PURPOSE: Donated kidney volume influences post-transplant outcomes and graft survival. We evaluated the relationship between living-donor kidney volume and recipient graft function at 12 months post-transplantation, exploring a volume threshold for a suboptimal graft function, and compared two different formulas of volume estimation. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 82 pairs of living-donor kidney transplants was conducted. Donor renal volumes were estimated from computerized tomography scans using the ellipsoid formula and the voxel counting technique. Linear and restricted cubic regression spline was used to analyze the association of volume with graft function. Additionally, we determined the correlation between the two volume estimation formulas and established a correction factor for the ellipsoid formula. RESULTS: Renal volume (adjusted to recipient BSA) had the strongest independent effect (B = 1.65 per 10 ml/m(2) increase, p value <0.001) on graft function at 12 months. The eGFR at 12 months was 52.5, 63.6 and 67.6 ml/min/1.73 m(2) for the low, medium and high volume ratio terciles, respectively (p value <0.001). The odds of a GFR <50 ml/min became significantly reduced with volumes above 145 cc/1.73 m(2). A strong positive correlation between the two formulas was identified (R(2) = 0.705), but the optimal correction factor for our cohort was 0.566. CONCLUSIONS: In a Caucasian population, higher donor kidney volumes estimated from preoperative CT scans are associated with higher recipient eGFRs at 12 months after live-donor transplantation. Using this criterion, transplant teams can potentially improve selection of living donors if multiple donors are available. However, the need for precise estimation of donor kidney volumes should not be overlooked.
PURPOSE: Donated kidney volume influences post-transplant outcomes and graft survival. We evaluated the relationship between living-donor kidney volume and recipient graft function at 12 months post-transplantation, exploring a volume threshold for a suboptimal graft function, and compared two different formulas of volume estimation. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 82 pairs of living-donor kidney transplants was conducted. Donor renal volumes were estimated from computerized tomography scans using the ellipsoid formula and the voxel counting technique. Linear and restricted cubic regression spline was used to analyze the association of volume with graft function. Additionally, we determined the correlation between the two volume estimation formulas and established a correction factor for the ellipsoid formula. RESULTS: Renal volume (adjusted to recipient BSA) had the strongest independent effect (B = 1.65 per 10 ml/m(2) increase, p value <0.001) on graft function at 12 months. The eGFR at 12 months was 52.5, 63.6 and 67.6 ml/min/1.73 m(2) for the low, medium and high volume ratio terciles, respectively (p value <0.001). The odds of a GFR <50 ml/min became significantly reduced with volumes above 145 cc/1.73 m(2). A strong positive correlation between the two formulas was identified (R(2) = 0.705), but the optimal correction factor for our cohort was 0.566. CONCLUSIONS: In a Caucasian population, higher donor kidney volumes estimated from preoperative CT scans are associated with higher recipient eGFRs at 12 months after live-donor transplantation. Using this criterion, transplant teams can potentially improve selection of living donors if multiple donors are available. However, the need for precise estimation of donor kidney volumes should not be overlooked.
Authors: John Stoves; Elizabeth J Lindley; Mark C Barnfield; Maria T Burniston; Charles G Newstead Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Alejandro Diez; John Powelson; Chandru P Sundaram; Tim E Taber; Muhammad A Mujtaba; Muhammad S Yaqub; Dennis P Mishler; William C Goggins; Asif A Sharfuddin Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2014-04-29 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: A M Miles; N Sumrani; S John; M S Markell; D A Distant; V Maursky; J H Hong; E A Friedman; B Sommer Journal: Transplantation Date: 1996-03-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Dorry L Segev; Abimereki D Muzaale; Brian S Caffo; Shruti H Mehta; Andrew L Singer; Sarah E Taranto; Maureen A McBride; Robert A Montgomery Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-03-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Steven Paraskevas; Raja Kandaswamy; Abhinav Humar; Kristen Gillingham; Rainer W G Gruessner; William D Payne; John S Najarian; David L Dunn; David E R Sutherland; Arthur J Matas Journal: Transplantation Date: 2003-04-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: E D Poggio; S Hila; B Stephany; R Fatica; V Krishnamurthi; C del Bosque; D Goldfarb; B Herts; V W Dennis; P S Heeger; W Braun Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Panagiotis Korfiatis; Aleksandar Denic; Marie E Edwards; Adriana V Gregory; Darryl E Wright; Aidan Mullan; Joshua Augustine; Andrew D Rule; Timothy L Kline Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2021-12-07 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Chaudhry Adeel Ebad; David Brennan; Julio Chevarria; Mohammad Bin Hussein; Donal Sexton; Douglas Mulholland; Ciaran Doyle; Patrick O'Kelly; Yvonne Williams; Ruth Dunne; Conall O'Seaghdha; Dilly Little; Martina Morrin; Peter J Conlon Journal: J Transplant Date: 2021-07-09