Search

Key Points: Question: Do normotensive living kidney donors, compared with nondonors, have a higher risk of hypertension in the first 7 years following donation? Findings: In this 17-center prospective cohort study that included 924 living kidney donors and 396 nondonors, there were no significant between-group differences in the risk of hypertension and no significant between-group differences in mean blood pressure or the change in blood pressure during a median follow-up of 7.3 years. Meaning: After accounting for differences in baseline risk, living donors had a similar risk of hypertension as nondonors in the 7 years following donation and no significant difference in mean blood pressure. Importance: Recent guidelines call for better evidence on health outcomes after living kidney donation. Objective: To determine the risk of hypertension in normotensive adults who donated a kidney compared with nondonors of similar baseline health. Their rates of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline and risk of albuminuria were also compared. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective cohort study of 924 standard-criteria living kidney donors enrolled before surgery and a concurrent sample of 396 nondonors. Recruitment occurred from 2004 to 2014 from 17 transplant centers (12 in Canada and 5 in Australia); follow-up occurred until November 2021. Donors and nondonors had the same annual schedule of follow-up assessments. Inverse probability of treatment weighting on a propensity score was used to balance donors and nondonors on baseline characteristics. Exposure: Living kidney donation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hypertension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] ≥140 mm Hg, diastolic blood pressure [DBP] ≥90 mm Hg, or antihypertensive medication), annualized change in eGFR (starting 12 months after donation/simulated donation date in nondonors), and albuminuria (albumin to creatinine ratio ≥3 mg/mmol [≥30 mg/g]). Results: Among the 924 donors, 66% were female; they had a mean age of 47 years and a mean eGFR of 100 mL/min/1.73 m2. Donors were more likely than nondonors to have a family history of kidney failure (464/922 [50%] vs 89/394 [23%], respectively). After statistical weighting, the sample of nondonors increased to 928 and baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. During a median follow-up of 7.3 years (IQR, 6.0-9.0), in weighted analysis, hypertension occurred in 161 of 924 donors (17%) and 158 of 928 nondonors (17%) (weighted hazard ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.75-1.66]). The longitudinal change in mean blood pressure was similar in donors and nondonors. After the initial drop in donors' eGFR after nephrectomy (mean, 32 mL/min/1.73 m2), donors had a 1.4-mL/min/1.73 m2 (95% CI, 1.2-1.5) per year lesser decline in eGFR than nondonors. However, more donors than nondonors had an eGFR between 30 and 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 at least once in follow-up (438/924 [47%] vs 49/928 [5%]). Albuminuria occurred in 132 of 905 donors (15%) and 95 of 904 nondonors (11%) (weighted hazard ratio, 1.46 [95% CI, 0.97-2.21]); the weighted between-group difference in the albumin to creatinine ratio was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.88-1.19). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of living kidney donors and nondonors with the same follow-up schedule, the risks of hypertension and albuminuria were not significantly different. After the initial drop in eGFR from nephrectomy, donors had a slower mean rate of eGFR decline than nondonors but were more likely to have an eGFR between 30 and 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 at least once in follow-up. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00936078 This cohort study aims to determine the risk of hypertension in normotensive adults who donated a kidney compared with nondonors of similar baseline health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To describe the direct and indirect costs incurred by Australian living kidney donors., Methods: A total of 55 living kidney donors from three centres in Perth, Australia and one centre in Melbourne, Australia (2010-2014) was studied. Forty-nine donors provided information on expenses incurred during the donor evaluation period and up to 3 months after donation. A micro-costing approach was used to measure and value the units of resources consumed. Expenses were grouped as direct costs (ground and air travel, accommodation, and prescription medications) and indirect costs (lost wages and lost productivity). Costs were standardized to the year 2016 in Australian dollars., Results: The most common direct costs were for ground travel (100%), parking (76%), and post-donation pain medications or antibiotics (73%). The highest direct costs were for air travel (median $1986 [three donors]) and ground travel (median $459 [49 donors]). Donors also reported lost wages (median $9891 [37 donors]). The inability to perform household activities or care for dependants were reported by 32 (65%) and 23 (47%) donors. Total direct costs averaged $1682 per donor (median $806 among 49 donors). Total indirect costs averaged $7249 per donor (median $7273 among 49 donors). Total direct and indirect costs averaged $8932 per donor (median $7963 among 49 donors)., Conclusion: Many Australian living kidney donors incur substantial costs during the donation process. Our findings inform the continued development of policies and programmes designed to minimize costs incurred by living kidney donors., (© 2017 Asian Pacific Society of Nephrology.)

Background: A prolonged living kidney donor evaluation may result in worse outcomes for transplant recipients. Better knowledge of the duration of this process may help inform future donors and identify opportunities for improvement., Study Design: 1 prospective and 1 retrospective cohort study., Setting & Participants: At 16 Canadian and Australian transplantation centers (prospective cohort) and 5 Ontario transplantation centers (retrospective cohort), we assessed the duration of living kidney donor evaluation and explored donor, recipient, and transplantation factors associated with longer evaluation times. Data were obtained from 2 sources: donor medical records using chart abstraction and health care administrative databases., Predictors: Donor and recipient demographics, direct versus paired donation, center-level variables., Outcomes: Duration of living donor evaluation., Results: The median total duration of transplantation evaluation (time from when the candidate started the evaluation until donation) was 10.3 (IQR, 6.5-16.7) months. The median duration from evaluation start until approval to donate was 7.9 (IQR, 4.6-14.1) months, and from approval until donation was 0.7 (IQR, 0.3-2.4) months, respectively. The median time between the first and last consultation among donors who completed a nephrology, surgery, and psychosocial assessment in the prospective cohort was 3.0 (IQR, 1.0-6.3) months, and between computed tomography angiography and donation was 4.8 (IQR, 2.6-9.2) months. After adjustment, the total duration of transplantation evaluation was longer if the donor participated in paired donation (6.6 [95% CI, 1.6-9.7] months) and if the recipient was referred later relative to the donor's evaluation start date (0.9 [95% CI, 0.8-1.0] months [per month of delayed referral]). Results depended on whether the recipient was receiving dialysis., Limitations: Living donor candidates who did not donate were not included and proxy measures were used for some dates in the donor evaluation process., Conclusions: The duration of kidney transplant donor evaluation is variable and can be lengthy. Better understanding of the reasons for a prolonged evaluation may inform quality improvement initiatives to reduce unnecessary delays., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Information in health administrative databases increasingly guides renal care and policy., Study Design: Systematic review of observational studies., Setting & Population: Studies describing the validity of codes for acute kidney injury (AKI) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) in administrative databases operating in any jurisdiction., Selection Criteria: After searching 13 medical databases, we included observational studies published from database inception though June 2009 that validated renal diagnostic and procedural codes for AKI or CKD against a reference standard., Index Tests: Renal diagnostic or procedural administrative data codes., Reference Tests: Patient chart review, laboratory values, or data from a high-quality patient registry., Results: 25 studies of 13 databases in 4 countries were included. Validation of diagnostic and procedural codes for AKI was present in 9 studies, and validation for CKD was present in 19 studies. Sensitivity varied across studies and generally was poor (AKI median, 29%; range, 15%-81%; CKD median, 41%; range, 3%-88%). Positive predictive values often were reasonable, but results also were variable (AKI median, 67%; range, 15%-96%; CKD median, 78%; range, 29%-100%). Defining AKI and CKD by only the use of dialysis generally resulted in better code validity. The study characteristic associated with sensitivity in multivariable meta-regression was whether the reference standard used laboratory values (P < 0.001); sensitivity was 39% lower when laboratory values were used (95% CI, 23%-56%)., Limitations: Missing data in primary studies limited some of the analyses that could be done., Conclusions: Administrative database analyses have utility, but must be conducted and interpreted judiciously to avoid bias arising from poor code validity., (Copyright © 2010 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)