1
|
Saeed B. Cancer and Infection Screening in Potential Living Donors. EXP CLIN TRANSPLANT 2022; 20:24-29. [DOI: 10.6002/ect.donorsymp.2022.l18] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
|
2
|
Mahmood A. Living kidney donor evaluation: A simplistic approach. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES 2019. [DOI: 10.4103/jmedsci.jmedsci_126_18] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
|
3
|
Lentine KL, Kasiske BL, Levey AS, Adams PL, Alberú J, Bakr MA, Gallon L, Garvey CA, Guleria S, Li PKT, Segev DL, Taler SJ, Tanabe K, Wright L, Zeier MG, Cheung M, Garg AX. Summary of Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors. Transplantation 2017; 101:1783-1792. [PMID: 28737659 PMCID: PMC5542788 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000001770] [Citation(s) in RCA: 193] [Impact Index Per Article: 27.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2017] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) engaged an evidence review team and convened a work group to produce a guideline to evaluate and manage candidates for living kidney donation. The evidence for most guideline recommendations is sparse and many "ungraded" expert consensus recommendations were made to guide the donor candidate evaluation and care before, during, and after donation. The guideline advocates for replacing decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation with a comprehensive approach to risk assessment using the best available evidence. The approach to simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics advances a new framework for assessing donor candidate risk and for defensible shared decision making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Josefina Alberú
- Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico
| | | | | | | | | | - Philip Kam-Tao Li
- Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong, China
| | - Dorry L. Segev
- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Lentine KL, Kasiske BL, Levey AS, Adams PL, Alberú J, Bakr MA, Gallon L, Garvey CA, Guleria S, Li PKT, Segev DL, Taler SJ, Tanabe K, Wright L, Zeier MG, Cheung M, Garg AX. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors. Transplantation 2017; 101:S1-S109. [PMID: 28742762 PMCID: PMC5540357 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000001769] [Citation(s) in RCA: 198] [Impact Index Per Article: 28.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2017] [Accepted: 03/20/2017] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
The 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors is intended to assist medical professionals who evaluate living kidney donor candidates and provide care before, during and after donation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies that included critical appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations. However, many recommendations, for which there was no evidence or no systematic search for evidence was undertaken by the Evidence Review Team, were issued as ungraded expert opinion recommendations. The guideline work group concluded that a comprehensive approach to risk assessment should replace decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation. Original data analyses were undertaken to produce a "proof-in-concept" risk-prediction model for kidney failure to support a framework for quantitative risk assessment in the donor candidate evaluation and defensible shared decision making. This framework is grounded in the simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics. The processes and framework for the donor candidate evaluation are presented, along with recommendations for optimal care before, during, and after donation. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, especially regarding the lack of definitive prospective studies and clinical outcome trials. Suggestions for future research, including the need for continued refinement of long-term risk prediction and novel approaches to estimating donation-attributable risks, are also provided.In citing this document, the following format should be used: Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Living Kidney Donor Work Group. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors. Transplantation. 2017;101(Suppl 8S):S1-S109.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Josefina Alberú
- Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Dorry L. Segev
- Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Nugroho A, Kim OK, Lee KW, Song S, Kim H, Hong SK, Yoon KC, Kim HS, Choi Y, Lee HW, Yi NJ, Suh KS. Evaluation of donor workups and exclusions in a single-center experience of living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2017; 23:614-624. [PMID: 28294533 DOI: 10.1002/lt.24762] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/02/2016] [Accepted: 01/27/2017] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
The process of evaluating potential donors in liver transplantation is important to ensure donor safety and provide optimal recipient outcomes. However, there has been no report about donor exclusion rates and reasons for such exclusion in Korea. In this study, we aimed to elucidate the outcomes of potential living liver donor evaluation in a major living donor liver transplantation center. From July 2011 to June 2015, prospectively collected data of 726 potential donors for 588 matched recipients were subsequently evaluated. Among 726 potential donors, 374 potential donors (51.5%) finally reached donation; 352 potential donors (48.5%) were excluded for various reasons. Donor reasons were 29.8%, including medical problems, withdrawal of consent, graft volume issues, and identification of a better suitable donor. Recipient reasons were 20.7%, including recipient death or recovery, allocation to deceased donor, and progressions of hepatocellular carcinoma. A total of 38 (5.2%) potential donors had a fatty liver. Among them, 15 (39.5%) potential donors tried short-term weight reduction and eventually were able to donate. In conclusion, the main reasons for donor exclusion were medical problems and withdrawal of consent. Therefore, thorough medical screening and careful examination for donor voluntarism are important in the donor evaluation process. Liver Transplantation 23 614-624 2017 AASLD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adianto Nugroho
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Ok-Kyung Kim
- Organ Transplant Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Kwang-Woong Lee
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.,Organ Transplant Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Sanghee Song
- Organ Transplant Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Hyeyoung Kim
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.,Organ Transplant Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Suk Kyun Hong
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Kyung Chul Yoon
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Hyo-Sin Kim
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - YoungRok Choi
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Hae Won Lee
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Nam-Joon Yi
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.,Organ Transplant Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Kyung-Suk Suh
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.,Organ Transplant Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Kirchner VA, Pruett TL. Receiving the Unwanted Gift: Infection Transmission through Organ Transplantation. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2016; 17:318-22. [PMID: 27096745 DOI: 10.1089/sur.2016.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/29/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Infections are common in the general U.S. population, so it is inevitable that some persons with a potentially transmissible disease will become organ donors. There are numerous reports of viral, parasitic, fungal, and bacterial transmission through transplantation. At the same time, immunosuppression increases the risk of infection in organ recipients, so attribution of infectious diseases to the transplanted organ is often difficult. METHOD Review of the English-language literature. RESULTS The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network states that all potential deceased organ donors must be assessed for conditions that may influence donor acceptance. The infections most often transmitted knowingly to organ recipients are cytomegalovirus and hepatitis C virus. There was a 43% increase in the number of potential donor-derived transmission events between 2012 and 2013, but this affected only 3% of transplants; and the patterns of unexpected infection transmissions have remained fairly constant. The 2013 recognition of a case of raccoon rabies in a kidney recipient brought the risk of untested pathogens back into the general discussion of disease transmission. Also, unexpected transmissions of parasitic infection have resulted in highly visible recipient deaths. CONCLUSIONS Organ transplantation has been an enormous advance in the treatment of chronic diseases, but the risk of unanticipated disease transmission has been gaining attention. The task for the organ donation community is to assess risk of transmission of clinically relevant diseases accurately without substantially diminishing organ availability.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Varvara A Kirchner
- Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota , Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | - Timothy L Pruett
- Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota , Minneapolis, Minnesota
| |
Collapse
|