Recurrence of focal segmental glomerular sclerosis (FSGS) in the allograft following renal transplantation can be graft threatening. To assess risk factors associated with FSGS recurrence, we analyzed 22 patients with FSGS who underwent transplantation between 1996 and 2004. Five patients (Group I, 23%) developed FSGS post-transplantation. Of these patients, 60% had undergone bilateral nephrectomy (BN) for progressive disease compared with none of the patients that were free of recurrence (Group II) (p = 0.0006). Other factors linked with recurrent FSGS were time to first dialysis (Group I: 3.1 +/- 1.1 yr vs. Group II: 11.9 +/- 1.9 yr; p = 0.03), pre-transplant proteinuria (Group I: 7.0 +/- 1.8 g/d vs. Group II: 2.5 +/- 0.7 g/d; p = 0.02), young age at transplantation (p = 0.09) and female sex (Group I: 80% vs. Group II: 24%; p = 0.021). Eighty percent of Group I patients received a living related transplant vs. 24% in Group II (p = 0.021). All grafts continue to function at last follow-up with comparable serum creatinines. Overall, post-transplant FSGS recurrence may be associated with BN, severity of pre-transplant FSGS, female gender, and living donation. These patients should be monitored closely for early recurrence and may benefit from early plasmapheresis to restore and facilitate long-term graft function.

Background Approximately 40% of the kidneys for transplant worldwide come from living donors. Despite advantages of living donor transplants, rates have stagnated in recent years. One possible barrier may be costs related to the transplant process that potential willing donors may incur for travel, parking, accommodation, and lost productivity.Methods To better understand and quantify the financial costs incurred by living kidney donors, we conducted a prospective cohort study, recruiting 912 living kidney donors from 12 transplant centers across Canada between 2009 and 2014; 821 of them completed all or a portion of the costing survey. We report microcosted total, out-of-pocket, and lost productivity costs (in 2016 Canadian dollars) for living kidney donors from donor evaluation start to 3 months after donation. We examined costs according to (1) the donor's relationship with their recipient, including spousal (donation to a partner), emotionally related nonspousal (friend, step-parent, in law), or genetically related; and (2) donation type (directed, paired kidney, or nondirected). ResultsLiving kidney donors incurred a median (75th percentile) of $1254 ($2589) in out-of-pocket costs and $0 ($1908) in lost productivity costs. On average, total costs were $2226 higher in spousal compared with emotionally related nonspousal donors (P=0.02) and $1664 higher in directed donors compared with nondirected donors (P,0.001). Total costs (out-of-pocket and lost productivity) exceeded $5500 for 205 (25%) donors.Conclusions Our results can be used to inform strategies to minimize the financial burden of living donation, which may help improve the donation experience and increase the number of living donor kidney transplants.

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.

No abstract

Background: As part of their living kidney donor assessment, all living donor candidates complete a computed tomography (CT) angiogram, but some also receive a nuclear renogram for split renal function (SRF%). Objective: We considered whether split renal volume (SRV%) assessed by CT can predict SRF%. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Setting: Living donor candidates undergoing evaluation as potential living kidney donors. Patients: Living donor candidates who received both a nuclear renogram for split function and CT for SRV as part of their living donor work-up. Measurements: Split renal volume from CT scans and SRF from nuclear renography. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature, abstracting data and digitizing plots where possible. We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. We added data from donor candidates assessed in London, Ontario from 2013 to 2016. We used fixed and random-effects models to pool Fisher’s z-transformed Pearson’s correlation coefficient ( r). We conducted random-effects meta-regression on digitized and aggregate data. Studies were restricted to living kidney donors or living donor candidates. Results: After pooling 19 studies (n = 1479), we obtained a pooled correlation of r = 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.61-0.82). By linear regression using individual-level data, we observed a 0.76% (95% CI = 0.71-0.81) increase in SRF% for every 1% increase in SRV%. Split renal volume had a specificity of 88% for discriminating SRF at a threshold that could influence the decision of which kidney is to be removed (between-kidney difference ≥10%). Predonation SRV and SRF both moderately predicted kidney function 6 to 12 months after donation: r = 0.75 for SRV and r = 0.73 for SRF; Δ r = 0.05 (–0.02, 0.13). Limitations: Most studies were retrospective and measured SRV and SRF only on selected living donor candidates. Efficiency gains in removing the SRF from the evaluation will depend on the transplant program. Conclusion: Split renal volume has the potential to replace SRF for some candidates. However, it is uncertain whether it can do so reliably and routinely across different transplant centers. The impact on clinical decision-making needs to be assessed in well-designed prospective studies. Trial registration: The digitized data are registered with Mendeley Data (doi10.17632/dyn2bfgxxj.2).