4.5 Article

Living kidney donor evaluation for all candidates with normal estimated GFR for age

期刊

TRANSPLANT INTERNATIONAL
卷 34, 期 6, 页码 1123-1133

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.1111/tri.13870

关键词

age; estimated GFR; living kidney donors; post‐ donation GFR; screening

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study suggests that in-depth screening should be proposed to all candidates with a normal eGFR for age to increase the number of eligible kidney donors. Post-donation eGFR, absolute- and relative-eGFR variation were not significantly different between different pre-donation eGFR groups in younger donors, while older donors had higher post-donation eGFR in the group with eGFR >90 ml/min/1.73 m(2).
Multiple days assessments are frequent for the evaluation of candidates to living kidney donation, combined with an early GFR estimation (eGFR). Living kidney donation is questionable when eGFR is <90 ml/min/1.73 m(2) (KDIGO guidelines) or 80 ml/min/1.73 m(2) (most US centres). However, age-related GFR decline results in a lower eGFR for older candidates. That may limit the number of older kidney donors. Yet, continuing the screening with a GFR measure increases the number of eligible donors. We hypothesized that in-depth screening should be proposed to all candidates with a normal eGFR for age. We compared the evolution of eGFR after donation between three groups of predonation eGFR: normal for age (S-age) higher than 90 or 80 ml/min/1.73 m(2) (S-90 and S-80,S- respectively); across three age groups (<45, 45-55, >55 years) in a population of 1825 French living kidney donors with a median follow-up of 5.9 years. In donors younger than 45, postdonation eGFR, absolute- and relative-eGFR variation were not different between the three groups. For older donors, postdonation eGFR was higher in S-90 than in S-80 or S-age but other comparators were identical. Postdonation eGFR slope was comparable between all groups. Our results are in favour of in-depth screening for all candidates to donation with a normal eGFR for age.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据