Pregnancy-Induced Sensitization Promotes Sex Disparity in Living Donor Kidney Transplantation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bromberger B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5619956 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionOwing to organ shortage, the number of kidney transplantation (KT) involving older adult living donors is increasing. We aimed to investigate the effects of living-donor age and donor-recipient age differences on KT outcomes.MethodsThis single-center, retrospective cohort study involved 853 adult LDKTs performed between January 2008 and December 2018. Recipients were stratified into the following 5 groups based on donor age and donor-recipient age difference: donor age, 30 to 49 years and age difference, -10 to 15 years; donor age, 50 to 69 years and age difference, -10 to 15 years; donor age, 50 to 69 years and age difference, 15 to 40 years; donor age, 70 to 89 years and age difference, -10 to 15 years; and donor age, 70 to 89 years and age difference, 15 to 40 years (groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively). As a primary outcome, the risk of graft loss was investigated. The secondary outcomes were postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs) and mortality rates of recipients.ResultsGroup 4, representing KT between older adult donors and older adult recipients, had the highest graft loss risk and mortality. The eGFRs of the recipients from donors aged 70 to 89 years (groups 4 and 5) were significantly lower than those from donors in the other groups. Although the differences in the eGFR between groups 4 and 5 were not significant, the eGFR of group 4 was lower than that of group 5 at 6 months post-KT.ConclusionLDKTs from older adult donors to older adult recipients resulted in the worst graft survival and mortality rates.
| S-EPMC8640566 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundABO incompatible kidney transplantation (ABOi-KT) is an important approach for overcoming donor shortages. We evaluated the effect of ABOi-KT on living donor KT.MethodsTwo nationwide transplantation databases were used. We evaluated the impact of ABOi-KT on overall living donor transplant activity and spousal donation as subgroup analysis. In addition, we compared the clinical outcome between ABOi-KT and ABO compatible KT (ABOc-KT) from spousal donor, and performed a Cox proportional hazards regression analysis to define the risk factors affecting the allograft outcomes.ResultThe introduction of ABOi-KT increased overall living donor KT by 12.2% and its portion was increased from 0.3% to 21.7% during study period. The ABOi-KT in living unrelated KT was two times higher than that of living related donor KT (17.8 vs.9.8%). Spousal donor was a major portion of living unrelated KT (77.6%) and ABOi-KT increased spousal donation from 10% to 31.5% in living donor KT. In addition, increasing rate ABOi-KT from spousal donor was 10 times higher than that of living related donor. The clinical outcome (incidence of acute rejection, allograft function, and allograft and patient survival rates) of ABOi-KT from spousal donor was comparable to that of ABOc-KT. Neither ABO incompatibility nor spousal donor was associated with acute rejection or allograft failure on multivariate analysis.ConclusionsABOi-KT increased overall living donor KT, and ABOi-KT from spousal donor is rapidly increasing with favorable clinical outcomes.
| S-EPMC5360260 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE OF REVIEW:For the more than 636,000 adults with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in the U.S., kidney transplantation is the preferred treatment compared to dialysis. Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) comprised 31% of kidney transplantations in 2015, an 8% decrease since 2004. We aimed to summarize the current literature on decision aids that could be used to improve LDKT rates. RECENT FINDINGS:Decision aids are evidence-based tools designed to help patients and their families make difficult treatment decisions. LDKT decision aids can help ESRD patients, patients' family and friends, and healthcare providers engage in treatment decisions and thereby overcome multifactorial LDKT barriers. SUMMARY:We identified 12 LDKT decision aids designed to provide information about LDKT, and/or to help ESRD patients identify potential living donors, and/or to help healthcare providers make decisions about treatment for ESRD or living donation. Of these, 4 were shown to be effective in increasing LDKT, donor inquiries, LDKT knowledge, and willingness to discuss LDKT. Although each LDKT decision aid has limitations, adherence to decision aid development guidelines may improve decision aid utilization and access to LDKT.
| S-EPMC5638125 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Choosing between multiple living kidney donors, or evaluating offers in kidney paired donation, can be challenging because no metric currently exists for living donor quality. Furthermore, some deceased donor (DD) kidneys can result in better outcomes than some living donor kidneys, yet there is no way to compare them on the same scale. To better inform clinical decision-making, we created a living kidney donor profile index (LKDPI) on the same scale as the DD KDPI, using Cox regression and adjusting for recipient characteristics. Donor age over 50 (hazard ratio [HR] per 10 years = 1.15 1.241.33 ), elevated BMI (HR per 10 units = 1.01 1.091.16 ), African-American race (HR = 1.15 1.251.37 ), cigarette use (HR = 1.09 1.161.23 ), as well as ABO incompatibility (HR = 1.03 1.271.58 ), HLA B (HR = 1.03 1.081.14 ) mismatches, and DR (HR = 1.04 1.091.15 ) mismatches were associated with greater risk of graft loss after living donor transplantation (all p < 0.05). Median (interquartile range) LKDPI score was 13 (1-27); 24.2% of donors had LKDPI < 0 (less risk than any DD kidney), and 4.4% of donors had LKDPI > 50 (more risk than the median DD kidney). The LKDPI is a useful tool for comparing living donor kidneys to each other and to deceased donor kidneys.
| S-EPMC6114098 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9321064 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is ethnic inequity in access to living-donor kidney transplants in the UK. This study asked kidney patients from Black, Asian and minority ethnic groups why members of their family were not able to be living kidney donors. Responses were compared with responses from White individuals. This questionnaire-based mixed-methods study included adults transplanted between 1/4/13-31/3/17 at 14 UK hospitals. Participants were asked to indicate why relatives could not donate, selecting all options applicable from: Age; Health; Weight; Location; Financial/Cost; Job; Blood group; No-one to care for them after donation. A box entitled 'Other-please give details' was provided for free-text entries. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyse the association between the likelihood of selecting each reason for non-donation and the participant's self-reported ethnicity. Qualitative responses were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. In total, 1240 questionnaires were returned (40% response). There was strong evidence that Black, Asian and minority ethnic group individuals were more likely than White people to indicate that family members lived too far away to donate (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 3.25, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 2.30-4.58), were prevented from donating by financial concerns (aOR = 2.95, 95% CI 2.02-4.29), were unable to take time off work (aOR = 1.88, 95% CI 1.18-3.02), were "not the right blood group" (aOR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.35-2.01), or had no-one to care for them post-donation (aOR = 3.73, 95% CI 2.60-5.35). Four qualitative themes were identified from responses from Black, Asian and minority ethnic group participants: 'Burden of disease within the family'; 'Differing religious interpretations'; 'Geographical concerns'; and 'A culture of silence'. Patients perceive barriers to living kidney donation in the UK Black, Asian and minority ethnic population. If confirmed, these could be targeted by interventions to redress the observed ethnic inequity.
| S-EPMC7700269 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The introduction of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been one of the most remarkable steps in the field of liver transplantation (LT). First introduced for children in 1989, its adoption for adults has followed only 10 years later. As the demand for LT continues to increase, LDLT provides life-saving therapy for many patients who would otherwise die awaiting a cadaveric organ. In recent years, LDLT has been shown to be a clinically safe addition to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) and has been able to significantly extend the scarce donor pool. As long as the donor shortage continues to increase, LDLT will play an important role in the future of LT.
| S-EPMC2131378 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundLiving donor kidney transplantation has declined in the United States since 2004, but the relationship between population characteristics and rate of living donation is unknown. The goal of our study was to use data on general population health and socioeconomic status to investigate the association with living donation.MethodsThis cross-sectional, ecological study used population health and socioeconomic status data from the CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to investigate the association with living donation. Transplant centers performing 10 or greater kidney transplants reported to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients in 2015 were included. Center rate of living donation was defined as the proportion of all kidney transplants performed at a center that were from living donors.ResultsIn a linear mixed-effects model, a composite index of health and socioeconomic status factors was negatively associated with living donation, with a rate of living donation that was on average 7.3 percentage points lower among centers in areas with more comorbid disease and poorer socioeconomic status (95% confidence interval, -12.2 to -2.3, P = 0.004). Transplant centers in areas with higher prevalence of minorities had a rate of living donation that was 7.1 percentage points lower than centers with fewer minorities (95% confidence interval, -11.8 to -2.3, P = 0.004).ConclusionsCenter-level variation in living donation was associated with population characteristics and minority prevalence. Further examination of these factors in the context of patient and center-level barriers to living donation is warranted.
| S-EPMC6249044 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionStudying existing health systems with variable living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) performance and understanding factors that drive these differences can inform comprehensive system-level approaches to improve LDKT. We aimed to quantify previously identified barriers and estimate their association with LDKT performance.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of health professionals (HPs). Statements, rated on a Likert scale of "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree", captured themes related to communication; role perception; HP's education, training and comfort; attitudes; referral process; patient; as well as resources and infrastructure. The percentage who agreed with these statements was analyzed and compared by LDKT performance (living donation rates higher or lower than the national average) and participant characteristics.ResultsWe obtained 353 complete responses. Themes related to poor communication, poor role perception, and HPs education or training or comfort emerged as barriers to LDKT. When compared with HPs from high-performing provinces, those from low-performing provinces had lower odds of agreeing that their province promoted LDKT (adjusted odd ratio [aOR] = 0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.16-0.48). They also had lower odds of initiating discussions about LDKT (aOR = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.17-0.55), and higher odds of agreeing that the transplant team is best suited to discuss LDKT (aOR = 2.64, 95% CI: 1.60-4.33) and that more resources would increase LDKT discussions (aOR = 2.06, 95% CI: 1.25-3.40). Nonphysician role and less than 10 years of experience were associated with the level of agreement across several themes. Creating guidelines, streamlining evaluations, and improving communication were ranked as priorities to increase LDKT.ConclusionThere are system-level barriers to LDKT and some were more prevalent in low-performing provinces. Interventions to eliminate them should be implemented in conjunction with patient-level interventions as part of a comprehensive system-level approach to increase LDKT.
| S-EPMC9751709 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDonors bravely donate their kidneys because they expect that living donor kidney transplantation (LKT) confers benefits to recipients. However, the magnitude of the survival benefit of LKT is uncertain.MethodsThis prospective cohort study used two Japanese nationwide databases for dialysis and kidney transplantation and included 862 LKT recipients and 285,242 hemodialysis (HD) patients in the main model and 5299 LKT recipients and 151,074 HD patients in the supplementary model. We employed time-dependent model in the main model and assessed the hazard ratio and the difference in the restricted mean survival time (RMST) between LKT recipients and HD patients. In the main analysis of the main model (LKT, N = 675; HD, N = 675), we matched LKT recipients with HD patients by age, sex, dialysis vintage, and cause of renal failure and excluded HD patients with dementia or performance status grades 2, 3, or 4.ResultsThe median observational period was 8.00 (IQR 3.58-8.00) years. LKT was significantly associated with a lower risk of mortality (hazard ratios (95% confidence interval (CI)), 0.50 (0.35-0.72)) and an increase in life expectancy (7-year RMST differences (95% CI), 0.48 (0.35-0.60) years) compared with HD. In subgroup analysis, the survival benefit of LKT was greater in female patients than in male patients in the Cox model; whereas older patients gained longer life expectancy compared with younger patients.ConclusionsLKT was associated with better survival benefits than HD, and the estimated increase in life expectancy was 0.48 years for 7 years.
| S-EPMC10808530 | biostudies-literature