Search

Background In living kidney transplantation there are two different individuals, a healthy donor and a renal transplant recipient. This is an excellent human model to study factors that influence kidney function in the context of reduced renal mass and the adaptation of two comparable kidneys to different metabolic demands. Methods We analyzed the changes in measured glomerular filtration rate (GFR, iohexol) from pretransplantation to 12 months after transplantation in 30 donor–recipient pairs. Each donor was compared with his/her recipient. We defined a priori three different groups based on GFR differences at 12 months: donor > recipient (Group A; 78 ± 8 versus 57 ± 8 mL/min), donor Results In Group A donors were mostly male and recipients were female (75% each). Donors had a higher baseline weight than their recipients. During follow-up, weight remained stable in donors but increased 7% in recipients. In Group B donors were mostly female (60%) and recipients male. At baseline, donors had a lower weight than recipients. At 12 months, weight was stable in donors but increased in recipients. In Group C donors were mostly (75%) female and recipients male. At baseline, donors had a higher BMI than their recipients. At 12 months, BMI was stable in donors but increased 14% in recipients. In multivariable analysis, higher GFR at 12 months was associated with higher baseline weight and GFR in donors and with male gender and higher baseline weight in recipients. Conclusions Kidneys from living donors are more ‘plastic’ than originally thought and respond to metabolic demands and weight changes of their new host. These changes should be taken into account when assessing GFR outcomes in this population.

BackgroundReliable determination of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is crucial in the evaluation of living kidney donors. Although some guidelines recommend the use of measured GFR (mGFR), many centres still rely on estimated GFR (eGFR) obtained through equations or 24-h creatinine clearance. However, eGFR is neither accurate nor precise in reflecting real renal function. We analysed the impact of eGFR errors on evaluation and decision making regarding potential donors.MethodsWe evaluated 103 consecutive living donors who underwent mGFR via iohexol plasma clearance and eGFR by 51 creatinine- and/or cystatin C–based equations. The cut-off for living donation in our centre is GFR > 80 mL/min for donors >35 years of age or 90 mL/min for those ResultsNinety-three subjects (90.3%) had mGFR values above (donors) and 10 [9.7% (95% confidence interval 5.4–17)] below (non-donors) the cut-off. In non-donors, most of the equations gave eGFR values above the cut-off, so donation would have been allowed based on eGFR. All non-donors were female with reduced weight, height and body surface. In donors, up to 32 cases showed eGFR below the cut-off, while mGFR was actually higher. Therefore an important number of donors would not have donated based on eGFR alone.ConclusionThe misclassification of donors around the cut-off for donation is very common with eGFR, making eGFR unreliable for the evaluation of living kidney donors. Whenever possible, mGFR should be implemented in this setting.