Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• van der Weijden, Jessica
• van Londen, Marco
• Roodnat, Joke I
• Kho, Marcia L
• van de Wetering, Jacqueline
• Kloke, Heinrich
• Dooper, Ine M. M
• Bakker, Stephan J. L
• Navis, Gerjan
• Nolte, Ilja M
• De Borst, Martin H
• Berger, Stefan P
• Dor, Frank JMF

Titel

Impact of measured versus estimated glomerular filtration rate-based screening on living kidney donor characteristics: A study of multiple cohorts

Ist Teil von

• PloS one, 2022-07, Vol.17 (7), p.e0270827-e0270827

Ort / Verlag

San Francisco: Public Library of Science

Erscheinungsjahr

2022

Quelle

EZB Electronic Journals Library

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Most transplant centers in the Netherlands use estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) for evaluation of potential living kidney donors. Whereas eGFR often underestimates GFR, especially in healthy donors, measured GFR (mGFR) allows more precise kidney function assessment, and therefore holds potential to increase the living donor pool. We hypothesized that mGFR-based donor screening leads to acceptance of donors with lower pre-donation eGFR than eGFR-based screening. In this longitudinal cohort study, we compared eGFR (CKD-EPI) before donation in one center using mGFR-based screening (mGFR-cohort, n = 250) with two centers using eGFR-based screening (eGFR-cohort1, n = 466 and eGFR-cohort2, n = 160). We also compared differences in eGFR at five years after donation. Donor age was similar among the cohorts (mean±standard deviation (SD) mGFR-cohort 53±10 years, eGFR-cohort1 52±13 years, P = 0.16 vs. mGFR-cohort, and eGFR-cohort2 53±9 years, P = 0.61 vs. mGFR-cohort). Estimated GFR underestimated mGFR by 10±12 mL/min/1.73m.sup.2 (mean±SD), with more underestimation in younger donors. In the overall cohorts, mean±SD pre-donation eGFR was lower in the mGFR-cohort (91±13 mL/min/1.73m.sup.2) than in eGFR-cohort1 (93±15 mL/min/1.73m.sup.2, P<0.05) and eGFR-cohort2 (94±12 mL/min/1.73m.sup.2, P<0.05). However, these differences disappeared when focusing on more recent years, which can be explained by acceptance of more older donors with lower pre-donation eGFR over time in both eGFR-cohorts. Five years post-donation, mean±SD eGFR was similar among the centers (mGFR-cohort 62±12 mL/min/1.73m.sup.2, eGFR-cohort1 61±14 mL/min/1.73m.sup.2, eGFR-cohort2 62±11 mL/min/1.73m.sup.2, P = 0.76 and 0.95 vs. mGFR-cohort respectively). In the mGFR-cohort, 38 (22%) donors were excluded from donation due to insufficient mGFR with mean±SD mGFR of 71±9 mL/min/1.73m.sup.2. Despite the known underestimation of mGFR by eGFR, we did not show that the routine use of mGFR in donor screening leads to inclusion of donors with a lower pre-donation eGFR. Therefore eGFR-based screening will be sufficient for the majority of the donors. Future studies should investigate whether there is a group (e.g. young donors with insufficient eGFR) that might benefit from confirmatory mGFR testing.