Donor Contraindications to Living Kidney Donation: A Single-Center Experience

OBJECTIVE

Kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice in end-stage renal disease. In Turkey, the inadequate cadaveric donor supply has resulted in transplantation from living kidney donors (LKD) in 80% of transplant operations. LKD candidates undergo a thorough general medical evaluation and are approved to donate their kidneys only if no contraindication is found. In our study we aimed to investigate the reasons and rate of denial for living kidney donation in our center.

METHODS

We included all LKD candidates who applied to our center between June 2012 to June 2014. Demographic data, rate of rejection, and the reasons for denial to organ donation were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Of the 97 LKD candidates included in the study, 60 (62%) were unable to donate their kidneys. Among the reasons for denial were hypertension with target organ damage in 30% (n = 18), immunologic reasons in 23% (n = 14), impaired renal function in 20% (n = 12) cardiovascular reasons 13.3% (n = 8), diabetes mellitus in 10% (n = 6), malignity in 10% (n = 6), obesity (body mass index > 35 kg/m(2)) in 5% (n = 3), and miscellaneous in 18.3% (n = 11). There were >1 reasons in 13 candidates.

CONCLUSIONS

The problems detected in donor candidates offer a possibility for early detection of disorders and increased awareness.

Influence of single hemodialysis session on serum paraoxonase-1, arylesterase activity, total oxıdant status and total antioxidant status

AIM

Chronic kidney disease(CKD) and hemodialysis (HD) are associated with increased oxidative stress. Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are the most important cause of mortality in these patients. Increased cardiovascular risk is associated with oxidative stress. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the duration of single session hemodialysis may affect oxidative stress parameters on the patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD).

METHODS

Total oxidant status (TOS) and oxidative stress index (OSI) as oxidative markers and total antioxidant status (TAOS), paraoxonase1 (PON1) and arylesterase (ARES) as antioxidant markers were compared hemodialysis therapy before and after the treatment.

RESULTS

TOS levels before hemodialysis were found as 4.4±2.4 μmol H2O2 Equiv/L, TAOS 2.1±0.3 µmol trolox Equiv./L, OSI 0.2±0.1%, PON1 levels 58.5±35.6 U/L and ARES levels 22±0.2 U/L while after the HD the respective values were 1.4±1.2 μmol H2O2 Equiv/L, 1.4±0.5 µmol trolox Equiv./L, 0.1±0.1%, 54.3±31.3 U/L, 21.8±0.1 U/L. A significant decreasing was observed in TOS TAOS OSI and ARES values before the HD compared to after the HD (P=0.0001, P=0.0001, P=0.0001, P=0.031, respectively).

CONCLUSION

This study shows oxidant (TOS, OSI) and antioxidant (TAOS, ARES) markers were found to be significantly decrease after the HD compared to pre-hemodialysis. Although reverse is expected it is found that oxidants (indirectly ROS) did not increase and antioxidant reserve decreased in HD.

Glomerular filtration rate: which method should we measure in daily clinical practice?

AIM

In this study, we compared estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) calculated with the formulas of Cockcroft-Gault (C&G), Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD), Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) and Mayo Clinic Quadratic (Mayo Q) and, GFR (mGFR) that was scintigraphically measured with creatinine clearance (CrCl) and technetium-99m diethylene triamine penta-acetic acid (99mTc-DTPA). Objective of this study was to define the correlations between the formulas, provide a reliable method for measurement and estimation of GFR in daily clinical practice and demonstrate the potential errors.

METHODS

C&G, CKD-EPI, Mayo Q and MDRD eGFR of 84(37 males, 47 females) patients diagnosed with chronic kidney disease were calculated. Values of 99mTc-DTPA based on mGFR were compared with eGFR values of the formulas.

RESULTS

Significant correlations were found with the values of 99mTc-DTPA mGFR, CrCl, MDRD, CKD-EPI, Mayo Q and C&G eGFR. The highest correlation was found between LBM(lean body mass) corrected C&G, MDRD-6, Mayo Q and CKD-EPI eGFR. The best estimate was made with MDRD-6 in the cases with 99mTc-DTPA mGFR<30 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and with MDRD-4 in the cases with 99mTc-DTPA mGFR≥30 mL/min/1.73 m(2), while the worst estimate was made with uncorrected C&G formula in both groups.

CONCLUSION

All eGFR formulas can be used in daily clinical practice. However, using MDRD-6 in the cases with GFR<30 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and MDRD-4 in the cases with GFR≥30 mL/min/1.73m(2) as well as using LBM for C&G eGFR or correction according to LBM when AW (actual weight) is used, might provide a more accurate estimation.