4.6 Article

The impact of accepting living kidney donors with mild hypertension or proteinuria on transplantation rates

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF KIDNEY DISEASES
卷 47, 期 2, 页码 317-323

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2005.10.012

关键词

living kidney donor evaluation; donor exclusion; waiting list; hypertension; proteinuria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: As waiting times for kidney transplantation increase, individuals with hypertension or proteinuria may be considered as eligible living donors. We set out to determine how frequently donors are excluded because of hypertension or proteinuria and to what extent accepting such donors would increase transplantation rates. Methods: Wait lists from 4 Canadian transplantation centers were examined for causes of living kidney donor exclusion. Donors with hypertension (clinic blood pressure > 140/90 mm Hg or requiring anti hypertensive medication) or proteinuria historically have been excluded at these centers. We define potentially acceptable hypertension as a clinic blood pressure less than 150/100 mm Hg or less than 140/90 mm Hg if administered a single antihypertensive medication and define acceptable proteinuria as protein of 0.15 to 0.3 g/d. Results: Only 35% (124 of 352 patients) of wait-listed patients had a living donor evaluated (n = 180 potential donors). Primary reasons for donor exclusion were immunologic: a positive cross-match (32%; n = 59) or blood group type incompatibility (22%; n = 40). Hypertension or proteinuria were less common (17%; n = 31). Of 31 donors excluded for hypertension or proteinuria, only 13 had results in the acceptable range. Acceptance of these donors would have resulted in transplantation of 3% (12 of 352 patients) of the wait-list population. Conclusion: Accepting living donors with mild hypertension and proteinuria will lead to a slight increase in transplantation rates. Efforts to improve living donor awareness and overcome immunologic barriers to transplantation may have a greater impact.

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

4.6
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