Impact of measured versus estimated glomerular filtration rate-based screening on living kidney donor characteristics:A study of multiple cohorts

Background Most transplant centers in the Netherlands use estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) for evaluation of potential living kidney donors. Whereas eGFR often underestimates GFR, especially in healthy donors, measured GFR (mGFR) allows more precise kidney function assessment, and therefore holds potential to increase the living donor pool. We hypothesized that mGFR-based donor screening leads to acceptance of donors with lower predonation eGFR than eGFR-based screening. Methods In this longitudinal cohort study, we compared eGFR (CKD-EPI) before donation in one center using mGFR-based screening (mGFR-cohort, n = 250) with two centers using eGFR-based screening (eGFR-cohort1, n = 466 and eGFR-cohort2, n = 160). We also compared differences in eGFR at five years after donation. Results Donor age was similar among the cohorts (mean±standard deviation (SD) mGFR-cohort 53 ±10 years, eGFR-cohort1 52±13 years, P = 0.16 vs. mGFR-cohort, and eGFR-cohort2 53±9 years, P = 0.61 vs. mGFR-cohort). Estimated GFR underestimated mGFR by 10±12 mL/ min/1.73m2 (mean±SD), with more underestimation in younger donors. In the overall cohorts, mean±SD pre-donation eGFR was lower in the mGFR-cohort (91±13 mL/min/ 1.73m2) than in eGFR-cohort1 (93±15 mL/min/1.73m2, P<0.05) and eGFR-cohort2 (94±12 mL/min/1.73m2, P<0.05). However, these differences disappeared when focusing on more recent years, which can be explained by acceptance of more older donors with lower predonation eGFR over time in both eGFR-cohorts. Five years post-donation, mean±SD eGFR was similar among the centers (mGFR-cohort 62±12 mL/min/1.73m2, eGFR-cohort1 61±14 mL/min/1.73m2, eGFR-cohort2 62±11 mL/min/1.73m2, P = 0.76 and 0.95 vs. mGFR-cohort respectively). In the mGFR-cohort, 38 (22%) donors were excluded from donation due to insufficient mGFR with mean±SD mGFR of 71±9 mL/min/1.73m2. Conclusions Despite the known underestimation of mGFR by eGFR, we did not show that the routine use of mGFR in donor screening leads to inclusion of donors with a lower pre-donation eGFR. Therefore eGFR-based screening will be sufficient for the majority of the donors. Future studies should investigate whether there is a group (e.g. young donors with insufficient eGFR) that might benefit from confirmatory mGFR testing

Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic versus standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: HARP-trial

Contains fulltext : 88436.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Transplantation is the only treatment offering long-term benefit to patients with chronic kidney failure. Live donor nephrectomy is performed on healthy individuals who do not receive direct therapeutic benefit of the procedure themselves. In order to guarantee the donor's safety, it is important to optimise the surgical approach. Recently we demonstrated the benefit of laparoscopic nephrectomy experienced by the donor. However, this method is characterised by higher in hospital costs, longer operating times and it requires a well-trained surgeon. The hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic technique may be an alternative to a complete laparoscopic, transperitoneal approach. The peritoneum remains intact and the risk of visceral injuries is reduced. Hand-assistance results in a faster procedure and a significantly reduced operating time. The feasibility of this method has been demonstrated recently, but as to date there are no data available advocating the use of one technique above the other. METHODS/DESIGN: The HARP-trial is a multi-centre randomised controlled, single-blind trial. The study compares the hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic approach with standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. The objective is to determine the best approach for live donor nephrectomy to optimise donor's safety and comfort while reducing donation related costs. DISCUSSION: This study will contribute to the evidence on any benefits of hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic versus standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register NTR1433

ABO-incompatible kidney transplantation in perspective of deceased donor transplantation and induction strategies:a propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplant candidates are blood group incompatible with roughly one out of three potential living donors. We compared outcomes after ABO-incompatible (ABOi) kidney transplantation with matched ABO-compatible (ABOc) living and deceased donor transplantation and analyzed different induction regimens. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study with propensity matching and compared patient and death-censored graft survival after ABOi versus ABOc living donor and deceased donor kidney transplantation in a nationwide registry from 2006 till 2019. RESULTS: 296 ABOi were compared to 1184 center and propensity matched ABOc living donor and 1184 deceased donor recipients (matching: recipient age, sex, blood group and PRA). Patient survival was better compared to deceased donor (hazard ratio (HR) for death of HR 0.69 [0.49-0.96], and not-significantly different from ABOc living donor recipients (HR 1.28 [0.90-1.81]). Rate of graft failure was higher compared to ABOc living donor transplantation (HR 2.63 [1.72-4.01]). Rejection occurred in 47% of 140 rituximab versus 22% of 50 rituximab/basiliximab, and 4% of 92 alemtuzumab treated recipients (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ABOi kidney transplantation is superior to deceased donor transplantation. Rejection rate and graft failure are higher compared to matched ABOc living donor transplantation, underscoring the need for further studies into risk stratification and induction therapy

Toward a conditional approach to anonymity? An explorative multicenter longitudinal study among anonymous living kidney donors and recipients

Anonymity between living donors and recipients is a topic of discussion among transplant professionals. This longitudinal study explored living kidney donors' and patients' perspectives on anonymity. Prior to surgery (T0) and 3 months afterward (T1), participants in unspecified or specified indirect donation programs completed a questionnaire on their experiences with and attitudes toward anonymity as well as demographic and medical characteristics. Nonparametric tests were used to assess group differences and associations. Participants were content with anonymity at T0 and T1. Fourteen and 23% wanted to meet at T0 and T1, respectively. If the other party expressed the wish to meet, 50% (T0) and 55% (T1) would be willing to meet. Most participants agreed that meeting should be allowed if both parties agree. Attitude toward anonymity did not differ between donors/recipients, nor between T0/T1 and unspecified/specified indirect donation programs. This study showed that most donors and recipients who participated in anonymous donation schemes are in favor of a conditional approach to anonymity. Guidelines on how to revoke anonymity if both parties agree are needed and should include education about pros and cons of (non-) anonymity and a logistical plan on how, when, where, and by whom anonymity should be revoke

Donor and Recipient Perspectives on Anonymity in Kidney Donation From Live Donors: A Multicenter Survey Study

Background: Maintaining anonymity is a requirement in the Netherlands and Sweden for kidney donation from live donors in the context of nondirected (or unspecified) and paired exchange (or specified indirect) donation. Despite this policy, some donors and recipients express the desire to know one another. Little empirical evidence informs the debate on anonymity. This study explored the experiences, preferences, and attitudes of donors and recipients toward anonymity. Study Design: Retrospective observational multicenter study using both qualitative and quantitative methods. Setting & Participants: 414 participants from Dutch and Swedish transplantation centers who received or donated a kidney anonymously (nondirected or paired exchange) completed a questionnaire about anonymity. Participation was a median of 31 months after surgery. Factors: Country of residence, donor/recipient status, transplant type, time since surgery. Outcomes: Experiences, preferences, and attitudes toward anonymity. Results: Most participants were satisfied with their experience of anonymity before and aftersurgery. A minority would have liked to have met the other party before (donors, 7%; recipients, 15%) or after (donors, 22%; recipients, 31%) surgery. Significantly more recipients than donors wanted to meet the other party. Most study participants were open to meeting the other party if the desire was mutual (donors, 58%; recipients, 60%). Donors agree significantly more with the principle of anonymity before and after surgery than recipients. Donors and recipients thought that if both parties agreed, it should be permissible to meet before or after surgery. There were few associations between country or time since surgery and experiences or attitudes. The pros and cons of anonymity reported by participants were clustered into relational and emotional, ethical, and practical and logistical domains. Limitations: The relatively low response rate of recipients may have reduced generalizability. Recall bias was possible given the time lag between transplantation and data collection. Conclusions: This exploratory study illustrated that although donors and recipients were usually satisfied with anonymity, the majority viewed a strict policy on anonymity as unnecessary. These results may inform policy and education on anonymit

Comparison of laparoscopic and mini incision open donor nephrectomy: single blind, randomised controlled clinical trial

Objectives To determine the best approach for live donor nephrectomy to minimise discomfort to the donor and to provide good graft function. Design Single blind, randomised controlled trial. Setting Two university medical centres, the Netherlands. Participants 100 living kidney donors. Interventions Participants were randomly assigned to either laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or to mini incision muscle splitting open donor nephrectomy. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was physical fatigue using the multidimensional fatigue inventory 20 (MFI-20). Secondary outcomes were physical function using the SF-36, hospital stay after surgery, pain, operating times, recipient graft function, and graft survival. Results Conversions did not occur. Compared with mini incision open donor nephrectomy, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy resulted in longer skin to skin time (median 221 v 164 minutes, P < 0.001), longer warm ischaemia time (6 v 3 minutes, P < 0.001), less blood loss (100 v 240 ml, P < 0.001), and a similar number of complications (intraoperatively 12% v 6%, P = 0.49, postoperatively both 6%). After laparoscopic nephrectomy, donors required less morphine (16 v 25 mg, P = 0.005) and shorter hospital stay (3 v 4 days, P = 0.003). During one year's follow-up mean physical fatigue was less (difference - 1.3, 95% confidence interval - 2.4 to - 0.1) and physical function was better (difference 6.2, 2.0 to 10.3) after laparoscopic nephrectomy. Function of the graft and graft survival rate of the recipient at one year censored for death did not differ (100% after laparoscopic nephrectomy and 98% after open nephrectomy). Conclusions Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy results in a better quality of life compared with mini incision open donor nephrectomy but equal safety and graft function