scholarly journals Association of Kidney Donor Risk Index with the Outcome after Kidney Transplantation in the Eurotransplant Senior Program

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. 775-781 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beate Schamberger ◽  
Dario Lohmann ◽  
Daniel Sollinger ◽  
Raimund Stein ◽  
Jens Lutz
2020 ◽  
Vol 52 (6) ◽  
pp. 1744-1748 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heungman Jun ◽  
Hye Eun Yoon ◽  
Kang Wook Lee ◽  
Dong Ryeol Lee ◽  
Jaeseok Yang ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun Young Lee ◽  
Miryung Kim ◽  
You Jin Kim ◽  
Hanwul Shin ◽  
Byoung Geun Han

Abstract Background and Aims The demand for Kidney transplantation (KT) is increasing and the number of patients who are waiting for KT is steadily increasing. Therefore, there is an increasing prevalence of KT done by cadaver donor especially, expanded criteria donor. We used Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) to predict the renal prognosis of expanded criteria donor (ECD) KT recipient. Method We investigated patients undergo KT by ECD from March 2013 to June 2018 respectively. Through the donor’s last creatinine level, KDPI score, and Kidney Donor Risk Index (KDRI) score the renal survival rate was compared with ROC curve analysis. Results The mean age of a total 59 ECD KT recipient is 53.85 ± 9.9 years old. Mean follow up duration after KT was 35.0 ± 18.5 months. 10 patients had KDPI score above 85 (KDPI ≥ 85). Five cases undergo dialysis after KT. Nine cases expired during follow up (four sepsis, three sudden cardiac arrest, one hyperkalemia). Glomerular filtration rate one year after KT was significantly associated with KDPI (r=-0.772, p<0.001). The area under curve (AUC) of KDPI was 0.700 (95% CI 0.494-0.906) and cut off point was 75.5. All renal survival patients had KDPI score below 75.5 Conclusion Our results show that KDPI could be used as an indicator for predicting the prognosis of the Korean ECD KT.


2021 ◽  
Vol 162 (26) ◽  
pp. 1022-1028
Author(s):  
Ildikó Nagy ◽  
Anita Katalin Varga ◽  
Norbert Balázsfalvi ◽  
Balázs Nemes

Összefoglaló. Bevezetés: A magyarországi vesetranszplantáció 2013 óta az Eurotransplant (ET) keretein belül zajlik. A debreceni vesetranszplantációs centrumhoz évente kb. 200 kadáverdonorvese-felajánlás érkezik, melyek 37%-a kerül a megismert adatok alapján elfogadásra. Nem minden elfogadott vese kerül beültetésre, aminek számos oka lehet. Célkitűzés: A debreceni szakmai gyakorlat elemzése és bemutatása reprezentatív mintán. Módszer: A debreceni centrumhoz 2016. november és 2020. március között 624 vesefelajánlás érkezett. A felajánlott vesék 37%-a (n = 229) került előzetesen elfogadásra, később az elfogadott vesék 63%-a (n = 144) került beültetésre. Centrumunkban az ún. ’standard criteria’, azaz tökéletes minőségű donorvesék szignifikánsan magasabb arányban kerültek elfogadásra, majd beültetésre, mint az ’extended criteria’, azaz kompromisszummal vállalhatók. Az elfogadott és nem elfogadott veséket vizsgálva a KDPI (kidney donor profile index) és a KDRI (kidney donor risk index) értéke szignifikánsan magasabb volt az elutasított donorok esetében (p<0,001). Eredmények: Elemeztük, hogy a felajánlott, de a centrum által nem beültetett donorveséket más ET-centrumban elfogadták-e. Látható, hogy a felajánlott 624 donorvese közül 144 Debrecenben, 313 pedig más ET-centrumban került beültetésre, viszont 167 vese beültetése egyik ET-centrumban sem történt meg (discarded organ). A 36–85 KDPI-értékkel rendelkező csoportból került beültetésre a legtöbb donorvese (180 vese) más ET-centrumban. A Debrecenben beültetett kadáverdonor-vesék KDPI- és KDRI-értéke szignifikánsan alacsonyabb volt a nekünk felajánlott, majd máshol beültetett vesékhez képest. Következtetés: Összességében elmondható, hogy a debreceni centrumban a magas rizikócsoportba tartozó donorszervek elutasításra kerültek, miközben más centrumban a nagy részüket beültették. Ez alapján a 36–85 KDPI-értékű csoport a transzplantációs esetszám bővítésének lehetséges forrása a recipiens ismeretében. Orv Hetil. 2021; 162(26): 1022–1028. Summary. Introduction: Kidney transplantation in Hungary is carried out via Eurotransplant (ET). Our centre in Debrecen receives around 200 kidney offers a year, of which 37% are accepted. Not all accepted kidneys are transplanted, which can be a result of a number of causes. Obejctive: A debreceni szakmai gyakorlat elemzése és bemutatása reprezentatív mintán. Method: Between November 2016 and March 2020, the centre of Debrecen received 624 kidney offers. 37% (n = 229) of the offered kidneys got preliminarily accepted, of which 63% (n = 144) were transplanted later. In our centre, standard criteria donor kidneys were accepted and transplanted in significantly higher rate, than extended criteria donor kidneys. Looking at accepted and rejected kidneys, KDPI and KDRI values were significantly higher in the case of the refused ones (p<0.001). Results: Part of our assessment is to analyze whether kidneys offered to and refused by us got accepted in other transplant centres. In the examined period, of the 624 kidneys offered to our centre 144 were transplanted in Debrecen, 313 were transplanted in other ET centres, while 167 were not transplanted at all (discarded organ). The majority of transplanted kidneys in other ET centres had KDPI values between 36 and 85 (180 kidneys.) KDPI and KDRI values of kidneys transplanted in our centre were significantly lower than those that were offered to us, but got transplanted elsewhere. Conclusion: To summarize, we can say that high-risk donor organs are refused in the transplant centre of Debrecen, while the majority of them are being transplanted in other centres. Based on this, kidneys of KDPI value between 36 and 85 are a possible source of expanding the number of transplantations, with regards to the recipient. Orv Hetil. 2021; 162(26): 1022–1028.


2021 ◽  
pp. 11-22
Author(s):  
Martha Gershun ◽  
John D. Lantos

This chapter discusses a system for screening living donors. The chapter begins with a narrative of the author as she was anxiously waiting to hear whether the Transplant Selection Committee at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, was going to approve her as a kidney donor. It then recounts the author's decision to donate one of her kidneys to a stranger. A few months earlier, she had read an article in the Kansas City Jewish Chronicle about a woman who needed a kidney. The article detailed how Deb Porter Gill had been diagnosed with insulin dependent diabetes and developed unrelated chronic kidney disease. The chapter narrates the reasons why Deb's story tugged at the author. Ultimately, the chapter looks at the importance of the whole series of evaluation and screening in kidney transplantation.


2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 144-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eisuke Nakazawa ◽  
Keiichiro Yamamoto ◽  
Aru Akabayashi ◽  
Margie H Shaw ◽  
Richard A Demme ◽  
...  

In this article, we perform a thought experiment about living donor kidney transplantation. If a living kidney donor becomes in need of renal replacement treatment due to dysfunction of the remaining kidney after donation, can the donor ask the recipient to give back the kidney that had been donated? We call this problem organ restitution and discussed it from the ethical viewpoint. Living organ transplantation is a kind of ‘designated donation’ and subsequently has a contract-like character. First, assuming a case in which original donor (A) wishes the return of the organ which had been transplanted into B, and the original recipient (B) agrees, organ restitution will be permissible based on contract-like agreement. However, careful and detailed consideration is necessary to determine whether this leaves no room to question the authenticity of B’s consent. Second, if B offers to give back the organ to A, then B’s act is a supererogatory act, and is praiseworthy and meritorious. Such an offer is a matter of virtue, not obligation. Third, if A wishes B to return the organ, but B does not wish/allow this to happen, it is likely difficult to justify returning the organ to A by violating B’s right to bodily integrity. But B’s refusal to return the donated organ cannot be deemed praiseworthy, because B forgets the great kindness once received from A. Rather than calling this an obligation, we encourage B to consider such virtuous conduct.


2014 ◽  
Vol 98 ◽  
pp. 134
Author(s):  
S. Boyle ◽  
R. Batra ◽  
R. Heilman ◽  
H. Chakkera ◽  
H. Khamash ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document