Bariatric surgery for prospective living kidney donors with obesity?

The obesity epidemic has gripped the transplant community. With nearly 40% of adults in the United States being obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m²) and 20% being morbidly obese (BMI ≥35 kg/m²), the implications for both donors and recipients of solid organs continue to grow.¹ Nowhere is this more impactful than the candidacy of living kidney donors (LKDs). As increasing numbers of obese adults present for LKD consideration and evidence of inferior outcomes among obese LKDs grows, transplant surgeons will become progressively challenged by how to manage these patients in the clinic. Therefore, we offer this Personal Viewpoint to the transplant surgery community in order to review the current impact of obesity on living kidney donation, highlight what weight‐loss interventions have already been attempted, and discuss the role that referral for weight‐loss interventions including bariatric surgery might have going forward.     

Preoperative evaluation of living related kidney donor: which kidney to donate?

OBJECTIVES: As the number of cadaveric donor is far beyond the demand of the waiting list, living related kidney transplantation is important for the worldwide organ shortage. Besides, living related transplantation has advantages compared with cadaveric transplantation in terms of graft function and survival. However, the remaining kidney function of the living donor needs to be evaluated. METHODS: We collected 28 paired living kidney donations from March 2003 to March 2005. All patients underwent laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. The preoperative kidney evaluation included renal echography, renal nuclear scan, computed tomography angiography (CTA), and creatinine clearance (CCr). The renal function of the donor kidney was expressed as (donor kidney/both kidneys)%. The percentage renal function from renal echography, renal nuclear scan, and CTA were correlated with CCr. RESULTS: The mean percentage of donor kidney function according to renal echo, nuclear scan, and CTA were 49.77%, 51.83%, and 50.70%, respectively. The correlation coefficients for renal echography, nuclear scan, and CTA to CCr were -0.316, -0.201, and 0.123, respectively. The correlation coefficients for renal echography, nuclear scan, and CTA to postoperative serum creatinine of donor were 0.426, 0.036, and -0.119, respectively. CONCLUSION: From the viewpoint of donor postoperative residual renal function, preoperative renal sonography offered a better predictive value than nuclear scan or CTA.     

Expanding criteria for living kidney donors: what are the limits?

The need to evaluate potential living kidney donors is more pressing than ever before. Evaluating the potential medical risks to individual donors presents both medical and ethical questions related to quantitative hazards of donor nephrectomy. These include conditions commonly associated with age, such as the decline in glomerular filtration rate, the rise in arterial pressures, and weight gain. The “normal” ranges for many of these characteristics are changing as their importance as predictors of cardiovascular risk is reevaluated and the duration of exposure for a lifetime is considered. Many older donors in good health favor donating a kidney to a spouse, despite the presence of elevated blood pressure or even impaired glucose tolerance. The Mayo Kidney/Pancreas transplant program established an “extended criteria workgroup” to address these issues on an individual basis. Our program now stratifies medical criteria based upon age, allowing more liberal criteria for older donors. As a result, we accept treated hypertension in white donors, emphasizing the importance of informed consent and the need for vigilant follow-up. Our greatest concern relates to the development of obesity, particularly in younger individuals. Many of the long-term results of kidney donation are likely to hinge upon future behavior, including smoking, weight management, and medical follow-up care. Older donors are more likely to have established behavior patterns, an element that makes them better candidates in many respects. Studies to closely track the impact of donor nephrectomy in the current era with changing population demographics and expectations are essential.     

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.     

Native kidney small renal masses in patients with kidney transplants: Does chronic immunosuppression affect tumor biology?

IntroductionWe compared clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes of radical nephrectomy (RN) for small renal masses (SRM) in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) before or after transplant at a high-volume urologic and transplant center.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of patients with ESRD (glomerular filtration rate [GFR] <15 mL/min) who underwent RN for suspected malignant SRM from 2000–2018. Group 1 consisted of patients who underwent RN after transplant; group 2 underwent RN prior to transplant, and group 3 underwent RN without subsequent transplant. Dominant tumor size and histopathological characteristics, recurrence, and survival outcomes were compared between groups. Chi-squared and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare categorical and continuous baseline and histopathologic characteristics, respectively. Univariate analysis and log rank test were used to compare RCC recurrence rates.ResultsWe identified 34 nephrectomies in group 1, 27 nephrectomies in group 2, and 70 nephrectomies in group 3. Median time from transplant to SRM radiological diagnosis in group 1 was 87 months, and three months from diagnosis to nephrectomy for all groups. There were no statistically significant differences between pathological dominant mass size, histological subtype breakdown, grade, or stage between the groups. Rates of benign histology were similar between the groups. Univariate analysis did not reveal a statistically significant difference in recurrence-free survival between the groups (p=0.9).ConclusionsPatients undergoing nephrectomy before or after transplant for SRM have similar indolent clinicopathological characteristics and low recurrence rates. Our results suggest that chronic immunosuppression does not adversely affect SRM biology.     

Psychological barriers for living kidney donation: how to inform the potential donors?

BACKGROUND: This is the first large-scale interview study carried out in patients and potential donors who seem unwilling or unable to pursue living kidney donation. By investigating these groups, we explored whether further expansion of the living kidney donation program is feasible. METHODS: We interviewed 91 patients on the waiting list for a kidney transplant who did not pursue living kidney donation and their potential donors (n=53). We also included a comparison group. All respondents underwent an in-depth interview by a psychologist about topics that could influence their willingness to pursue living kidney donation. RESULTS: A total of 78% of the patients on the waiting list were willing to accept the offer of a living donor. The main reason for not pursuing living kidney donation was reluctance to discuss the issue with the potential donors. This was also found in the comparison group. Both groups indicated that if there was no donor offer, they tended to interpret this as a refusal to donate. This interpretation not always holds: more than one third (19 of 53) of the potential donors were open to consider themselves as a potential donor. On the other hand, a comparably sized group of potential donors (21 of 53) was reluctant about donation. The main reason for donor reluctance was fear for their health after donation. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients on the waiting list are willing to accept a living kidney donor, but adopt an awaiting attitude towards their potential donors. Offering those patients professional assistance should be considered.     

Do we need living unrelated organ donation in Brazil?

The remarkable success achieved by organ transplantation has also engendered the major problem of organ shortage. As a consequence, the use of living unrelated donors (LURD) has been proposed as an ethically justifiable alternative for developed nations to minimize their waiting lists for organ transplantation (OTx). This change in attitude has caused an ethical dilemma for developing countries like Brazil, which is struggling to increase the cadaver donor pool. Due to a huge socioeconomic gap of values and needs among nations, the incentive to use LURD in developed countries may not only produce a disincentive to cadaver organ donation but also stimulate organ trade in developing countries. In this paper we aimed to show that in Brazil, we do not need to use LURD because we have not optimized our cadaver donor pool. The exploitation of LURD might be a good option for developed countries, but it is not useful for developing countries. The Transplantation Society urgently needs to solve and clarify this problem by establishing basic ethical and justice principles that can serve as a guide for every country, throughout the entire process required, to achieve an adequate pool of cadaver donors.     

Solicited kidney donors: Are they coerced?

Most non‐directed donors (NDDs) decide to donate on their own and contact the transplant centre directly. Some NDDs decide to donate in response to community solicitation such as newspaper ads or donor drives. We wished to explore whether subtle coercion might be occurring in such NDDs who are part of a larger community. One successful organization in a community in Brooklyn, NY, provides about 50 NDDs per year for recipients within that community. The donors answer ads in local papers and attend donor drives. Herein, we evaluated the physical and emotional outcomes of community‐solicited NDDs in comparison to traditional NDDs who come from varied communities and are not responding to a specific call for donation. An assessment of coercion was used as well.     

Infrainguinal arterial reconstruction with autologous vein grafts: are the results for the in situ technique better than those of non-reversed bypass? A long-term follow-up study

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to answer the question if the in situ technique in infrainguinal arterial reconstruction is better than the non reversed one in long-term follow-up. METHODS: Patients were included in a prospective study at operation. 387 infrainguinal arterial reconstructions in 367 patients performed from 10-88 to 12-98 were retrospectively analysed. RESULTS: 280 non-reversed and 107 in situ bypass procedures were performed. Primary patency rates at 60 months were 63.3% for non-reversed and 57.9% for in situ grafts (p=n.s.). Primary assisted patency rates were 81.8% and 84.5% respectively (p=n.s.). Limb salvage rate was not different in either group. The 30-day mortality was 1.9% in the in situ group and 0.7% in the non-reversed group (p=n.s.). CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in outcome between in situ and non-reversed vein grafting. Absence of statistical difference between the two procedures may be mainly due to the routine use of angioscopic quality control.     

Does mini‐incision donor nephrectomy improve quality of life in living kidney donors?

BACKGROUND: Living kidney donation helps to avoid or reduce the time period of dialysis and on waiting lists in patients requiring a new organ. Mini-incision donor nephrectomy (MIDN) shows to result in better clinical outcome in comparison with traditional open donor nephrectomy (ODN). This study was performed to evaluate the impact of different surgical procedures on the quality of life (QoL) in patients that underwent donor nephrectomy. METHODS: The aim of the study was to detect differences in QoL assessed with the Short Form-36 Version 2 (SF-36v2) questionnaire between MIDN (n = 34) and ODN (n = 36). Furthermore, the development of QoL from prior to surgery until one yr afterwards, as well as outcomes of QoL in comparison with norm-based scores was investigated. RESULTS: Sixty-one of 70 patients, which is 87% (MIDN: 86%, ODN: 88%) resent a whole set questionnaires. QoL was similar at all time-points (prior to surgery, one wk, three months and one yr) in both groups. A tendency of better QoL in MIDN (Bodily Pain) after one wk was detectable (p = 0.075). Physical Component Summaries (PCS) significantly decreased from prior to surgery until one wk after surgery (p = 0.001) and improved significantly until three months (MIDN: p = 0.006, ODN: p = 0.001) and also until one yr after surgery (p = 0.002). Mental Component Summaries (MCS) were stable throughout the whole investigated time period. In comparison with norm-based scores, MIDN (p = 0.005) and ODN (p = 0.001) showed significantly higher PCS prior to, lower scores one wk after (p = 0.001), similar scores three months after and better scores (MIDN: p = 0.023, ODN: 0.015) one yr after surgery. Mental Component Scores were similar in both prior to and one wk after surgery. After three months and one yr scores were significantly better in MIDN (three months: p = 0.049, one yr: p = 0.037) and ODN (three months: 0.020, one yr: 0.073). CONCLUSION: Quality of life after living donor nephrectomy is not influenced by the surgical technique. Nevertheless the standardized instrument of the SF-36v2 Health Survey is a useful, practicable and universally interpretable tool to gain and estimate recovery from surgical procedures in the perioperative period and its development thereafter.