scholarly journals Estimated or Measured GFR in Living Kidney Donors Work-up?

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. 3024-3032 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Gaillard ◽  
M. Flamant ◽  
S. Lemoine ◽  
S. Baron ◽  
M.-O. Timsit ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chloe Theodorou ◽  
Zia Moinuddin ◽  
David Van Dellen ◽  
Titus Augustine ◽  
Giuseppe Giuffrida

Abstract Aims During donor multi-detector CT angiogram (MDCTA), incidental findings occur, commonly adrenal incidentalomas (AIs). These are usually benign and non-functional with an estimated incidence of 4%.1 These potentially limit organ donation due to the need to exclude malignancy. There is no consensus on the management of donors with AIs.1,2 This study aims to explore the incidence and clinical course of AI’s in living kidney donors. Methods We performed a single-centre, retrospective study on all prospective living kidney donors between November 2000 and September 2020. Patients with adrenal lesions during work-up were identified and further information was collected from electronic patient records. Results Six (1.09%) of the 546 donors during that period had an AI. All were small (<4cm) and non-functional with benign radiographic features. Five (83.3%) proceeded to donation while 1 (16.7%) was unsuitable for donation due to complex vascular anatomy. Of the five donors that proceeded, 2 (40%) were contralateral and 3 (60%) ipsilateral AI’s to the side of nephrectomy. Of the 3 ipsilateral AIs, 2 (66.7%) underwent nephrectomy alone whilst 1 (33.3%) underwent a simultaneous nephrectomy and adrenalectomy. There was no evidence of malignancy or functional change in AIs post-donation. Conclusion The incidence of adrenal pathology in living donors is low and largely benign. These patients should not be excluded from donation. Such patients could benefit from open discussion regarding simultaneous adrenalectomy vs conservative management.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. S138
Author(s):  
S. Samavat ◽  
M. Nafar ◽  
S. Hoseinzadeh ◽  
H. Masroor ◽  
N. Dalili MD

Kidney360 ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 10.34067/KID.0003052021
Author(s):  
Neetika Garg ◽  
Emilio D. Poggio ◽  
Didier Mandelbrot

Living kidney donors incur a small increased risk of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), of which pre-donation glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is an important determinant. As a result, kidney function assessment is central to the donor candidate evaluation and selection process. This article reviews the different methods of GFR assessment including estimated GFR, creatinine clearance and measured GFR, and the current guidelines on GFR thresholds for donor acceptance. Estimated GFR obtained using the 2009 Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation, while the best of estimating estimations, tends to underestimate and has limited accuracy, especially near normal GFR values. In the United States, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network policy on living donation mandates either measured GFR or creatinine clearance as part of evaluation. Measured GFR is considered the gold standard, although there is some variation in performance characteristics depending on the marker and technique used. Major limitations of creatinine clearance are dependency on accuracy of timed collection, and overestimation as a result of distal tubular creatinine secretion. GFR declines with healthy aging, and most international guidelines recommend use of age-adapted selection criteria. The 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes Guideline for the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors diverges from other guidelines and recommends using absolute cut-off of <60 ml/min/1.73m2 for exclusion and of ≥90 ml/min/1.73m2 for acceptance, and determination of candidacy with intermediate GFR based on long-term ESKD risk. However, several concerns for this strategy exist, including inappropriate acceptance of younger candidates due to underestimation of risk, and exclusion of older candidates whose kidney function is in fact appropriate for age. Role of cystatin C and other newer biomarkers, as well as data on impact of pre-donation GFR on not just ESKD risk but also advanced chronic kidney disease risk and cardiovascular outcomes are needed.


2014 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 201-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thakshyanee Bhuvanakrishna ◽  
Glen M. Blake ◽  
Rachel Hilton ◽  
Lisa Burnapp ◽  
Christopher Sibley-Allen ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 748-755 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana González-Rinne ◽  
Sergio Luis-Lima ◽  
Beatriz Escamilla ◽  
Natalia Negrín-Mena ◽  
Ana Ramírez ◽  
...  

AbstractBackgroundReliable determination of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is crucial in the evaluation of living kidney donors. Although some guidelines recommend the use of measured GFR (mGFR), many centres still rely on estimated GFR (eGFR) obtained through equations or 24-h creatinine clearance. However, eGFR is neither accurate nor precise in reflecting real renal function. We analysed the impact of eGFR errors on evaluation and decision making regarding potential donors.MethodsWe evaluated 103 consecutive living donors who underwent mGFR via iohexol plasma clearance and eGFR by 51 creatinine- and/or cystatin C–based equations. The cut-off for living donation in our centre is GFR > 80 mL/min for donors >35 years of age or 90 mL/min for those <35 years of age. We analysed the misclassification of donors based on the cut-off for donation-based eGFR.ResultsNinety-three subjects (90.3%) had mGFR values above (donors) and 10 [9.7% (95% confidence interval 5.4–17)] below (non-donors) the cut-off. In non-donors, most of the equations gave eGFR values above the cut-off, so donation would have been allowed based on eGFR. All non-donors were female with reduced weight, height and body surface. In donors, up to 32 cases showed eGFR below the cut-off, while mGFR was actually higher. Therefore an important number of donors would not have donated based on eGFR alone.ConclusionThe misclassification of donors around the cut-off for donation is very common with eGFR, making eGFR unreliable for the evaluation of living kidney donors. Whenever possible, mGFR should be implemented in this setting.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document