4.6 Article

Proportion of glomerulosclerosis in procurement wedge renal biopsy cannot alone discriminate for acceptance of marginal donors

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 69, 期 1, 页码 36-43

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00007890-200001150-00008

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Back-ground. The shortage of available kidneys for renal transplantation could be addressed to some extent, by expanding the criteria for acceptance of marginal donors, The study of these criteria is limited by the selection of grafts actually retrieved and transplanted, therefore reduced to a study of risk factors, We have evaluated the potential of procurement renal biopies as an instrument for acceptance or refusal of donor kidneys for transplantation, Methods. This was a prospective study of a consecutive series of 200 donors, Biopsies were performed by wedge technique at the donor operation and were evaluated for proportion of glomerulosclerosis, vascular and tubular changes, and interstitial fibrosis, The study included 387 renal grafts with a representative biopsy, transplanted, and followed-up for survival and functional evaluation; 24 hs creatinine clearance at 1 and 3 weeks, and 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, Results, Factors associated with initial graft function included cold ischemia time, number of DR mismatches, tubular changes, although donor age showed the strongest correlation with short- and long-term level of graft function. DR mismatches and retransplantation appeared to be the only significant risk factors fur graft loss. The proportion of glomerulosclerosis (mean 8% range 0-48%) correlated with graft function in the simple regression analysis, However, when age was taken into account glomerulosclerosis did not correlate significantly with graft function, Furthermore, glomerulosclerosis as high as 25% or more had an acceptable 3-year graft survival rate of 74.7%. Conclusion, Procurement biopsy provides only limited information fur the decision whether or not to accept a kidney donor.

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