American Journal of Nephrology
Original Report: Patient-Oriented, Translational Research
Trends in Kidney Donation among Kidney Stone Formers: A Survey of US Transplant CentersEnnis J.a · Kocherginsky M.b · Schumm L.P.b · Worcester E.a · Coe F.L.a · Josephson M.A.aaSection of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago Medical Center, and bDepartment of Health Studies, Biological Sciences Division, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill., USA
|
|
Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.
KAB
Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!
If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.
Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.
Article / Publication Details
Received: November 03, 2008
Accepted: December 06, 2008
Published online: January 23, 2009
Issue release date: July 2009
Number of Print Pages: 7
Number of Figures: 2
Number of Tables: 0
ISSN: 0250-8095 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9670 (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/AJN
Abstract
Background: Living kidney donation is on the rise and acceptance criteria for potential donors are evolving to include more ‘complex’ patients such as kidney stone formers. Transplant centers are faced with sparse data on patient outcomes when evaluating potential donors who are stone formers; thus, attitudes and practice can differ greatly between centers. Methods: We conducted a survey of United States kidney transplant programs to assess current trends in the approach to dealing with stone formers who are evaluated for kidney donation. Results: Based on the survey results, there appears to be a tendency toward increased acceptance of donors with a history of kidney stones. 77% of responding centers allowed stone formers to donate. Nearly 40% of centers reported that their attitude towards accepting donors with kidney stones has changed over the last 5–10 years. Among these, the overwhelming majority reported that they were more likely to accept these donors. Conclusions: Such trends are likely based on organ need, as published patient outcomes and evidence-based guidelines are lacking for this unique group of patients. We propose the need for a study to formally evaluate the outcome of stone formers who donate a kidney in order to systematically examine whether appropriately selected stone formers can safely donate.
© 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel
Related Articles:
References
- Evans RW, Manninen DL, Garrison LP Jr, et al: The quality of life of patients with end-stage renal disease. N Engl J Med 1985;312:553–559.
- Wolfe RA, Ashby VB, Milford EL, et al: Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation, and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant. N Engl J Med 1999;341:1725–1730.
- Schnuelle P, Lorenz D, Trede M, Van Der Woude FJ: Impact of renal cadaveric transplantation on survival in end-stage renal failure: evidence for reduced mortality risk compared with hemodialysis during long-term follow-up. J Am Soc Nephrol 1998;9:2135–2141.
-
2004 Annual Report of the US Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients: Transplant Data 1994–2003; in Department of Health and Human Services HRaSA, Healthcare Systems Bureau, Division of Transplantation (ed): United Network for Organ Sharing, Richmond, Va. Ann Arbor, University Renal Research and Education Association, 2005.
- Sheehy E, Conrad SL, Brigham LE, et al: Estimating the number of potential organ donors in the United States. N Engl J Med 2003;349:667–674.
- Matas AJ: Transplantation using marginal living donors. Am J Kidney Dis 2006;47:353–354.
- Reese PP, Caplan AL, Kesselheim AS, Bloom RD: Creating a medical, ethical, and legal framework for complex living kidney donors. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2006;1:1148–1153.
- Worcester E, Parks JH, Josephson MA, Thisted RA, Coe FL: Causes and consequences of kidney loss in patients with nephrolithiasis. Kidney Int 2003;64:2204–2213.
- Gillen DL, Worcester EM, Coe FL: Decreased renal function among adults with a history of nephrolithiasis: a study of NHANES III. Kidney Int 2005;67:685–690.
- Najarian JS, Chavers BM, McHugh LE, Matas AJ: Twenty years or more of follow-up of living kidney donors. Lancet 1992;340:807–810.
- Fehrman-Ekholm I, Duner F, Brink B, Tyden G, Elinder CG: No evidence of accelerated loss of kidney function in living kidney donors: results from a cross-sectional follow-up. Transplantation 2001;72:444–449.
- Narkun-Burgess DM, Nolan CR, Norman JE, Page WF, Miller PL, Meyer TW: Forty-five year follow-up after uninephrectomy. Kidney Int 1993;43:1110–1115.
- Gossmann J, Wilhelm A, Kachel HG, et al: Long-term consequences of live kidney donation follow-up in 93% of living kidney donors in a single transplant center. Am J Transplant 2005;5:2417–2424.
- Lee YH, Huang WC, Chang LS, Chen MT, Yang YF, Huang JK: The long-term stone recurrence rate and renal function change in unilateral nephrectomy urolithiasis patients. J Urol 1994;152:1386–1388.
- McAteer JA, Evan AP: The acute and long-term adverse effects of shock wave lithotripsy. Semin Nephrol 2008;28:200–213.
- el-Assmy A, el-Nahas AR, Hekal IA, Badran M, Youssef RF, Sheir KZ: Long-term effects of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy on renal function: our experience with 156 patients with solitary kidney. J Urol 2008;179:2229–2232.
- Liou LS, Streem SB: Long-term renal functional effects of shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy and combination therapy: a comparative study of patients with solitary kidney. J Urol 2001;166:36–37.
- Cass AS: Renal function after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy to a solitary kidney. J Endourol 1994;8:15–19.
- Zanetti GR, Montanari E, Guarneri A, Trinchieri A, Mandressi A, Ceresoli A: Long-term follow-up after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy treatment of kidney stones in solitary kidneys. J Urol 1992;148:1011–1014.
- Chandhoke PS, Albala DM, Clayman RV: Long-term comparison of renal function in patients with solitary kidneys and/or moderate renal insufficiency undergoing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 1992;147:1226–1230.
- Kasiske BL, Ravenscraft M, Ramos EL, Gaston RS, Bia MJ, Danovitch GM: The evaluation of living renal transplant donors: clinical practice guidelines. Ad Hoc Clinical Practice Guidelines Subcommittee of the Patient Care and Education Committee of the American Society of Transplant Physicians. J Am Soc Nephrol 1996;7:2288–2313.
- Zeger SL, Liang KY: Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics 1986;42:121–130.
- Cosio FG, Alamir A, Yim S, et al: Patient survival after renal transplantation. I. The impact of dialysis pretransplant. Kidney Int 1998;53:767–772.
- Meier-Kriesche HU, Port FK, Ojo AO, et al: Effect of waiting time on renal transplant outcome. Kidney Int 2000;58:1311–1317.
- Matas AJ, Bartlett ST, Leichtman AB, Delmonico FL: Morbidity and mortality after living kidney donation, 1999–2001: survey of United States transplant centers. Am J Transplant 2003;3:830–834.
- Goldfarb DA, Matin SF, Braun WE, et al: Renal outcome 25 years after donor nephrectomy. J Urol 2001;166:2043–2047.
- Stamatelou KK, Francis ME, Jones CA, Nyberg LM, Curhan GC: Time trends in reported prevalence of kidney stones in the United States: 1976–1994. Kidney Int 2003;63:1817–1823.
- Strang AM, Lockhart ME, Kenney PJ, et al: Computerized tomographic angiography for renal donor evaluation leads to a higher exclusion rate. J Urol 2007;177:1826–1829.
- Davis CL: Variable evaluation and selection criteria for living kidney donors: have we gotten the message yet? Am J Transplant 2007;7:2219–2220.
- Karpinski M, Knoll G, Cohn A, Yang R, Garg A, Storsley L: The impact of accepting living kidney donors with mild hypertension or proteinuria on transplantation rates. Am J Kidney Dis 2006;47:317–323.
-
United States Renal Data System 2006 Annual Data Report; in Atlas of End-Stage Renal Disease in the United States. Bethesda, National Institutes of Health NIoDaDaKD, 2006.
Article / Publication Details
Received: November 03, 2008
Accepted: December 06, 2008
Published online: January 23, 2009
Issue release date: July 2009
Number of Print Pages: 7
Number of Figures: 2
Number of Tables: 0
ISSN: 0250-8095 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9670 (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/AJN
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
Get Permission
PubMed ID
