The Risks of Living Kidney Donation

Recommendations for living donor kidney transplantation

This Guide for Living Donor Kidney Transplantation (LDKT) has been prepared with the sponsorship of the Spanish Society of Nephrology (SEN), the Spanish Transplant Society (SET), and the Spanish National Transplant Organization (ONT). It updates evidence to offer the best chronic renal failure treatment when a potential living donor is available. The core aim of this Guide is to supply clinicians who evaluate living donors and transplant recipients with the best decision-making tools, to optimise their outcomes. Moreover, the role of living donors in the current KT context should recover the level of importance it had until recently. To this end the new forms of incompatible HLA and/or ABO donation, as well as the paired donation which is possible in several hospitals with experience in LDKT, offer additional ways to treat renal patients with an incompatible donor. Good results in terms of patient and graft survival have expanded the range of circumstances under which living renal donors are accepted. Older donors are now accepted, as are others with factors that affect the decision, such as a borderline clinical history or alterations, which when evaluated may lead to an additional number of transplantations. This Guide does not forget that LDKT may lead to risk for the donor. Pre-donation evaluation has to centre on the problems which may arise over the short or long-term, and these have to be described to the potential donor so that they are able take them into account. Experience over recent years has led to progress in risk analysis, to protect donors' health. This aspect always has to be taken into account by LDKT programmes when evaluating potential donors. Finally, this Guide has been designed to aid decision-making, with recommendations and suggestions when uncertainties arise in pre-donation studies. Its overarching aim is to ensure that informed consent is based on high quality studies and information supplied to donors and recipients, offering the strongest possible guarantees.

Living Kidney Donor Knowledge of Provided Information and Informed Consent: The PRINCE Study

Background: Informed consent for living kidney donation is paramount, as donors are healthy individuals undergoing surgery for the benefit of others. The informed consent process for living kidney donors is heterogenous, and the question concerns how well they are actually informed. Knowledge assessments, before and after donor education, can form the basis for a standardized informed consent procedure for live kidney donation. Methods: In this prospective, a multicenter national cohort study conducted in all eight kidney transplant centers in The Netherlands, we assessed the current status of the informed consent practice for live donor nephrectomy. All of the potential living kidney donors in the participating centers were invited to participate. They completed a pop quiz during their first outpatient appointment (Cohort A). Living kidney donors completed the same pop quiz upon admission for donor nephrectomy (Cohort B). Results: In total, 656 pop quizzes were completed (417 in Cohort A, and 239 in Cohort B). The average donor knowledge score was 7.0/25.0 (±3.9, range 0–18) in Cohort A, and 10.5/25.0 (±2.8, range 0–17.5) in Cohort B. Cohort B scored significantly higher on overall knowledge, preparedness, and the individual item scores (p < 0.0001), except for the long-term complications (p = 0.91). Conclusions: Donor knowledge generally improves during the live donor workup, but it is still quite disappointing. Long-term complications, especially, deserve more attention during living kidney donor education.

Living kidney donor evaluation for all candidates with normal estimated GFR for age

Multiple days assessments are frequent for the evaluation of candidates to living kidney donation, combined with an early GFR estimation (eGFR). Living kidney donation is questionable when eGFR is <90 ml/min/1.73 m² (KDIGO guidelines) or 80 ml/min/1.73 m² (most US centres). However, age-related GFR decline results in a lower eGFR for older candidates. That may limit the number of older kidney donors. Yet, continuing the screening with a GFR measure increases the number of eligible donors. We hypothesized that in-depth screening should be proposed to all candidates with a normal eGFR for age. We compared the evolution of eGFR after donation between three groups of predonation eGFR: normal for age (S_age ) higher than 90 or 80 ml/min/1.73 m² (S₉₀ and S_80, respectively); across three age groups (<45, 45-55, >55 years) in a population of 1825 French living kidney donors with a median follow-up of 5.9 years. In donors younger than 45, postdonation eGFR, absolute- and relative-eGFR variation were not different between the three groups. For older donors, postdonation eGFR was higher in S₉₀ than in S₈₀ or S_age but other comparators were identical. Postdonation eGFR slope was comparable between all groups. Our results are in favour of in-depth screening for all candidates to donation with a normal eGFR for age.

Post-kidney donation glomerular filtration rate measurement and estimation

BACKGROUND

Long-term consequences associated with kidney donation are controversial. Pre- and post-donation glomerular filtration rates (GFRs) are determinants of renal and cardiovascular risk weighting. In Latin America, there is limited experience in evaluating kidney function using GFR measurement techniques in kidney donors. The MDRD 4-variable and CKD-EPI equations are considered reasonable options. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of the MDRD and CKD-EPI equations in post-nephrectomy GFR dynamics in kidney donors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective cohort study with GFR measurement and estimation in 189 kidney donors who underwent nephrectomy between 2007 and 2016 at the Hospital Privado Universitario de Córdoba [Private University Hospital of Córdoba] in Córdoba, Argentina. GFRs were evaluated before and after nephrectomy by iothalamate clearance determined by HPLC and by the MDRD and CKD-EPI equations for estimating GFR. Two groups were formed for this study: Group 1 (n=107), with an evaluation time subsequent to GFR stabilization (3 months) of up to 5 years, and Group 2 (n=82), with an evaluation time of 5-10 years following donation. Measured GFR (mGFR) was assessed by iothalamate clearance determined by HPLC.

RESULTS

Renal compensation values were 61.9% (52.0%-71.1%) and 75.6% (64.9%-84.4%) for Group 1 (n=107) and Group 2 (n=82), respectively. MDRD underestimated the GFR in 3.2% (90ml/min/1.73m²) and 38.6% (60ml/min/1.73m²) compared to the mGFR, and CKD-EPI underestimated the GFR in 2.6% (90ml/min/1.73m²) and 13.8% (60ml/min/1.73m²). Diagnostic performance was evaluated with a ROC curve (mGFR<60ml/min/1.73m²) for MDRD (ABC=0.66; CI: 0.59-0.73; sensitivity: 98.7%; specificity: 63.3%) and for CKD-EPI (ABC=0.79 CI: 0.73-0.85; sensitivity: 96.9%; specificity: 76.4%. Estimated GFR (eGFR) showed poor performance for estimating the glomerular filtration rate in the post-nephrectomy follow-up of donors over 50 years of age.

CONCLUSIONS

Equations for estimating GFRs showed poor performance for long-term follow-up of post-nephrectomy GFRs. Measuring GFRs to determine kidney function is recommended in the screening and follow-up of some donors under the current selection criteria.

The kidney evaluation of living kidney donor candidates: US practices in 2017

We surveyed US transplant programs to assess practices used to assess kidney health in living kidney donor candidates in 2017; the response rate was 31%. In this report, we focus on the kidney; a companion piece focuses on the metabolic and cardiovascular aspects of candidate evaluation. Compared to 2005, programs have become more stringent in accepting younger candidates and less stringent in accepting older candidates. The 24-hour creatinine clearance remains the mainstay for kidney function assessment, with 74% continuing to use a value below 80 mL/min/1.73 m² for exclusion and 22% using age-based criteria. ApoL1 genotyping is obtained routinely or selectively by 45%, half of which use the high-risk genotype as an absolute exclusion criterion. For history of symptomatic stones, 49% accept if there is no current radiographic evidence of stones and urine profile is low risk, 80%-95% consider candidates with unilateral asymptomatic stones, but only 33%-48% consider if stones are bilateral. In addition, 14% use the risk assessment tool developed by Grams et al routinely for decision-making, and 42% use it sometimes. Also, 57% reported not having yet determined a risk threshold for acceptable postdonation risk above which candidates are excluded. Contemporary practice variation underscores the need for better evidence to guide the donor selection process.

The first increase in live kidney donation in the United States in 15 years

The first sustained increase in live kidney donation in the United States in 15 years was observed from 2017 to 2019. To help sustain this surge, we studied 35 900 donors (70.3% white, 14.5% Hispanic, 9.3% black, 4.4% Asian) to understand the increase in 2017-2019 vs 2014-2016 using Poisson regression. Among biologically related donors aged <35, 35-49, and ≥50 years, the number of donors did not change across race/ethnicity but increased by 38% and 29% for Hispanic and black ≥50. Among unrelated donors <35, 35-49, and ≥50, white donors increased by 18%, 14%, and 27%; Hispanic donors <35 did not change but increased by 22% and 35% for 35-49 and ≥50; black donors <35 declined by 23% and did not change for 35-49 and ≥50; Asian donors did not change. Among kidney paired donors <35, 35-49, and ≥50, white donors increased by 42%, 50%, and 68%; Hispanic donors <35 and 35-49 increased by 36% and 55% and did not change for ≥50; black donors did not change; Asian donors <35 did not change but increased by 107% and 82% for 35-49 and ≥50. The increase in donation was driven predominantly by unrelated and paired white donors. Donation among unrelated black individuals should be promoted.

Extended Criteria Donors in Living Kidney Transplantation Including Donor Age, Smoking, Hypertension and BMI

Purpose

An expansion of selection criteria for deceased organ transplantation already exists to manage the current donor shortage. Comparable evaluation of risk factors for living donors should be investigated to improve this issue.

Patients and Methods

Our retrospective single-centre study analysed 158 patients with living kidney transplants performed between February 2006 and June 2012. We investigated the influence of donor risk factors (RF) including body mass index over 30 kg/m², age >60 years, active nicotine abuse and arterial hypertension on postoperative kidney function with focus on the recipients. This was measured for long-term survival and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in a 5-year follow-up.

Results

Overall, out of 158 living donors, 84 donors were identified to have no risk factors, whereas 74 donors had at least one risk factor. We noted a significant higher delayed graft function (p=0.042) in the first 7 days after transplantation, as well as lower GFR of recipients of allografts with risk factors in the first-year after transplantation. In our long-term results, there was no significant difference in the functional outcome (graft function, recipient and graft survival) between recipients receiving kidneys from donors with no and at least one risk factors. In the adjusted analysis of subgroups of different risk factors, recipients of donors with “age over 60 years” at time of transplantation had a decreased transplant survival (p=0.014).

Conclusion

Thus, a careful expansion for selection criteria for living donors with critical evaluation could be possible, but especially the age of the donors could be a limited risk factor.

Living Kidney Donor Evaluation

Long-term safety of living kidney donation (LKD), especially for young donors, has become a real matter of concern in the transplant community and may contribute to creating resistance to LKD. In this context, the criteria that govern living donor donations must live up to very demanding standards as well as adjust to this novel reality. In the first part, we review the existing guidelines published after 2010 and critically examine their recommendations to see how they do not necessarily lead to consistent and universal practices in the choice of specific thresholds for a parameter used to accept or reject a living donor candidate. In the second part, we present the emergence of a new paradigm for LKD developed in the 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes guidelines with the introduction of an integrative risk-based approach. Finally, we focus on predonation renal function evaluation, a criteria that remain central in the selection process, and discuss several issues surrounding the donor candidate's glomerular filtration rate assessment.

Mechanisms of Synergistic Interactions of Diabetes and Hypertension in Chronic Kidney Disease: Role of Mitochondrial Dysfunction and ER Stress

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss the importance of synergistic interactions of diabetes mellitus (DM) and hypertension (HT) in causing chronic kidney disease and the potential molecular mechanisms involved.

RECENT FINDINGS

DM and HT are the two most important risk factors for chronic kidney disease (CKD) and development of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The combination of HT and DM may synergistically promote the progression of renal injury through mechanisms that have not been fully elucidated. Hyperglycemia and other metabolic changes in DM initiate endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress and mitochondrial (MT) adaptation in different types of glomerular cells. These adaptations appear to make the cells more vulnerable to HT-induced mechanical stress. Excessive activation of mechanosensors, possibly via transient receptor potential cation channel subfamily C member 6 (TRPC6), may lead to impaired calcium (Ca²⁺) homeostasis and further exacerbate ER stress and MT dysfunction promoting cellular apoptosis and glomerular injury. The synergistic effects of HT and DM to promote kidney injury may be mediated by increased intraglomerular pressure. Chronic activation of mechanotransduction signaling may amplify metabolic effects of DM causing cellular injury through a vicious cycle of impaired Ca²⁺ homeostasis, mitochondrial dysfunction, and ER stress.

KDOQI US Commentary on the 2017 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

Living kidney donation is widely practiced throughout the world. During the past 2 decades, various groups have provided guidance about the evaluation and care of living donors. However, during this time, our knowledge in the field has advanced substantially and many agreed on the need for a comprehensive, unifying document. KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) addressed this issue at an international level with the publication of its clinical practice guideline on the evaluation and care of living kidney donors. The KDIGO work group extensively reviewed the available literature and wrote a series of guideline recommendations using various degrees of evidence when available. As has become recent practice, NKF-KDOQI (National Kidney Foundation-Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative) convened a work group to provide a commentary on the KDIGO guideline, with a focus on how these recommendations apply in the context of the United States. In the United States, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) guides and regulates the practice of living kidney donation. While the KDIGO guideline for the care of living kidney donors and UNOS policy are similar in most aspects of the care of living kidney donors, several important areas are not consistent or do not align with common practice by US transplantation programs in areas in which UNOS has not set specific policy. For the time being, and recognizing the value of the KDIGO guidelines, US transplantation programs should continue to follow UNOS policy.

The changing landscape of live kidney donation in the United States from 2005 to 2017

The number of live kidney donors has declined since 2005. This decline parallels the evolving knowledge of risk for biologically related, black, and younger donors. To responsibly promote donation, we sought to identify declining low-risk donor subgroups that might serve as targets for future interventions. We analyzed a national registry of 77 427 donors and quantified the change in number of donors per 5-year increment from 2005 to 2017 using Poisson regression stratified by donor-recipient relationship and race/ethnicity. Among related donors aged <35, 35 to 49, and ≥50 years, white donors declined by 21%, 29%, and 3%; black donors declined by 30%, 31%, and 12%; Hispanic donors aged <35 and 35 to 49 years declined by 18% and 15%, and those aged ≥50 increased by 10%. Conversely, among unrelated donors aged <35, 35 to 49, and ≥50 years, white donors increased by 12%, 4%, and 24%; black donors aged <35 and 35 to 49 years did not change but those aged ≥50 years increased by 34%; Hispanic donors increased by 16%, 21%, and 46%. Unlike unrelated donors, related donors were less likely to donate in recent years across race/ethnicity. Although this decline might be understandable for related younger donors, it is less understandable for lower-risk related older donors (≥50 years). Biologically related older individuals are potential targets for interventions to promote donation.

The Risk in Living Kidney Donation

This article examines two questions. (1) If prospective living kidney donors knew of the lifetime risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in their remaining kidney, then would they be as willing to give it up? and (2) What should transplant organizations and physicians be telling those who express an interest in donating a kidney about risk? Based on the principle that prospective donors must be fully informed of the risk, I raise the issue of a possible obstacle to closing the gap between the availability and need of transplantable kidneys. Some strategies are offered to address this problem.

Risk of ESRD in prior living kidney donors

We studied End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) in living kidney donors (LKDs) who donated in the United States between 1994 and 2016 (n = 123 526), using Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data. Two hundred eighteen LKDs developed ESRD, with a median of 11.1 years between donation and ESRD. Absolute 20-year risk was low but not uniform, with risk associated with race, age, and sex and increasing exponentially over time. LKDs had increased risk of ESRD if they were male (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.75, 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 1.33-2.31), had higher BMI (aHR: 1.34 per 5 kg/m² , 95%CI: 1.10-1.64) or lower estimated GFR (aHR: 0.89 per 10 mL/min, 95% CI: 0.80-0.99), were first-degree relatives of the recipient (parent: [aHR: 2.01, 95% CI: 1.26-3.21]; full sibling [aHR: 1.87, 95%CI: 1.23-2.84]; identical twin [aHR: 19.79, 95%CI: 7.65-51.24]), or lived in lower socioeconomic status neighborhoods at donation (aHR: 0.87 per $10k increase; 95%CI: 0.77-0.99). We found a significant interaction between donation age and race, with higher risk at older ages for white LKDs (aHR: 1.26 per decade, 95%CI: 1.04-1.54), but higher risk at younger ages for black LKDs (aHR: 0.75 per decade, 95%CI: 0.57-0.99). These findings further inform risk assessment of potential LKDs.

Long-term risks of kidney living donation: review and position paper by the ERA-EDTA DESCARTES working group

Two recent matched cohort studies from the USA and Norway published in 2014 have raised some concerns related to the long-term safety of kidney living donation. Further studies on the long-term risks of living donation have since been published. In this position paper, Developing Education Science and Care for Renal Transplantation in European States (DESCARTES) board members critically review the literature in an effort to summarize the current knowledge concerning long-term risks of kidney living donation to help physicians for decision-making purposes and for providing information to the prospective live donors. Long-term risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) can be partially foreseen by trying to identify donors at risk of developing ‘de novo’ kidney diseases during life post-donation and by predicting lifetime ESRD risk. However, lifetime risk may be difficult to assess in young donors, especially in those having first-degree relatives with ESRD. The study from Norway also found an increased risk of death after living donor nephrectomy, which became visible only after >15 years of post-donation follow-up. However, these findings are likely to be largely the result of an overestimation due to the confounding effect related to a family history of renal disease. DESCARTES board members emphasize the importance of optimal risk–benefit assessment and proper information to the prospective donor, which should also include recommendations on health-promoting behaviour post-donation.

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in living kidney donors: What changes in 10 years?

In renal transplantation, living donations have more significant benefits compared to cadaveric donations. However, a probable increase in blood pressure following donation should also be kept in mind. In this study, we investigated the long-term changes in blood pressure in living kidney donors using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and we explored the e-GFR and albuminuria/proteinuria measurements at 3 time points. Twenty-eight living kidney donors and 39 healthy individuals were evaluated and compared at the baseline and later at the 10th year. At the 10th year, creatinine levels were higher and eGFR levels were lower in the donors, whereas the systolic and diastolic measurements of the donors and controls and the prevalence of nondipping in the donors and controls were similar. Our study may be underpowered due to its small population size. However, our results at the 10th year follow-up indicated that the risk of hypertension might not seem to have increased in the well-selected donors. In addition, the majority of our donors had preserved their GFR values. Therefore, we can suggest that living kidney donation appears to be safe in well-selected patients over a 10-year time frame.

Socio-sanitary profile and information for living kidney donors and recipients in three Andalusian hospitals

BACKGROUND

Information provided by health professionals to potential donors and recipients is essential for an autonomous and objective decision to make a living kidney donation.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the characteristics of the information received by living kidney donors and recipients, to find out their socio-sanitary profile, their socio-demographics, financial and labour characteristics, health and the caregiving activity of these donors and recipients.

METHODS

Observational, descriptive and cross-sectional study of the population of living kidney donors and recipients from the University Hospitals Puerta del Mar (Cádiz), Virgen del Rocío (Seville), and the University Hospital Complex of Granada, between 08/04/2014 and 08/06/2015.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

According to the 40 living kidney donors and their 40 recipients surveyed, it is mainly nephrologists who make people aware and provide information about living kidney donation. Almost half of recipients require more information so the evaluation processes and pre-donation information should be updated. In general, the living kidney donor is female, aged 50, with primary/secondary education, lives with a partner and is related to the kidney recipient. Also, the living kidney donor is in paid employment, is overweight, perceives her health as very good or good, and does not smoke or drink alcohol. However, the typical living kidney recipient is male, aged 44 and has completed secondary school studies and vocational training. Furthermore, he does not work, perceives his health as good or regular, and he is an independent person for activities of daily living.

Anesthesia Management of Organ Donors

The shortage of suitable organs is the biggest obstacle for transplants. At present, most organs for transplant in the United States are from donation after neurologic determination of death (brain death). Potential organs for transplant need to maintain their viability during a series of insults, including the original disease, physiologic derangements during the dying process, ischemia, and reperfusion. Proper donor management before, during, and after procurement has potential to increase the number and quality of organs from donors. Anesthesiologists need to understand the physiologic derangements associated with brain death and the updated donor management during the periprocurement period.

Summary of Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

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.

KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

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.

Risk of End-Stage Renal Disease in HIV-Positive Potential Live Kidney Donors

New federal regulations allow HIV-positive individuals to be live kidney donors; however, potential candidacy for donation is poorly understood given the increased risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) associated with HIV infection. To better understand this risk, we compared the incidence of ESRD among 41 968 HIV-positive participants of North America AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design followed for a median of 5 years with the incidence of ESRD among comparable HIV-negative participants of National Health and Nutrition Examination III followed for a median of 14 years. We used risk associations from multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to derive cumulative incidence estimates for selected HIV-positive scenarios (no history of diabetes, hypertension, AIDS, or hepatitis C virus coinfection) and compared these estimates with those from similarly selected HIV-negative scenarios. For 40-year-old HIV-positive individuals with health characteristics that were similar to those of age-matched kidney donors, viral load <400 copies/mL, and CD4⁺ count ≥500 cells/μL, the 9-year cumulative incidence of ESRD was higher than that of their HIV-negative peers, yet still low: 2.5 versus 1.1 per 10 000 among white women, 3.0 versus 1.3 per 10 000 among white men, 13.2 versus 3.6 per 10 000 among black women, and 15.8 versus 4.4 per 10 000 among black men. HIV-positive individuals with no comorbidities and well-controlled disease may be considered low-risk kidney donor candidates.

GFR Evaluation in Living Kidney Donor Candidates

Evaluation of GFR, required in the evaluation of living kidney donor candidates, is now receiving increasing emphasis because recent data demonstrate increased risk of kidney disease after donation, including a small increase in the risk of kidney failure. The international guideline development group, Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes, recently published a comprehensive set of recommendations for living donor evaluation, with three recommendations regarding GFR. (1) Donor candidacy is evaluated in light of long-term risk, in which GFR is one of many factors. ESRD is considered a central outcome, and a method for estimating long-term risk of ESRD in donor candidates is described. (2) Two GFR thresholds are used for decision-making: a high threshold (≥90 ml/min per 1.73 m2) to accept and a low threshold (<60 ml/min per 1.73 m2) to decline, with 60-89 ml/min per 1.73 m2 as an intermediate range in which the decision to accept or decline is made on the basis of factors in addition to GFR. (3) GFR is evaluated using several methods available at the transplant center, including estimating equations and clearance measurements. We review the rationale for the guideline recommendations, principles of GFR measurement and estimation, and our suggestions for implementation.

Death of recipients after kidney living donation triples donors' risk of dropping out from follow-up: a retrospective study

Although kidney transplantation from the donation of a living donor is a safe treatment for end-stage renal disease, inferences about safety of living kidney donors might be biased by an informative censoring caused by the noninclusion of a substantial percentage of donors lost to follow-up. With the aim of assessing the presence of a potential informative censoring in living kidney donation outcomes of Catalan donors for a period of 12 years, 573 donors followed and lost to follow-up were compared. Losses of follow-up over time were also assessed by univariate and multivariate survival analysis, along with Cox regression. Younger and older ages, and the death of their recipient differentiated those donors who were lost to follow-up over time. The risk of dropping out from follow-up was more than twofold for the youngest and oldest donors, and almost threefold for those donors whose recipient died. Results of studies on postdonation outcomes of Catalan living kidney donors might have overlooked older and younger cases, and, remarkably, a percentage of donors whose recipient died. If these donors showed a higher incidence of psychological problems, conclusions about living donors' safety might be compromised thus emphasizing the necessity of sustained surveillance of donors and prompt identification of these cases.

Glomerular Hyperfiltration in Diabetes: Mechanisms, Clinical Significance, and Treatment

An absolute, supraphysiologic elevation in GFR is observed early in the natural history in 10%-67% and 6%-73% of patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, respectively. Moreover, at the single-nephron level, diabetes-related renal hemodynamic alterations-as an adaptation to reduction in functional nephron mass and/or in response to prevailing metabolic and (neuro)hormonal stimuli-increase glomerular hydraulic pressure and transcapillary convective flux of ultrafiltrate and macromolecules. This phenomenon, known as glomerular hyperfiltration, classically has been hypothesized to predispose to irreversible nephron damage, thereby contributing to initiation and progression of kidney disease in diabetes. However, dedicated studies with appropriate diagnostic measures and clinically relevant end points are warranted to confirm this assumption. In this review, we summarize the hitherto proposed mechanisms involved in diabetic hyperfiltration, focusing on ultrastructural, vascular, and tubular factors. Furthermore, we review available evidence on the clinical significance of hyperfiltration in diabetes and discuss currently available and emerging interventions that may attenuate this renal hemodynamic abnormality. The revived interest in glomerular hyperfiltration as a prognostic and pathophysiologic factor in diabetes may lead to improved and timely detection of (progressive) kidney disease, and could provide new therapeutic opportunities in alleviating the renal burden in this population.

Patterns of End-Stage Renal Disease Caused by Diabetes, Hypertension, and Glomerulonephritis in Live Kidney Donors

Inferences about late risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in live kidney donors have been extrapolated from studies averaging <10 years of follow-up. Because early (<10 years) and late (≥10 years) postdonation ESRD may differ by causal mechanism, it is possible that extrapolations are misleading. To better understand postdonation ESRD, we studied patterns of common etiologies including diabetes, hypertension and glomerulonephritis (GN; as reported by providers) using donor registry data linked to ESRD registry data. Overall, 125 427 donors were observed for a median of 11.0 years (interquartile range 5.3-15.7 years; maximum 25 years). The cumulative incidence of ESRD increased from 10 events per 10 000 at 10 years after donation to 85 events per 10 000 at 25 years after donation (late vs. early ESRD, adjusted for age, race and sex: incidence rate ratio [IRR] _1.3 1.7_2.3 [subscripts are 95% confidence intervals]). Early postdonation ESRD was predominantly reported as GN-ESRD; however, late postdonation ESRD was more frequently reported as diabetic ESRD and hypertensive ESRD (IRR _2.3 7.7_25.2 and _1.4 2.6_4.6 , respectively). These time-dependent patterns were not seen with GN-ESRD (IRR _0.4 0.7_1.2 ). Because ESRD in live kidney donors has traditionally been reported in studies averaging <10 years of follow-up, our findings suggest caution in extrapolating such results over much longer intervals.

Abnormalities in biomarkers of mineral and bone metabolism in kidney donors

Previous studies have suggested that kidney donors may have abnormalities of mineral and bone metabolism typically seen in chronic kidney disease. This may have important implications for the skeletal health of living kidney donors and for our understanding of the pathogenesis of long-term mineral and bone disorders in chronic kidney disease. In this prospective study, 182 of 203 kidney donors and 173 of 201 paired normal controls had markers of mineral and bone metabolism measured before and at 6 and 36 months after donation (ALTOLD Study). Donors had significantly higher serum concentrations of intact parathyroid hormone (24.6% and 19.5%) and fibroblast growth factor-23 (9.5% and 8.4%) at 6 and 36 months, respectively, as compared to healthy controls, and significantly reduced tubular phosphate reabsorption (-7.0% and -5.0%) and serum phosphate concentrations (-6.4% and -2.3%). Serum 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 concentrations were significantly lower (-17.1% and -12.6%), while 25-hydroxyvitamin D (21.4% and 19.4%) concentrations were significantly higher in donors compared to controls. Moreover, significantly higher concentrations of the bone resorption markers, carboxyterminal cross-linking telopeptide of bone collagen (30.1% and 13.8%) and aminoterminal cross-linking telopeptide of bone collagen (14.2% and 13.0%), and the bone formation markers, osteocalcin (26.3% and 2.7%) and procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (24.3% and 8.9%), were observed in donors. Thus, kidney donation alters serum markers of bone metabolism that could reflect impaired bone health. Additional long-term studies that include assessment of skeletal architecture and integrity are warranted in kidney donors.

Live kidney donation: are concerns about long-term safety justified?-A methodological review

Live kidney donors are exhaustively screened pre-donation, creating a cohort inherently healthier at baseline than the general population. In recent years, three renowned research groups reported unfavourable outcomes for live kidney donors post-donation that contradicted their previous studies. Here, we compared the study design and analysis of the most recent and previous studies to determine whether the different outcomes were due to methodological design or reflect a real potential disadvantage for living kidney donors. All six studies on long-term risk after live kidney donation were thoroughly screened for the selection of study population, controls, data quality, and statistical analysis. Our detailed review of the methodology revealed key differences with respect to selection of donors and compared non-donors, data quality, follow-up duration, and statistical analysis. In all studies, the comparison group of non-donors was healthier than the donors due to more extensive exclusion criteria for non-donors. Five of the studies used both restriction and matching to address potential confounding. Different matching strategies and statistical analyses were used in the more recent studies compared to previous studies and follow-up was longer. Recently published papers still face bias. Strong points compared to initial analyses are the extended follow-up time, large sample sizes and better analysis, hence increasing the reliability to estimate potential risks for living kidney donors on the long-term. Future studies should focus on equal selection criteria for donors and non-donors, and in the analysis, follow-up duration, matched sets, and low absolute risks among donors should be accounted for when choosing the statistical technique.