FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2130145797> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2130145797 endingPage "1960" @default.
• W2130145797 startingPage "1959" @default.
• W2130145797 abstract "Every day around the world clinicians face tough decisions: what should they do when a pair of suboptimal deceased donor kidneys are available for waiting recipients, many of whom have faced long wait times? Should they transplant two into one recipient, one each into two recipients, or discard both: the two, one, zero countdown? Often they discard them: in 2009 in the USA, 2762 (19%) of recovered deceased donor kidneys were discarded (Table 1) (http://www.ustransplant.org/annual_reports/current/302_ord.htm), and this number rises every year. Surprisingly, nearly 987 of the discarded kidneys were from standard criteria donors.Table 1Discard rates for DCD, ECD and SCD Kidneys2009DCDECDSCDAllAll donors920197151318022Kidneys recovered17863145946414395Kidneys transplanted13831773847711633Kidneys recovered but not transplanted40313729872762Percentage of kidneys discarded23%44%10%19% Open table in a new tab Too often this decision follows a biopsy, even though the biopsy findings may have poor predictive value beyond what information is already known. Comparison of the United States to European practices suggests that the biopsy actually causes discards (1Cecka JM Gritsch HA Why are nearly half of expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys not transplanted?.Am J Transplant. 2008; 8: 735-736Crossref PubMed Scopus (26) Google Scholar), and the success of the European old‐for‐old program shows what can be achieved without relying on biopsies (2Frei U Noeldeke J Machold‐Fabrizii V et al.Prospective age‐matching in elderly kidney transplant recipients—A 5‐year analysis of the Eurotransplant Senior Program.Am J Transplant. 2008; 8: 50-57Crossref PubMed Scopus (270) Google Scholar). Without scientific data about biopsy features, the biopsy can be a dangerous step toward an idiosyncratic decision. If the clinicians choose to transplant the kidneys, should they transplant two kidneys into one recipient, or one kidney each into two recipients? In the current issue of the AJT, Ekser and colleagues from the University of Padua describe the technical aspects and outcomes of unilateral transplantation of two kidneys from ECD's into one recipient, and compare the outcomes with transplantation of a single ECD kidney (3Ekser B Furian L Broggiato A et al.Technical aspects of unilateral dual kidney transplantation from expanded criteria donors: Experience of 100 patients.Am J Transplant. 2010; 10: 1959-1960Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (71) Google Scholar). They focus on the advantages of unilateral placement as sparing the contralateral side in case of the need for retransplantation, and describe nicely the technical nuances of transplanting both kidneys on one side. The limitations include the fact that it is a single center, nonrandomized experience. In addition, a detailed analysis of the pretransplantation pathology was not performed, and these kidneys were not pumped, so that the pulsatile preservation characteristics could not be described. They report excellent outcomes, with 3‐year patient and graft survival rates of 95% and 90%, respectively, similar to that seen in the single kidney patients, and comparable rates of complications. This report, like essentially all of the reports in the two‐into‐one literature to date, demonstrates that this approach is effective, that is it can be done. Thus, it should be done, compared to discarding both kidneys. However, it is not clear that it should be done compared to the one‐into‐one approach, and if so when it should be done. From the first reports, no description has even been given of the detailed histology of the kidneys utilized as two‐into‐one compared with kidneys transplanted one‐into‐one for two recipients. Thus, we lack precise criteria to guide clinicians. It is not enough that two‐into‐one gives recipient results similar to one‐into one for two recipients: one patient remains on dialysis. Thus, two‐into‐one must be much better than one‐into‐one for two recipients. Many believe that a rational basis for making the two‐one‐zero decision can be developed by systematic analysis of the renal function of the donor (creatinine clearance <60 cc), histopathology, demographics and perfusion characteristics. Histopathologic lesions of interest include the percentage of glomerulosclerosis, the degree of interstitial and fibrosis, fibrous intimal thickening of small arteries, as well as flow and resistance in pulsatile preservation, donor serum creatinine, cold ischemia time, or some combination of factors. None of the published papers, including this one, give us sufficient information to make the decision with confidence. Histology may have poor predictive value and is not easy to assess optimally at 3AM, when many of these decisions must be made. The published studies of the histopathology or demographic and perfusion characteristics indicate poor predictive value, and most lack appropriate validation reports. We are thus left with essentially ad hoc decisions by individual surgeons and programs, with little uniformity of approach. The literature to date, including the very nice study published in this issue, continues to raise more questions than it answers. Equally important to defining donor variables are those variables in the recipient which may influence outcomes for these organs. Thus, recipient age, BMI, primary diagnosis for renal disease, cardiovascular comorbidities, time on dialysis, immunosuppressive regimen, and immunologic risk as defined by the presence and titer of DSAs are all elements that could influence patient and graft survival for suboptimal kidneys. Oneway forward would be a large‐scale multicenter prospective study sufficiently powered to account for all these critical variables: a data‐driven prospective research project including histology, pump parameters, clinical parameters and potentially molecular parameters in sufficient detail to allow rational decisions to be made in the future. Indeed, it is time for a consensus conference to develop such a data‐driven approach. Quantitative risk scores based on objective donor and recipient variables—and if validated, biopsy variables—could be derived from such a study and could truly yield important and interpretable results that will move the entire field forward. Once risks are defined on a continuous scale, future studies could determine whether transplants with defined risks should be managed differently to improve postoperative physiologic and immunologic management. Providing more support for the front‐line clinician who must make the two‐one‐zero call could be an effective investment for improving the numbers and effectiveness of deceased donor kidney transplants, and would help to create an environment of accountability and rational choices. The result could be hundreds or thousands more of the 2762 discarded kidneys being transplanted, and a scientific basis for the ‘two, one, zero’ decision." @default.
• W2130145797 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2130145797 creator A5075335379 @default.
• W2130145797 creator A5081203400 @default.
• W2130145797 creator A5083111063 @default.
• W2130145797 creator A5089118254 @default.
• W2130145797 date "2010-09-01" @default.
• W2130145797 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2130145797 title "The ‘Two, One, Zero’ Decision: What to Do with Suboptimal Deceased Donor Kidneys" @default.
• W2130145797 cites W1517161779 @default.
• W2130145797 cites W2019477238 @default.
• W2130145797 cites W2093758449 @default.
• W2130145797 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2010.03204.x" @default.
• W2130145797 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20645944" @default.
• W2130145797 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W2130145797 type Work @default.
• W2130145797 sameAs 2130145797 @default.
• W2130145797 citedByCount "32" @default.
• W2130145797 countsByYear W21301457972012 @default.
• W2130145797 countsByYear W21301457972013 @default.
• W2130145797 countsByYear W21301457972014 @default.
• W2130145797 countsByYear W21301457972015 @default.
• W2130145797 countsByYear W21301457972016 @default.
• W2130145797 countsByYear W21301457972017 @default.
• W2130145797 countsByYear W21301457972018 @default.
• W2130145797 countsByYear W21301457972021 @default.
• W2130145797 countsByYear W21301457972022 @default.
• W2130145797 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2130145797 hasAuthorship W2130145797A5075335379 @default.
• W2130145797 hasAuthorship W2130145797A5081203400 @default.
• W2130145797 hasAuthorship W2130145797A5083111063 @default.
• W2130145797 hasAuthorship W2130145797A5089118254 @default.
• W2130145797 hasBestOaLocation W21301457971 @default.
• W2130145797 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2130145797 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W2130145797 hasConcept C2780813799 @default.
• W2130145797 hasConcept C2989179672 @default.
• W2130145797 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2130145797 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2130145797 hasConceptScore W2130145797C138885662 @default.
• W2130145797 hasConceptScore W2130145797C177713679 @default.
• W2130145797 hasConceptScore W2130145797C2780813799 @default.
• W2130145797 hasConceptScore W2130145797C2989179672 @default.
• W2130145797 hasConceptScore W2130145797C41895202 @default.
• W2130145797 hasConceptScore W2130145797C71924100 @default.
• W2130145797 hasIssue "9" @default.
• W2130145797 hasLocation W21301457971 @default.
• W2130145797 hasLocation W21301457972 @default.
• W2130145797 hasOpenAccess W2130145797 @default.
• W2130145797 hasPrimaryLocation W21301457971 @default.
• W2130145797 hasRelatedWork W2018756882 @default.
• W2130145797 hasRelatedWork W2074447421 @default.
• W2130145797 hasRelatedWork W2096900979 @default.
• W2130145797 hasRelatedWork W2162228247 @default.
• W2130145797 hasRelatedWork W2324178992 @default.
• W2130145797 hasRelatedWork W2560384355 @default.
• W2130145797 hasRelatedWork W2871348545 @default.
• W2130145797 hasRelatedWork W2969165752 @default.
• W2130145797 hasRelatedWork W2985498794 @default.
• W2130145797 hasRelatedWork W4252371801 @default.
• W2130145797 hasVolume "10" @default.
• W2130145797 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2130145797 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2130145797 magId "2130145797" @default.
• W2130145797 workType "article" @default.