BACKGROUND: The medium- to long-term outcomes of living kidney donors with hypertension compared to normotensive donors are not well understood, especially with the recent changes in hypertension guidelines. METHODS: We studied a cohort of 950 living kidney donors using different definitions of hypertension based on either ≥140/90 or ≥130/80 mmHg thresholds and based on either office or ambulatory blood pressure readings. Microstructural features on kidney biopsy at the time of donation were compared using different definitions of hypertension. RESULTS: After adjusting for years of follow-up, age, sex, and baseline eGFR, hypertension (by any definition) did not significantly predict an eGFR < 45 ml/min/1.73 m2 at a median follow-up of 10 years postdonation, though there was a borderline association with ambulatory blood pressure ≥ 130/80 mmHg predicting a 40% decline in eGFR (OR = 1.53, 1.00-2.36; p = .051). Proteinuria was predicted by office blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg and by nondipper profile on nocturnal ambulatory blood pressure measurements. At the time of donation, larger glomeruli and arterial hyalinosis on biopsy were associated with hypertension defined by either ≥140/90 or ≥130/80 mmHg (by office or ambulatory measurements). Nocturnal nondipper status was associated with larger glomeruli size but not arteriolar hyalinosis when compared to dippers. CONCLUSIONS: In programs that accept donors with controlled hypertension, various definitions of hypertension are associated with histological findings in the donated kidney, but none predict a clinically significant decline in kidney function 10 years after donation. These data support allowing healthy individuals with controlled hypertension to donate a kidney. However, donors with office hypertension (≥140/90 mmHg) and nondippers (regardless of hypertension status) are at greater long-term risk for proteinuria, and particularly for these donors, longer follow-up is warranted.
BACKGROUND: The medium- to long-term outcomes of living kidney donors with hypertension compared to normotensive donors are not well understood, especially with the recent changes in hypertension guidelines. METHODS: We studied a cohort of 950 living kidney donors using different definitions of hypertension based on either ≥140/90 or ≥130/80 mmHg thresholds and based on either office or ambulatory blood pressure readings. Microstructural features on kidney biopsy at the time of donation were compared using different definitions of hypertension. RESULTS: After adjusting for years of follow-up, age, sex, and baseline eGFR, hypertension (by any definition) did not significantly predict an eGFR < 45 ml/min/1.73 m2 at a median follow-up of 10 years postdonation, though there was a borderline association with ambulatory blood pressure ≥ 130/80 mmHg predicting a 40% decline in eGFR (OR = 1.53, 1.00-2.36; p = .051). Proteinuria was predicted by office blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg and by nondipper profile on nocturnal ambulatory blood pressure measurements. At the time of donation, larger glomeruli and arterial hyalinosis on biopsy were associated with hypertension defined by either ≥140/90 or ≥130/80 mmHg (by office or ambulatory measurements). Nocturnal nondipper status was associated with larger glomeruli size but not arteriolar hyalinosis when compared to dippers. CONCLUSIONS: In programs that accept donors with controlled hypertension, various definitions of hypertension are associated with histological findings in the donated kidney, but none predict a clinically significant decline in kidney function 10 years after donation. These data support allowing healthy individuals with controlled hypertension to donate a kidney. However, donors with office hypertension (≥140/90 mmHg) and nondippers (regardless of hypertension status) are at greater long-term risk for proteinuria, and particularly for these donors, longer follow-up is warranted.
Authors: Andrew D Rule; Hatem Amer; Lynn D Cornell; Sandra J Taler; Fernando G Cosio; Walter K Kremers; Stephen C Textor; Mark D Stegall Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-05-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Fawaz Al Ammary; Xun Luo; Abimereki D Muzaale; Allan B Massie; Deidra C Crews; Madeleine M Waldram; Mohamud A Qadi; Jacqueline Garonzik-Wang; Macey L Henderson; Daniel C Brennan; Alexander C Wiseman; Richard C Lindrooth; Jon J Snyder; Josef Coresh; Dorry L Segev Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2019-06-25 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Naim Issa; Lisa E Vaughan; Aleksandar Denic; Walter K Kremers; Harini A Chakkera; Walter D Park; Arthur J Matas; Sandra J Taler; Mark D Stegall; Joshua J Augustine; Andrew D Rule Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Hassan N Ibrahim; Robert Foley; LiPing Tan; Tyson Rogers; Robert F Bailey; Hongfei Guo; Cynthia R Gross; Arthur J Matas Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-01-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Aram V Chobanian; George L Bakris; Henry R Black; William C Cushman; Lee A Green; Joseph L Izzo; Daniel W Jones; Barry J Materson; Suzanne Oparil; Jackson T Wright; Edward J Roccella Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-05-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Stephen C Textor; Sandra J Taler; Nancy Driscoll; Timothy S Larson; James Gloor; Matthew Griffin; Fernando Cosio; Thomas Schwab; Mikel Prieto; Scott Nyberg; Michael Ishitani; Mark Stegall Journal: Transplantation Date: 2004-07-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Matthew R D'Costa; Massini A Merzkani; Aleksandar Denic; Aidan F Mullan; Joseph J Larson; Walter K Kremers; Walter D Park; Mariam P Alexander; Harini A Chakkera; Sandra J Taler; Stephen J Erickson; Mark D Stegall; Naim Issa; Andrew D Rule Journal: Transplant Direct Date: 2021-12-23