Global kidney chains

Kidney xenotransplantation: Future clinical reality or science fiction?

There is a global shortage of organs for transplantation and despite many governments making significant changes to their organ donation systems, there are not enough kidneys available to meet the demand. This has led scientists and clinicians to explore alternative means of meeting this organ shortfall. One of the alternatives to human organ transplantation is xenotransplantation, which is the transplantation of organs, tissues, or cells between different species. The resurgence of interest in xenotransplantation and recent scientific breakthroughs suggest that genetically engineered pigs may soon present a realistic alternative as sources of kidneys for clinical transplantation. It is therefore important for healthcare professionals to understand what is involved in xenotransplantation and its future implications for their clinical practices. First, we explore the insufficiency of different organ donation systems to meet the kidney shortage. Second, we provide a background and a summary of the progress made so far in xenotransplantation research. Third, we discuss some of the scientific, technological, ethical, and public health issues associated with xenotransplantation. Finally, we summarize the literature on the attitudes of healthcare professionals toward xenotransplantation.

Short-term outcome of kidney transplantation from deceased donors with nephrolithiasis

OBJECTIVES

Shortage of kidney allografts is a major barrier to end-stage renal disease patients receiving kidney transplantation, and it is necessary to enlarge the donor pool and find better ways of using available allografts. The global incidence of nephrolithiasis is increasing, nephrolithiasis affects approximately 10% of adults worldwide, and it also affects the kidney donors. However, there is little information about the use of cadaveric kidney allografts with nephrolithiasis. This study aims to evaluate the safety and outcome of kidney transplantation with allografts from the deceased donors with nephrolithiasis.

METHODS

A total of 520 deceased donors who was at least 10 years old, and 945 adult recipients with single kidney transplantation at the Department of Kidney Transplantation, the Second Xiangya Hospital from 2016 to 2020 were included in this study. The donors were divided into 2 groups according to nephrolithiasis diagnoses: The donors with nephrolithiasis (D + ) and the donors without nephrolithiasis (D - ). The recipients were assigned into 3 groups according to their donors and the allografts they received: The allografts from donors without nephrolithiasis (D - K - ), the allografts without nephrolithiasis from donors with nephrolithiasis (D + K - ), and the allografts with nephrolithiasis (D + K + ). The demographic and clinical data of enrolled subjects were retrospectively analyzed. The allograft discard ratio between different donors were analyzed. The one-year survival of allografts and recipients, as well as the allograft function and the complications of kidney transplantation were compared.

RESULTS

Fifty out of 520 donors had nephrolithiasis, and the nephrolithiasis incidence was 9.6%. We recovered 1 040 kidneys, and total discard rate was 4.4% (46/1 040). The D + group had a rate of 7% discard. The donors with kidney discard accounted for 12% in the D + group, and this was higher than that of donors in the D - group (5.1%, P <0.05). The total incidence of delayed graft function (DGF) was 7.5%, and there were no significant differences in the incidence of DGF in recipients among the D - K - , D + K - , and D + K + group (7.5% vs 6.5% vs 8.2%, P> 0.05). During the one-year follow-up, 8 allografts lost function and 19 recipients died with a functional allograft. Recipients in the D - K - , D + K - ,and D + K + groups also had no significant difference between a one-year allograft and patient survival rate ( P >0.05). However, recipients in the D + K + group had a higher level of serum creatinine [(139.2±62.46) μmol/L vs (117.19±51.22) μmol/L, P <0.05] and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR; (56.67±23.31) mL/(min·1.73 m -2 ) vs (66.86±21.90) mL/(min·1.73 m -2 ), P <0.05] compared with recipients in the D - K - group at 12 months after transplantation. During the first year after transplantation, 4 recipients developed urolithiasis, and recipients who received allografts from the D + group donors had a higher incidence of urolithiasis than those who received allografts from the D - group donors (2.2% vs 0.2%, P <0.05). There were no significant differences in the incidence of urinary tract infections and ureteral strictures at 1 year between recipients of D + and D - donors (both P >0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The cadaveric kidney allografts with nephrolithiasis could be safely used for transplantation, and the short-term outcome is acceptable. However, nephrolithiasis in donors may increase the rate of kidney discard, disturb the short-term function of allografts, and increase the risk of urolithiasis in recipients. Further research with a long-term study is needed to verify the long-term outcome of kidney transplantation using cadaveric kidney allografts with nephrolithiasis.

Ethical Solutions to the Problem of Organ Shortage

Organ shortage is a major survival issue for millions of people worldwide. Globally 1.2 million people die each year from kidney failure. In this paper, we critically examine and find lacking extant proposals for increasing organ supply, such as opting in and opt out for deceased donor organs, and parochial altruism and paired kidney exchange for live organs. We defend two ethical solutions to the problem of organ shortage. One is to make deceased donor organs automatically available for transplant without requiring consent from the donor or their relatives. The other is for society to buy nonvital organs in a strictly regulated market and provide them to people in need for free.