Immunity, Inflammation and Disease (Sep 2021)

Feasible kidney donation with living marginal donors, including diabetes mellitus

  • Kasumi Yoshinaga,
  • Motoo Araki,
  • Koichiro Wada,
  • Takanori Sekito,
  • Shogo Watari,
  • Yuki Maruyama,
  • Yosuke Mitsui,
  • Takuya Sadahira,
  • Risa Kubota,
  • Shingo Nishimura,
  • Kohei Edamura,
  • Yasuyuki Kobayashi,
  • Katsuyuki Tanabe,
  • Hidemi Takeuchi,
  • Masashi Kitagawa,
  • Shinji Kitamura,
  • Jun Wada,
  • Masami Watanabe,
  • Toyohiko Watanabe,
  • Yasutomo Nasu

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/iid3.470
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 9, no. 3
pp. 1061 – 1068

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Objectives To compare the donor outcomes of living donor kidney transplantation between standard donors (SDs) and marginal donors (MDs) including diabetic patients (MD + DM). Methods MDs were defined according to Japanese guideline criteria: (a) age >70‐years, (b) blood pressure ≤130/80 mmHg on hypertension medicine, (c) body mass index >25 to ≤32 kg/m2, (d) 24‐h creatinine clearance ≥70 to 6.2 or ≤6.5 with oral diabetic medicine. Fifty‐three of 114 donors were MDs. We compared donor kidney functions until 60 months postoperatively. Results No kidney function parameters were different between SDs and MDs. When comparing SD and MD + DM, MD + DM had a lower postoperative eGFR (48 vs. 41 (1 (month), p = .02), 49 vs. 40 (12, p < .01), 48 vs. 42 (24, p = .04), 47 vs. 38 (36, p = .01)) and the percentage of residual eGFR (SD vs. MD + DM: 63 vs. 57 (1 (month), p < .01), 63 vs. 57 (2, p < .01), 64 vs. 56 (12, p < .01), 63 vs. 57 (24, p < .01), 63 vs. 52 (36, p = .02)). However, when MD with a single risk factor of DM was compared to SD, the difference disappeared. Nine out of 12 (75%) MD + DM had ≥2 risk factors. Conclusions Although long‐term observation of donor kidney function is necessary, careful MD + DM selection had the potential to expand the donor pool.

Keywords