Search

Unlabelled: Proteinuria >0.5 g/d (HP) and serum creatinine (Scr) >120 micromol/L (HSC) at three months, two and five yr were compared as prognostic factors in kidney transplantation. We retrospectively analyzed 454 first transplants (follow-up: 100 +/- 3.2 months). Donor/recipient age, sex, panel reactive antibody (PRA), HLA mismatches, cold ischemia time, delayed graft function, acute rejection, blood pressure and its treatment, diabetes and anti-calcineurin use were also evaluated. Cox proportional hazard regression with time-dependent covariates to control for potentially confounding factors was used to analyze survival. The Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimate for survival according to urine protein excretion (< or = or >0.5 g/d) or Scr (< or = or >120 micromol/L) along with the log-rank test for all comparisons were computed. Statistical significance was set with p-value < 0.05., Results: HSC is a prognostic factor of graft survival (HR: 2.54; 95% CI: 1.98-3.10; p < 0.01) only at five yr, but it does not predict mortality at any period. HP at three months (HR: 2.07; 95% CI: 1.70-2.43; p < 0.001) and at two yr 3.03 (2.54-3.51; p < 0.001) significantly predicts graft failure. HP at two yr is the prevailingly prognostic factor of patient survival in kidney transplantation (HR: 3.30; 95% CI: 1.94-5.62; p < 0.0001).

Despite repeated campaigns promoting transplantation, the high donation refusal rate remains unchanged. We targeted a well-educated population to assess the impact of our current transplantation promoting programs and personal feelings toward new approaches to organ donation. A questionnaire was proposed in five universities to students and university staffs that would have been likely to benefit from previous information campaigns in two South American and three European countries. All of the 2321 people interviewed replied to at least one question. Organ shortage was considered as a serious public health issue. However, there was a widespread ignorance of religious precepts concerning transplantation that contributed to the low acceptance rate of organ sharing after death. Financial rewards for donors or their families remain controversial. There was a general agreement for early educational programs in schools. Most people still consider organ donation as a gift, but many would now agree to readily share body parts after death. This biased population of well-educated people has still little knowledge of organ donation. The negative impact of ignorance surrounding religious precepts and the high acceptance rate of educational programs in schools, justify supporting an intensive international effort in education that should also include Church leaders.

Getting organs for transplantation depends on people's decision; thus, public opinion is essential to finding a solution to this problem. Efforts to improve organ shortage focus on: 1) Living, unrelated donation, 2) increasing marginal donors and 3) proposing economic support for donors. Paradoxically, no initiative has been suggested to modify public opinion towards cadaver donors. Several reasons explain the resistance to donating cadaver organs: Lack of awareness, religious uncertainties, distrust of medicine, hostility to new ideas, and misinformation. Education should be used to reshape public opinion about the use of organs for transplantation. Society should accept that "using" body parts is moral and offers a source of health for everybody. The concept that using cadaver organs implies sharing a source of health might be a social agreement between all members of Society. Suggestions for improving organ shortage include: 1) Society should understand that during one's life one may be just as easily a potential organ receiver as one is an organ donor. 2) Cadaver organs are an irreplaceable source of health. 3) As self-interest is one obstacle to donating cadaver organs, the "concept that allowing the use of our organs after death represents a chance of sharing health for everybody" may be useful for a change of attitude. Even though a poll among transplant professionals supported this suggestion, an international public survey should be carried out to evaluate people's reaction to this message.

Background: The effect of furosemide on the survival and renal recovery of patients presenting with acute renal failure (ARF) is still debated., Methods: Three hundred thirty-eight patients with ARF requiring dialysis therapy were randomly assigned to the administration of either furosemide (25 mg/kg/d intravenously or 35 mg/kg/d orally) or matched placebo, with stratification according to severity at presentation. The primary end point was survival. The secondary end point was number of dialysis sessions. Tertiary end points included time on dialysis therapy, time to achieve a serum creatinine level less than 2.26 mg/dL (<200 micromol/L), and time to reach a 2-L/d diuresis., Results: There were no differences in survival and renal recovery rates between the 2 groups. Time to achieve a 2-L/d diuresis was shorter with furosemide (5.7 +/- 5.8 days) than placebo (7.8 +/- 6.8 days; P = 0.004). Overall, 148 patients achieved a urine output of at least 2 L/d during the study period (94 of 166 patients; 57%) with furosemide versus 54 of 164 patients (33%) with placebo ( P < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in number of dialysis sessions and time on dialysis therapy between the furosemide and placebo groups, even in the subgroup of patients reaching a 2-L/d diuresis., Conclusion: High-dose furosemide helps maintain urinary output, but does not have an impact on the survival and renal recovery rate of patients with established ARF.

Continuing organ shortage and ever-longer waiting lists have prompted the transplant community to adopt a broader than medical perspective in attempts at increasing the donor pool. Surveys conducted in various parts of the world reveal only a moderate acceptance of transplantation among medical professionals, a possible consequence of inadequate educational program at school/university level. General public awareness is low and efforts should be aimed at promoting a philosophy of sharing, reevaluating the traditional notion of the integrity of the human body, encouraging a readiness to fullfil an ever present social need through organ donation. Educational undertakings, in the long run, should modify the behaviour of society in making it better-informed and more sharing-oriented.

The influence of extensive educational programs in increasing organ donation is discussed. Improvements in organ donation rates can be expected by acceptance of the "suboptimal donor", economic assistance to those responsible for organ procurement and the information campaigns for the general public. Organ shortage can be considered as a "disease" that kills thousands of persons yearly. Educational programs are discussed.

Given the persisting shortage of organs for transplantation, it is time to consider whether the message that is sent to society to encourage donation is unsuitable. This message is mainly based on altruism and solidarity, and it has failed. Patients die because of the lack of cadaver organs that society refuses to offer; paradoxically, society is denying itself a chance of life. The reasons for this enigma are (1) lack of awareness that transplantation is a common practice; (2) the persistence of the "cult of dead body integrity;" and (3) the myths surrounding transplantation.A pathway to solving this organ shortage may be education, to make society understand their need of organs for transplantation and its role to resolve this necessity. It should focus on youth but must also reach adults, through their children receiving this education, or from the media or other sources. It should erase the concept of integrity of the cadaver and establish that using cadaver organs means sharing and guaranteeing a source of health for humanity.Similarly, a new message should stress that "using" cadaver organs means "sharing a source of health for humankind." Rather than "a gift of life" we should convey the idea of "sharing a social right and obligation" or that "My decision today assures my and my family health tomorrow."

The probability of death in patients with acute renal failure (ARF) remains high. A valid prognostic index available on patient admission and during follow-up could be helpful for decision making. In this study, 94 ARF patients requiring dialysis (not responding to a previous single dose of furosemide 15 mg/kg) were included. On admission, patients were classified according to a Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) of < or = 15 or > 15. The prognostic value of 11 risk factors was analyzed. Only 6 in 11 risk factors were significant by univariate analysis: age (> 55 years) (0.02), mechanical ventilation (0.008), oliguria (< 500 mL/day during the first 5 days) (0.02), sepsis (0.001), shock (0.007), and serum bilirubin (> 30 mumol) (0.001). Only oliguria and sepsis were significant risk factors by multivariate analysis. Overall mortality rate was 41%. Mortality rate was higher in patients with SAPS > 15 (65%) than in those with SAPS < or = 15 (22%) (0.001). Patients with > 3 risk factors showed a significantly higher mortality rate than patients with < 3 risk factors (all patients disregarding SAPS) (0.001). Considering the worst combination of risk factors by univariate analysis, mortality prediction was 56% if oliguria, sepsis, and high serum bilirubin were present, and reached 80% if an older age was added (four risk factors). Ventilation increased probability of death to 92% (five risk factors). If all six risk factors were present, the probability rose to 96%. The corresponding observed mortality rate was 32% for three risk factors, 70% for four, 81% for five and 100% for six risk factors. The results suggest that probability of death in ARF requiring dialysis can be correctly estimated when more than three significant risk factors are present. If confirmed, they could avoid using a more complex severity scoring system in patients with ARF requiring dialysis.