This is the paradox at the heart of modern transplantation.
To understand why, we have to look beyond individual organs and examine the system itself.
Kidney transplantation depends on a tightly coordinated sequence of events: organ recovery, preservation, transport, evaluation, and acceptance. Strict timelines and high-stakes decisions govern each step.
For patients, the consequences of delay or non-use are profound. Many spend years on dialysis. Some never receive a transplant at all. For hospitals and transplant teams, every decision carries responsibility—not only for immediate outcomes but also for long-term patient health and system accountability.
The central challenge is not whether kidneys are donated. It is what happens after recovery — and whether the system can preserve organs in a way that provides enough time, meaningful assessment, and clinical confidence for transplant teams to move forward before the window closes.
Once a kidney is recovered, the clock starts—not just operationally, but biologically. Under cold preservation, the window during which a kidney can remain viable without increasing risk is limited, placing a finite ceiling on transport, evaluation, and decision-making.
The organ must be preserved, transported—often across long distances—and evaluated by transplant teams operating under strict time constraints. Each handoff compresses the decision window. Each hour that passes adds uncertainty.
This is where attrition occurs. Not at the point of donation, but downstream—during preservation, transport, and assessment — when clinicians must determine whether an organ can be used safely and effectively for a specific patient.
These decisions are made within a system engineered for rapid coordination and handoffs, not for sustained, real-time evaluation throughout the preservation window. As a result, by the time an organ reaches the point of acceptance, there is little opportunity to observe how it is functioning or to gather new information that could reduce uncertainty.
For decades, static cold storage has been the foundation of organ preservation. Cooling an organ slows metabolism and reduces immediate injury, allowing it to be transported from donor to recipient. It is simple, familiar, and widely trusted.
However, cold preservation comes with an important tradeoff. As Dr. David Axelrod, Professor of Surgery, University Hospitals, System Medical director for Value explains:
“For the last 20 to 25 years, we’ve essentially been preserving kidneys in the same way—either in cold storage on ice or on a machine that uses cold, non-oxygenated solution. And what that means is we have no way of assessing how well that kidney is going to function once it gets into my patient.”
By placing the organ in a metabolically suppressed state, cold storage silences many of the physiological signals clinicians rely on to understand how an organ functions. The kidney may be preserved structurally, but it is no longer communicating.
Dr. Nader Abraham, Vice President of Research at BMI OrganBank, and a Duke University General & Transplant Surgery resident, describes the biological reality more directly:
“The organ is not functioning. It’s cold. We have nothing to evaluate the organ other than knowing the donor and the circumstances of the storage.”
During this period, transplant teams cannot observe how the organ processes nutrients, responds to stress, or demonstrates functional recovery. Preservation becomes passive—focused on slowing deterioration rather than generating insight.
Cold storage buys time, but it does not provide information. And in a system where decisions depend on confidence, that lack of visibility matters.
In most areas of medicine, high-stakes decisions are guided by continuous monitoring. Vital signs, lab values, imaging, and functional tests help clinicians reduce uncertainty and adjust care in real time.
Assessment often relies on donor history, static laboratory values, and visual inspection — snapshots captured at discrete moments in time. During preservation and transport, there is no continuous stream of functional data to indicate how the organ is responding, stabilizing, or declining.
For kidneys that fall outside ideal criteria — such as those from older donors or with longer transport times — this uncertainty becomes even more consequential. Without real-time insight, transplant teams are asked to make irreversible decisions with incomplete information.
All of these challenges are magnified by time.
Cold ischemic time—the period an organ can remain viable under cold preservation without blood flow—places a hard biological limit on how long a kidney can be preserved, often measured in hours rather than days. As preservation time extends, risk increases. Transport delays, weather, scheduling constraints, and nighttime decision-making further compress the evaluation window.
Even potentially usable organs may be rejected because there is no way to generate meaningful data about their expected performance. When the clock is running and information is limited, uncertainty becomes decisive.
This pressure is not theoretical. It shapes real decisions, made by real clinicians, often under less-than-ideal conditions.
Every transplant decision carries weight. Surgeons and transplant teams are accountable not only for graft function — whether the transplanted kidney begins working as intended — but for patient safety, long-term outcomes, and institutional responsibility.
When information is limited and consequences are high, caution is not hesitation — it is responsibility.
As Dr. David Axelrod describes the reality of these decisions:
“As a surgeon, I’m often asked at three in the morning whether a kidney is safe for my recipient. The data we have right now is really not that precise. I have no way of knowing with certainty if that organ is going to work until I put it in my patient.”
Under current preservation models, declining an organ is often a rational response to uncertainty. Acceptance thresholds vary by center, shaped by experience, policies, and risk tolerance. These differences are not failures of judgment; they reflect a system that does not consistently support confident decision-making.
Unused organs are often framed as a medical issue. In reality, it is just as much a logistics and infrastructure challenge.
Transplantation requires the coordination of organ procurement organizations, transport networks, surgical teams, hospital capacity, and regulatory frameworks — all within a narrow time window that leaves little room for deviation, learning, or intervention.
When something doesn’t align — a delay, a questionable signal, a lack of clarity — the system becomes brittle and defaults to caution.
The result is a quiet inefficiency: organs with potential are never given the chance to prove it.
Behind every unused organ is a patient still waiting, someone spending multiple days each week on dialysis, whose quality of life continues to narrow, and whose window for transplant may be closing.
The transplant community has achieved extraordinary outcomes within the constraints it inherited. As demand grows and complexity increases, however, the limits of the current system are becoming harder to ignore.
If kidneys are being recovered but not transplanted, the opportunity lies in expanding the system’s ability to preserve, evaluate, and utilize those organs.
Improving transplant outcomes requires systems that support both preservation and evaluation—systems that extend usable time while enabling better decision-making. When uncertainty decreases, utilization can increase. When confidence improves, more organs have the chance to reach patients.
While the current transplant system saves lives every day, incremental improvements to cold preservation alone are not enough to address the full set of constraints it now faces.
In the next piece, we’ll examine the economic burden created by these structural constraints — where uncertainty drives costly decisions, limits organ utilization, and leaves many patients on dialysis longer than necessary.
We will then explore what becomes possible when preservation is reimagined not as storage, but as an active and informative stage in the transplant process — one that extends the time available for decision-making, provides new opportunities for insight, and ultimately enables more transplants. Because the greatest limitation in transplantation is not organ scarcity, but unrealized potential.
PLATFORM & TECHNOLOGY
RESEARCH SERVICES
CLINICAL EVIDENCE
ABOUT
NEWS & INSIGHTS
BMI OrganBank®
Wake Forest Institute of Regenerative Medicine
391 Technology Way | Winston-Salem, NC 27101 | USA
