4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

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

      Submit here before July 31, 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

      Practice Patterns in Evaluation of Living Kidney Donors in United Network for Organ Sharing-Approved Kidney Transplant Centers

      research-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

          Introduction: The current pattern of evaluation for living kidney donors was investigated. Methods: We designed a 37-question electronic survey to collect information about living kidney donor evaluation. Of the 181 United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS)-approved centers, 72 responded. Survey responses were coded and downloaded into SPSS. Data was expressed as means and standard deviations or the percentage of centers with specific responses. Results: 66% of the centers used a cut-off of <80 ml/min for exclusion of living kidney donors. 24-hour urine measuring creatinine clearance (CrCl) was the most common screening method for glomerular filtration rate (GFR) assessment in potential living donors. 56% of the centers excluded donors with blood pressure (BP) >140/90, whereas 22.7 and 7.1% excluded patients with pre-hypertension with a cut-off BP of 130/85 and 120/80, respectively. 66% of the centers used 24-hour urine creatinine to assess for proteinuria. 20% of the centers accepted living kidney donors with microalbuminuria and 84% accepted patients with a history of nephrolithiasis. 24% of the centers reported use of formal cognitive testing of potential living donors. Discussion: There were significant variations in exclusion criteria based on GFR, history of kidney stones, body mass index, BP and donors with urinary abnormalities. The definitions for hematuria and proteinuria were variable. There is a need for uniformity in selection and for a living donor registry. We also recommend raising the cut-off for estimated GFR to 90 ml/min to account for 10–15% overestimation when CrCl is used.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

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

          A study of the quality of life and cost-utility of renal transplantation.

          The objective of this study was to assess the cost-utility of renal transplantation compared with dialysis. To accomplish this, a prospective cohort of pre-transplant patients were followed for up to two years after renal transplantation at three University-based Canadian hospitals. A total of 168 patients were followed for an average of 19.5 months after transplantation. Health-related quality of life was assessed using a hemodialysis questionnaire, a transplant questionnaire, the Sickness Impact Profile, and the Time Trade-Off Technique. Fully allocated costs were determined by prospectively recording resource use in all patients. A societal perspective was taken. By six months after transplantation, the mean health-related quality of life scores of almost all measures had improved compared to pre-transplantation, and they stayed improved throughout the two years of follow up. The mean time trade-off score was 0.57 pre-transplant and 0.70 two years after transplantation. The proportion of individuals employed increased from 30% before transplantation to 45% two years after transplantation. Employment prior to transplantation [relative risk (RR) = 23], graft function (RR 10) and age (RR 1.6 for every decrease in age by one decade), independently predicted employment status after transplantation. The cost of pre-transplant care ($66,782 Can 1994) and the cost of the first year after transplantation ($66,290) were similar. Transplantation was considerably less expensive during the second year after transplantation ($27,875). Over the two years, transplantation was both more effective and less costly than dialysis. This was true for all subgroups of patients examined, including patients older than 60 and diabetics. We conclude that renal transplantation was more effective and less costly than dialysis in all subgroups of patients examined.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The quality of life of patients with end-stage renal disease.

            We assessed the quality of life of 859 patients undergoing dialysis or transplantation, with the goal of ascertaining whether objective and subjective measures of the quality of life were influenced by case mix or treatment. We found that 79.1 per cent of the transplant recipients were able to function at nearly normal levels, as compared with between 47.5 and 59.1 per cent of the patients treated with dialysis (depending on the type). Nearly 75 per cent of the transplant recipients were able to work, as compared with between 24.7 and 59.3 per cent of the patients undergoing dialysis. On three subjective measures (life satisfaction, well-being, and psychological affect) transplant recipients had a higher quality of life than patients on dialysis. Among the patients treated with dialysis, those undergoing treatment at home had the highest quality of life. All quality-of-life differences were found to persist even after the patient case mix had been controlled statistically. Finally, the quality of life of transplant recipients compared well with that of the general population, but despite favorable subjective assessments, patients undergoing dialysis did not work or function at the same level as people in the general population.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Association between body mass index and CKD in apparently healthy men.

              Overweight and obesity are well-established risk factors for cardiovascular disease and decline in kidney function in individuals with existing chronic kidney disease (CKD). Conversely, their association with the development of CKD is less clear. We evaluated the association between body mass index (BMI) and risk for CKD in a cohort of 11,104 initially healthy men who participated in the Physicians' Health Study and provided a blood sample after 14 years. BMI was calculated from self-reported weight and height. We estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) by using the abbreviated equation from the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study and defined CKD as GFR less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 ( 26.6 kg/m2) had an odds ratio (OR) of 1.45 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19 to 1.76; P trend <0.001) after adjusting for potential confounders. We found similar associations by using different categories of BMI. Compared with men who remained within a +/-5% range of their baseline BMI, those who reported a BMI increase greater than 10% had a significant increase in risk for CKD (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.53). In this large cohort of initially healthy men, BMI was associated significantly with increased risk for CKD after 14 years. Strategies to decrease CKD risk might include prevention of overweight and obesity.
                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
                May 2012
                03 May 2012
                : 35
                : 5
                : 466-473
                Affiliations
                aSUNY Downstate School of Medicine, Brooklyn, N.Y., and bWalter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md., USA
                Author notes
                *Rahul M. Jindal, MD, PhD, MBA, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, 8901 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20889 (USA), E-Mail jindalr@msn.com
                Article
                338450 Am J Nephrol 2012;35:466–473
                10.1159/000338450
                22555113
                866ddc98-de9b-413e-aee1-b8dfd777b1b1
                © 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
                : 23 February 2012
                : 27 March 2012
                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 1, Pages: 8
                Categories
                Original Report: Patient-Oriented, Translational Research

                Cardiovascular Medicine,Nephrology
                Kidney transplant,Living donation,Practice patterns,Evaluation
                Cardiovascular Medicine, Nephrology
                Kidney transplant, Living donation, Practice patterns, Evaluation

                Comments

                Comment on this article