ transplants. Roughly 102,000 need kidneys and more than 15,000 need livers – and many of them could be helped by living donors. 
 
 But a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that half of Americans would struggle to come up with $2,000 in a pinch, let alone the much higher amounts donors generally need. 
 
 The transplant recipient’s insurance covers the donor’s medical expenses, but not transportation, lodging, childcare or lost wages. 
 
 The 1984 National Organ Transplant Act made it illegal to compensate organ donors – and while the need for living donations is widely recognized, some fear Fry-Revere’s fund enters ethically murky territory. 
 
 “It rings a little close to payment for organs,” said Dr. Talia Baker, a Northwestern University transplant surgeon. “It makes me a little uncomfortable.” 
 
 As a member of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons’ Living Donor Committee, Baker does not oppose the fund – if it assists potential donors achieve goals to which they're already committed. 
 
 “If this is the only possible donor, if it wouldn’t coerce that donor or be a final reason for donating, then it is fine,” she said. 
 
 Thirty-one-year-old single mother Melissa Brincks of Carroll, Iowa, said that without the fund, she would not have been able to donate a kidney to her brother. She was his only compatible relative. 
 
 Her boss at a carpet cleaning company said he would be forced to lay her off and hire her back after her six-week recovery. 
 
 “I didn’t understand how someone could do a good thing and then not know how to take care of their own life in the meantime,” Brincks said. 
 
 After her brother’s transplant this week, Fry-Revere’s fund provided her with a grant to cover 40 percent of her lost wages. That check, along with unemployment insurance and caregiving help from her parents, made donation possible. 
 
 Seven hundred dollars from an online campaign and church friends was all the assistance 46-year-old Stephanie Washington of Hayward, California, believed she could get while planning to donate a kidney to her 24-year-old niece, a gunshot victim. 
 
 “I didn’t know how she was going to pay her bills,” said her sister, Faye Herald, whose research led her to Fry-Revere’s fund. Washington runs a cleaning service and would receive no income during recovery. 
 
 Herald applied, submitting documentation that Washington was self-employed. Washington received a check to cover two months of rent and bills following surgery earlier this month. 
 
 “It’s such a blessing and relief,” Washington said. “I can relax, and that’s one of the reasons my recovery is going so good. I don’t have to worry.” ||||| The results of a new JAMA study may double as a call to action for organ donation: More than two million years of life have been saved by solid-organ transplant since the late 80s. These transplants refer to the kidneys, liver, heart, lungs, pancreas, and intestines. 
 
 Researchers analyzed data from The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) and the Social Security Administration Master File to determine the survival benefit of transplants from September 1987 through 2012. This involved records of more than 1.1 million patients: 533,329 received an organ transplant while 579,506 were placed on a waiting list (and did not receive a transplant). As mentioned, the results showed 2,270,859 years of life were saved, which averages to 4.3 years of life for every patient who received a transplant. 
 
 The drawback: Only 48 percent of patients on waiting lists received a transplant over the study’s 25-year period, which researchers suggest is due to a shortage of donors. A note on waiting lists from the U.S. Department of Health and Services: Patients are allowed to register at multiple transplant centers, so you may see a higher number if you count registrations rather than candidates. 
 
 However, both the present study and the department agree more people should consider organ donation. 
 
 “The need is increasing: therefore, organ donation must increase,” researchers concluded. “We call for deepened support of solid-organ transplant and donation — worthy endeavors with a remarkable record of achievement and a tremendous potential to do even more good for humankind in the future.” 
 
 Admittedly, for both potential donors and patients, organ transplants are cause for trepidation. Candidates for kidney transplants, for example, worry they’ll jeopardize (and generally inconvenience) donor’s health and feel unworthy of such altruism. And on the donor side, perpetuating organ donation myths discourage people from checking off that box. (No, your doctor is not less likely to save your life if you’ve elected to be a donor.) 
 
 Prior research points a finger toward the obesity epidemic for such a shortage in solid organs, namely for kidney transplants. A lack of kidneys make up 84 percent of all the organ demands in the U.S. and diabetes and hypertension are the two causes of renal failure — both conditions caused by obesity. 
 
 Organ transplant and donation have come a long way since the National Organ Transplant Act was passed in 1984. In 2010, researchers from Kings College-London started developing new science that would help prevent rejection of the new organ and extend a donor’s life. As the need for donation grows, all hands are on deck to ensure the waiting list lessens and more lives are saved each year, both patient and donor alike. 
 
 Source: Rana A, et al. Survival Benefit of Sold-Organ Transplant in the United States. JAMA Surgery. 2015.
– Organ donors added 2,270,859 years to the lives of American transplant recipients over 25 years—a "stellar accomplishment," experts say in a study published Wednesday in JAMA Surgery. They arrived at the figure after identifying 533,329 patients who received at least one donated organ between Sept. 1, 1987, and Dec. 31, 2012. They then compared that group to another 579,506 patients who were put on an organ waiting list but didn't receive one to determine the transplants' effect on lifespan, the Los Angeles Times reports. According to their calculations, people who had kidney transplants lived 1,372,969 extra years, liver recipients lived 465,296 extra years, and heart recipients lived 269,715 extra years. An average of 4.3 years were added to a life per transplant. In terms of specific surgeries, heart transplants gave patients an extra 4.9 years on average, while pancreas recipients averaged 2.6 extra years. The study shows many surgeries, including kidney transplants, are actually "lifesaving," rather than "life-enhancing," experts say. However, as 52% of those who needed organs went without over those 25 years, "organ donation must increase" in order "to do even more good for humankind in the future," researchers say, per Medical Daily. About 123,000 Americans are now waiting for organ transplants. Some of the 102,000 who need kidneys could be helped by living donors, though lost wages and other donor-related costs (average: $5,000) can be a deterrent for potential donors, Reuters reports. (A recent study found that kidney donors have brains "built for compassion.")