24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Call for Papers: Green Renal Replacement Therapy: Caring for the Environment

      Submit here before September 30, 2024

      About Blood Purification: 3.0 Impact Factor I 5.6 CiteScore I 0.83 Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Obesity and Kidney Transplant Candidates: How Big Is Too Big for Transplantation?

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Obesity impacts many inter-related, and sometimes conflicting, considerations for transplant practice. In this article, we describe an approach for applying available data on the importance of body composition to the kidney transplant population that separates implications for candidate selection, risk stratification among selected candidates, and interventions to optimize health of the individual. Transplant recipients with obesity defined by elevated body mass index (BMI) have been shown in many (but not all) studies to experience an array of adverse outcomes more commonly than normal-weight transplant recipients, including wound infections, delayed graft function, graft failure, cardiac disease, and increased costs. However, current studies have not defined limits of body composition that preclude clinical benefit from transplantation compared with long-term dialysis in patients who have passed a transplant evaluation. Formal cost-effectiveness studies are needed to determine if payers and society should be compensating centers for clinical and financial risks of transplanting obese end-stage renal disease patients. Recent studies also demonstrate the limitations of BMI alone as a measure of adiposity, and further research should be pursued to define practical measures of body composition that refine accuracy for outcomes prediction. Regarding individual management, observational registry studies have not found beneficial associations of pretransplant weight loss with patient or graft survival. However, association studies cannot distinguish purposeful from unintentional weight loss as a result of illness and comorbidity. Prospective evaluations of the impact of targeted risk modification efforts in this population including dietary changes, monitored exercise programs, and bariatric surgery are urgently needed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Laparoscopic versus open gastric bypass: a randomized study of outcomes, quality of life, and costs.

          To compare outcomes, quality of life (QOL), and costs of laparoscopic and open gastric bypass (GBP). Laparoscopic GBP has been reported to be a safe and effective approach for the treatment of morbid obesity. The authors performed a prospective randomized trial to compare outcomes, QOL, and costs of laparoscopic GBP with those of open GBP. From May 1999 to March 2001, 155 patients with a body mass index (BMI) of 40 to 60 kg/m2 were randomly assigned to undergo laparoscopic (n = 79) or open (n = 76) GBP. The two groups were similar in age, sex ratio, mean BMI, and comorbidities. Main outcome measures included operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, operative complications, percentage of excess body weight loss, and time to return to activities of daily living and work. Changes in QOL were assessed using the SF-36 Health Survey and the bariatric analysis of reporting outcome system (BAROS). Operative and hospital costs of the two operations were also compared. There were no deaths in either group. Mean operative time was longer for laparoscopic GBP than for open GBP, but operative blood loss was less. Two (2.5%) of the 79 patients in the laparoscopic group required conversion to laparotomy. Median length of hospital stay was shorter for laparoscopic GBP patients (3 vs 4 days). The rate of postoperative anastomotic leak was similar between groups. Wound-related complications such as infection (10.5 vs 1.3%) and incisional hernia (7.9 vs 0%) were more common after open GBP; late anastomotic stricture was less frequent after open GBP (2.6 vs 11.4%). Time to return to activities of daily living and work were shorter after laparoscopic GBP than after open GBP. Weight loss at 1 year was similar between groups. Preoperative SF-36 scores were similar between groups; however, at 1 month after surgery, laparoscopic patients had better physical conditioning, social functioning, general health, and less body pain than open GBP patients. At 6 months, the BAROS outcome was classified as good or better in 97% of laparoscopic GBP patients compared with 82% of open GBP patients. Operative costs were higher for laparoscopic GBP patients, but hospital costs were lower. Laparoscopic GBP is a safe and cost-effective alternative to open GBP. Despite a longer operative time, patients undergoing laparoscopic GBP benefited from less blood loss, a shorter hospital stay, and faster convalescence. Laparoscopic GBP patients had comparable weight loss at 1 year but a more rapid improvement in QOL than open GBP patients. The higher initial operative costs for laparoscopic GBP were adequately offset by the lower hospital costs.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effects of body size and body composition on survival in hemodialysis patients.

            It is unclear whether increased muscle mass or body fat confer the survival advantage in hemodialysis patients with high body-mass index (BMI). Twenty-four-hour urinary creatinine (UCr) excretion was used as a measure of muscle mass. The outcomes of hemodialysis patients with high BMI and normal or high muscle mass (inferred low body fat) and high BMI and low muscle mass (inferred high body fat) were studied to study the effects of body composition on outcomes. In 70,028 patients who initiated hemodialysis in the United States from January 1995 to December 1999 with measured creatinine clearances reported in the Medical Evidence form, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality were examined in Cox and parametric survival models. When compared with normal BMI (18.5 to 24.9 kg/m(2)) group, patients with high BMI (> or = 25 kg/m(2)) had lower hazard of death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; P 25th percentile (0.55 g/d), high BMI patients with UCr >0.55 g/d had lower hazard of all-cause (HR, 0.85; P < 0.001) and cardiovascular death (HR, 0.89; P < 0.001), and high BMI patients with UCr < or =0.55 g/d had higher hazard of all-cause death (HR, 1.14; P<0.001) and cardiovascular death (HR, 1.19; P <0.001). Both BMI and body composition are strong predictors of death. The protective effect conferred by high BMI is limited to those patients with normal or high muscle mass. High BMI patients with inferred high body fat have increased and not decreased mortality.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Body mass index and mortality in 'healthier' as compared with 'sicker' haemodialysis patients: results from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS).

              Haemodialysis (HD) patients with lower body mass index (BMI) have a higher relative mortality risk (RR), irrespective of race. However, only Asian Americans treated with HD have been found to have an elevated RR with higher BMI. Asian Americans on HD are 'healthier' than other race groups (i.e. have better overall survival). We hypothesized that an increased mortality risk might be associated with high BMI in a variety of other 'healthier' subgroups of HD patients. The prospective Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) provided baseline demographic, comorbidity and BMI data on 9714 HD patients in the US and Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK) from 1996-2000. Using multivariate survival analyses, we evaluated BMI-mortality relationships in HD subpopulations defined by continent, race (black and white), gender, tertiles of severity of illness (based on a score derived from comorbid conditions and serum albumin concentration), age ( or=65), smoking, and diabetic status. Relative mortality risk decreased with increasing BMI. This was statistically significant (P<0.007) except for the smallest subgroup of patients who were <45 years old and were also in the healthiest tertile of comorbidity. All else equal, BMI <20 was consistently associated with the highest relative mortality risk. Overall a lower relative mortality risk (RR) as compared with BMI 23-24.9, was found for overweight (BMI 25-29.9; RR 0.84, P=0.008), for mild obesity (BMI 30-34.9; RR 0.73, P=0.0003), and for moderate obesity (BMI 35-39.9; RR 0.76, P=0.02). In a wide variety of HD patient subgroups, differing with respect to their baseline health status, increasing body size correlates with a decreased mortality risk. This contrasts with the association between BMI and mortality in the general population, and deserves further study.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                AJN
                Am J Nephrol
                10.1159/issn.0250-8095
                American Journal of Nephrology
                S. Karger AG
                0250-8095
                1421-9670
                2012
                December 2012
                05 December 2012
                : 36
                : 6
                : 575-586
                Affiliations
                aCenter for Outcomes Research, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, bKidney and Pancreas Transplant Program, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, and cDivision of Nephrology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Mo., and dDepartment of Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Hanover, N.H., USA
                Author notes
                *Krista L. Lentine, MD, MS, Saint Louis University Center for Outcomes Research, Salus Center 4th Floor, 3545 Lafayette Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63104 (USA), E-Mail lentinek@slu.edu
                Article
                345476 Am J Nephrol 2012;36:575–586
                10.1159/000345476
                23221167
                65de1aa3-6245-47e4-ac9c-1d84c17862fc
                © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                History
                : 04 October 2012
                : 24 October 2012
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 1, Pages: 12
                Categories
                In-Depth Topic Review

                Cardiovascular Medicine,Nephrology
                Obesity,Body mass index,Mortality,Health care costs,Cardiovascular disease,Kidney transplantation

                Comments

                Comment on this article