The use of elderly living donors in renal transplantation

The safety and the results of using living donors above the age of 60 years were studied. In 235 consecutive donors the complications were not different in elderly (n=70) compared to younger donors. Graft survival and function were studied in 232 consecutive 1-HLA-haplotype mismatched grafts. Graft survival at 1 year was equivalent (87% vs. 92%), but after 2–6 years graft survival was inferior in recipients of older grafts (n=62). The recipients of older grafts were 10 years older, and patient death with functioning graft was a more frequent cause of graft loss. Up to 4 years serum creatinine levels were significantly higher, but stable, in recipients of older grafts; at 5 years the difference was not significant. It is concluded that the use of elderly living donors is safe. Taking recipient age into consideration, graft survival is not different in the two groups. Graft function in older grafts is some what inferior, but stable.     

成人"两供一受"肝移植的进展

为拓宽肝移植的供体来源,成人活体肝移植(livingdonorlivertransplantation,LDLT)现已开展并取得良好的临床效果。但成人LDLT的最大障碍是移植肝量的不足,通常移植左肝不能满足成人的代谢需求,因此大多采用右叶LDLT,但由于切取右肝的风险而限制了其广泛应用。虽然现世界上很多肝移植中心都能开展成人右叶LDLT,据一组74例成人右叶LDLT资料显示术后供体无并发症者占59.5%,轻微并发症者占27.0%,严重并发症者占13.5%,受体的1年成活率为79.4%[1]。但从伦理学角度来看,LDLT的首要原则是确保供者的安全,首先要使供者残肝能再生代偿,其次…     

Utilization of elderly donors in living related kidney transplantation

Kidney transplantation has become the treatment of choice for end-stage renal disease. However, its application is limited due to inadequate organ supply, mainly because many dialysis patients do not have suitable living donors. The increasing discrepancy between organ supply and demand has forced many transplant centers to consider using organs procured from marginal donors. The aim of this study was to investigate whether utilization of kidneys from living related elderly donors is safe for the recipients in the long term. We analyzed the clinical results of 296 consecutive recipients of living related renal transplants, among whom 44 recipients received kidneys from donors over 60 years of age. By the end of 12 months, the mean serum creatinine level of the recipients who were transplanted from the older donors was higher (1.55 +/- 0.45 mg/dL) than that from other donors (1.21 +/- 0.3 mg/dL), but the difference was not significant (P = .08). In the long term (60 months), the graft function was similar (1.88 +/- 0.55 vs 1.52 +/- 0.38) for both groups. The similarity in outcomes of ideal versus older donors as shown less in the present series has encouraged us to utilize elderly living donors. We concluded that transplantations performed from the elderly donors yielded similar results to those of conventional donors. The long waiting list for transplantation, the treatment of choice for end-stage renal disease, should encourage us to be more flexible about donor selection.     

20-year experience with elderly donors in living renal transplantation

PURPOSE: This study evaluates the impact of living renal donors (LD) aged 60 years and older on graft performance and patient survival in an old-for-young constellation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed 144 consecutive LDs between January 1983 and December 2002 (19 patients 60+/125 controls). RESULTS: Mean donor age in the 60+ group was 63.7 (+/- 2.6) years and 43.7 (+/- 9.0) years for the <60 group. Mean recipient age was 42.4 (+/- 15.2) years versus 32.6 (+/- 15.3) years HLA-A, -B, and DR-mismatches were 3.16 (+/- 1.3) for the 60+ group and 3.13 (+/- 1.7) for the controls (P = NS). Rejection episodes in the first year following LD did not differ (53% versus 33%, P =.25). Mean serum creatinine for 65+ versus <65 after 1, 3, and 12 months was 1.91 +/- 1.2 versus 1.48 +/- 0.85 mg/dL (P =.16), 1.82 +/- 0.89 versus 1.29 +/- 0.35 mg/dL (P <.05) and 1.80 +/- 0.31 versus 1.37 +/- 0.38 mg/dL (P <.05) and mean creatinine clearance at 12 months 62 versus 82 mL/min (P =.06). Censored 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft survival was 100% versus 95% (P = NS), 100% versus 93% (P = NS) and 100% versus 83% (P = NS) with no significant difference in the log-rank test for Kaplan Meier. CONCLUSION: No impact of donor age was found for graft survival but function of the 65+ kidneys at 3 and 12 months was reduced. Living renal donors 60+ are acceptable for carefully allocated recipients.     

Ethical aspects of renal transplantation from living donors

Kidney transplantation from living donors is widely performed all over the world. Living nephrectomy for transplantation has no direct advantages for the donor other than increased self-esteem, but it at least remains an extremely safe procedure, with a worldwide overall mortality of 0.03%. This theoretical risk for the donor seems to be justified by the socioeconomic advantages and increased quality of life of the recipient, especially in selected cases, such as pediatric patients, when living donor kidney transplantation can be performed in a preuremic phase, avoiding the psychological and physical stress of dialysis, which in children is not well tolerated and cannot prevent retarded growth. According to the Ethical Council of the Transplantation Society, commercialism must be effectively prevented, not only for ethical but also medical reasons. The risks are too high, not only for the donors, but also for the recipients, as a consequence of poor donor screening and evaluation with consequent transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or other infective agents, as well as of inappropriate medical and surgical management of donors and also recipients, who are often discharged too early. Most public or private insurance companies consider kidney donation a safe procedure without long-term impairment and therefore do not increase the premium, whereas recipient insurance of course should cover hospital fees for the donors. "Rewarded gifting" or other financial incentives to compensate for the inconvenience and loss of income related to the donation are not advisable, at least in our opinion. Our Center does not perform anonymous living organ donation or "cross-over" transplantation.     

Ethical considerations on kidney transplantation from living donors

Kidney transplantation from living donors is widely performed all over the world. Living nephrectomy for transplantation has no direct advantage for the donor other than increased self-esteem, but at least remains an extremely safe procedure, with a worldwide overall mortality rate of 0.03%. This theoretical risk to the donor seems to be justified by the socioeconomic advantages and increased quality of life of the recipient, especially in selected cases, such as pediatric patients, when living donor kidney transplantation can be performed in a preuremic phase, avoiding the psychological and physical stress of dialysis, which in children is not well tolerated and cannot prevent retarded growth. According to the Ethical Council of the Transplantation Society, commercialism must be prevented, not only for ethical but also medical reasons. The risks are too high not only for the donors, but also for the recipients, as a consequence of poor donor screening and evaluation with consequent transmission of human immunodeficiency virus or other infectious agents, as well as inappropriate medical and surgical management of donors and also of recipients, who are often discharged too early. Most public or private insurance companies are considering kidney donation a safe procedure without long-term impairment and, therefore, do not increase the premium, whereas recipient insurance of course should cover hospital fees for the donors. "Rewarded gifting" or other financial incentives to compensate for the inconvenience and loss of income related to the donation are not advisable, at least in our opinion. Our center does not perform anonymous living organ donation or "cross-over" transplantation.     

Partial liver transplantation from living related donors.

Living related liver transplantation was performed in five cases between June 1989 and July 1991 at Shinshu University Hospital. All of the donors were fathers of the patients and blood type was identical in each case. All of them were discharged from the hospital 2 weeks after hepatectomy without any complications. They started to work 2 months after surgery. Four recipients are surviving but one died. Three are enjoying daily life 17 months after LT in case 1, 5 months after LT in case 4, and 4 months after LT in case 5. Case 2 is still in the hospital 14 months after LT. Advantages of LRLT we noted were (1) cases can be performed totally electively and allow full preparation for the family and the transplant team, (2) primary graft nonfunction has not been observed to date, and (3) 38 patients received the chance of liver transplantation in their own country, which under current legislation would not otherwise have been possible. Disadvantages of LRLT were (1) partial hepatectomy was performed in healthy persons, and (2) retransplantation is difficult.     

Anaesthesia for lobar lung transplantation from living donors

The shortage of cadaveric organs for transplantation has led to the increasing use of organs from living donors. Transplantation offers an increased length and quality of life for patients with end stage lung disease, although up to 30% of patients die before a cadaveric organ becomes available. This article summarizes the experience of lung transplantation from living donors at one United Kingdom centre. Donor and recipient selection will be outlined, and the perioperative management of both discussed. The ethical considerations of the use of lung tissue from living donors are also considered at length and common complications discussed.     

Optimization of kidney transplantation from elderly donors

Operations of transplantation of kidneys taken from donors with expanded criteria with satisfactory results were made on 27 recipients of the older age group (from 60 through 76 years). Standard transplantation of the kidney was made to 20 recipients, and dual renal transplantation to 7 recipients. Mean level of creatinine in elderly patients on the 21st day was (340.9 +/- 49.3) microM/l, on the 90th day (124.6 +/- 6.9) microMl/l.     

Renal transplantation with aged donors

Research indicates that aged heart-beating cadaveric donors cause greater risk factors in kidney transplantation. The influence of age on the outcome of non-heart-beating (NHB) cadaveric renal transplantations has not yet been clarified. From July 1986 to May 1999, 63 patients who received cadaveric renal transplantation at Osaka City University Hospital and Osaka City General Hospital were divided into two groups according to their age. Renal function and graft-survival rates of the two groups were compared. The mean values of nadir donor serum creatinine were significantly worse (P < 0.05) in the aged donor group. In the aged donor group the percentage of immediately functioning grafts was lower and the percentage of non-functioning grafts was higher. During the first 10 years post-transplant, graft survival in the aged donor group was significantly lower than that in the younger donor group. We conclude that cadaveric renal transplantation from NHB aged donors can be to the detriment of renal function and graft survival rates compared to transplantation from younger donors.     

Successful transplantation of ectopic kidneys from living related donors

Two ectopic pelvic kidneys were transplanted from living donors into well matched recipients. Both kidneys have good function at two and four years post transplantation and there has been no evidence of infection post transplantation. Such kidneys can be utilized when there is no evidence of obstruction or infection in the donor and when the contralateral kidney is normal.     

Legal questions in organ transplantation from living donors]

From the perspective of the German legal system it is clear that the donation of organs by living donors should be the exception, but cadaver donors the rule. Nevertheless, the legislature has deemed it necessary to regulate the organ donation of living donors. Without a great lot of political debate requirements have been established for these donors and criminal provisions created prohibiting the dealing with human organs. This paper will first address the question on how the current legislation came about and whether a statutory rule was even necessary. An in-depth analysis of the statute will follow in which open questions and ambiguities of the text will be explained.