Hypertension and Kidney Function After Living Kidney Donation.

Importance: Recent guidelines call for better evidence on health outcomes after living kidney donation. Objective: To determine the risk of hypertension in normotensive adults who donated a kidney compared with nondonors of similar baseline health. Their rates of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline and risk of albuminuria were also compared. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective cohort study of 924 standard-criteria living kidney donors enrolled before surgery and a concurrent sample of 396 nondonors. Recruitment occurred from 2004 to 2014 from 17 transplant centers (12 in Canada and 5 in Australia); follow-up occurred until November 2021. Donors and nondonors had the same annual schedule of follow-up assessments. Inverse probability of treatment weighting on a propensity score was used to balance donors and nondonors on baseline characteristics. Exposure: Living kidney donation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hypertension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] ≥140 mm Hg, diastolic blood pressure [DBP] ≥90 mm Hg, or antihypertensive medication), annualized change in eGFR (starting 12 months after donation/simulated donation date in nondonors), and albuminuria (albumin to creatinine ratio ≥3 mg/mmol [≥30 mg/g]). Results: Among the 924 donors, 66% were female; they had a mean age of 47 years and a mean eGFR of 100 mL/min/1.73 m2. Donors were more likely than nondonors to have a family history of kidney failure (464/922 [50%] vs 89/394 [23%], respectively). After statistical weighting, the sample of nondonors increased to 928 and baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. During a median follow-up of 7.3 years (IQR, 6.0-9.0), in weighted analysis, hypertension occurred in 161 of 924 donors (17%) and 158 of 928 nondonors (17%) (weighted hazard ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.75-1.66]). The longitudinal change in mean blood pressure was similar in donors and nondonors. After the initial drop in donors' eGFR after nephrectomy (mean, 32 mL/min/1.73 m2), donors had a 1.4-mL/min/1.73 m2 (95% CI, 1.2-1.5) per year lesser decline in eGFR than nondonors. However, more donors than nondonors had an eGFR between 30 and 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 at least once in follow-up (438/924 [47%] vs 49/928 [5%]). Albuminuria occurred in 132 of 905 donors (15%) and 95 of 904 nondonors (11%) (weighted hazard ratio, 1.46 [95% CI, 0.97-2.21]); the weighted between-group difference in the albumin to creatinine ratio was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.88-1.19). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of living kidney donors and nondonors with the same follow-up schedule, the risks of hypertension and albuminuria were not significantly different. After the initial drop in eGFR from nephrectomy, donors had a slower mean rate of eGFR decline than nondonors but were more likely to have an eGFR between 30 and 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 at least once in follow-up. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00936078.

Understanding the Healthcare Needs of Living Kidney Donors Using the Picker Principles of Patient-centered Care: A Scoping Review.

Living kidney donors (LKDs) undertake a complex and multifaceted journey when pursuing donation and have several unmet healthcare needs. A comprehensive understanding of these needs across their entire donation trajectory can help develop a patient-centered care model. We conducted a scoping review to synthesize empirical evidence, published since 2000, on LKDs' experiences with healthcare from when they decided to pursue donation to postdonation care, and what they reported as their care needs. We categorized them according to the 8 Picker principles of patient-centered care. Of the 4514 articles screened, 47 were included. Ample literature highlighted the need for (1) holistic, adaptable, and linguistically appropriate approaches to education and information; (2) systematic, consistent, and proactive coordination and integration of care; and (3) self-management and preparation to optimize perioperative physical comfort. Some literature highlighted the need for (4) better continuity and transition of care postdonation. Two key unmet needs were the lack of (5) a holistic psychosocial evaluation predonation and predischarge to provide emotional support and alleviation of fear and anxiety; and (6) access to specialty and psychosocial services postdonation especially when adverse events occurred. Limited literature explored the principles of (7) respect for patients' values, preferences, and expressed needs; and (8) involvement of family and friends as caregivers. We summarize several unmet healthcare needs of LKDs throughout their donation journey and highlight knowledge gaps. Addressing them can improve their well-being and experiences, and potentially address inequities in living kidney donation and increase living donor kidney transplantation.

The Living Kidney Donor Safety Study: Protocol of a Prospective Cohort Study.

Background: Living kidney donation is considered generally safe in healthy individuals; however, there is a need to better understand the long-term effects of donation on blood pressure and kidney function. Objectives: To determine the risk of hypertension in healthy, normotensive adults who donate a kidney compared with healthy, normotensive non-donors with similar indicators of baseline health. We will also compare the 2 groups on the rate of decline in kidney function, the risk of albuminuria, and changes in health-related quality of life. Design Participants and Setting: Prospective cohort study of 1042 living kidney donors recruited before surgery from 17 transplant centers (12 in Canada and 5 in Australia) between 2004 and 2014. Non-donor participants (n = 396) included relatives or friends of the donor, or donor candidates who were ineligible to donate due to blood group or cross-match incompatibility. Follow-up will continue until 2021, and the main analysis will be performed in 2022. The anticipated median (25th, 75th percentile, maximum) follow-up time after donation is 7 years (6, 8, 15). Measurements: Donors and non-donors completed the same schedule of measurements at baseline and follow-up (non-donors were assigned a simulated nephrectomy date). Annual measurements were obtained for blood pressure, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), albuminuria, patient-reported health-related quality of life, and general health. Outcomes: Incident hypertension (a systolic/diastolic blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mm Hg or receipt of anti-hypertensive medication) will be adjudicated by a physician blinded to the participant's donation status. We will assess the rate of change in eGFR starting from 12 months after the nephrectomy date and the proportion who develop an albumin-to-creatinine ratio ≥3 mg/mmol (≥30 mg/g) in follow-up. Health-related quality of life will be assessed using the 36-item RAND health survey and the Beck Anxiety and Depression inventories. Limitations: Donation-attributable hypertension may not manifest until decades after donation. Conclusion: This prospective cohort study will estimate the attributable risk of hypertension and other health outcomes after living kidney donation.

Contexte: Chez les personnes en bonne santé, faire don d'un rein est généralement considéré comme sûr. Il convient toutefois de mieux comprendre les effets à long terme de ce don sur la pression artérielle et la fonction rénale. Objectifs: Déterminer le risque d'hypertension chez les adultes sains et normotendus qui donnent un rein par rapport à des non-donneurs sains et normotendus ayant des indicateurs de santé de base similaires. Nous comparerons également le taux de réduction de la fonction rénale, le risque d'albuminurie et les changements dans la qualité de vie liée à la santé entre les deux groupes. Cadre type d'étude et participants: Étude de cohorte rétrospective menée sur 1 042 donneurs de rein vivants, recrutés avant la chirurgie dans 17 centres de transplantation (12 au Canada et 5 en Australie) entre 2004 et 2014. Le groupe des non-donneurs (n=396) était constitué de parents ou amis du donneur, ou de candidats donneurs non admissibles à faire un don en raison d'une incompatibilité de groupe sanguin ou lors du test de compatibilité croisée. Le suivi s'est poursuivi jusqu'en 2021 et l'analyse principale sera effectuée en 2022. Le temps de suivi médian prévu (25e percentile, 75e percentile, maximum) après le don est de 7 ans (6, 8, 15 ans). Mesures: Les donneurs et les non-donneurs ont complété le même calendrier de mesures à l'inclusion et pendant le suivi (une date simulée de néphrectomie a été attribuée aux non-donneurs). Des mesures annuelles de pression artérielle, de débit de filtration glomérulaire estimé (DFGe), d'albuminurie, de qualité de vie liée à la santé autodéclarée et de santé générale ont été obtenues. Issues principales: L'hypertension incidente (pression artérielle systolique/diastolique ≥ 140/90 mm Hg ou prise d'un médicament antihypertenseur) sera jugée par un médecin aveugle au statut de don du participant. Nous évaluerons le taux de variation du DFGe à partir de 12 mois après la date de la néphrectomie et la proportion de participants qui développeront un rapport albumine/créatinine ≥ 3 mg/mmol (≥ 30 mg/g) pendant le suivi. La qualité de vie liée à la santé sera évaluée à l'aide du questionnaire de santé RAND de 36 questions et de l'Inventaire d'anxiété et de dépression de Beck. Limites: L'hypertension attribuable au don pourrait ne pas se manifester avant des décennies après le don. Conclusion: Cette étude de cohorte prospective permettra d'estimer le risque d'hypertension attribuable au don et d'autres effets sur la santé du donneur après un don de rein.

Impact of Perioperative Complications on Living Kidney Donor Health-Related Quality of Life and Mental Health: Results From a Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Although living kidney donation is safe, some donors experience perioperative complications. OBJECTIVE: This study explored how perioperative complications affected donor-reported health-related quality of life, depression, and anxiety. DESIGN: This research was a conducted as a prospective cohort study. SETTING: Twelve transplant centers across Canada. PATIENTS: A total of 912 living kidney donors were included in this study. MEASUREMENTS: Short Form 36 health survey, Beck Depression Inventory and Beck Anxiety Inventory. METHODS: Living kidney donors were prospectively enrolled predonation between 2009 to 2014. Donor perioperative complications were graded using the Clavien-Dindo classification system. Mental and physical health-related quality of life was assessed with the 3 measurements; measurements were taken predonation and at 3- and 12-months postdonation. RESULTS: Seventy-four donors (8%) experienced a perioperative complication; most were minor (n = 67 [91%]), and all minor complications resolved before hospital discharge. The presence (versus absence) of a perioperative complication was associated with lower mental health-related quality of life and higher depression symptoms 3-month postdonation; neither of these differences persisted at 12-month. Perioperative complications were not associated with any changes in physical health-related quality of life or anxiety 3-month postdonation. LIMITATIONS: Minor complications may have been missed and information on complications postdischarge were not collected. No minimal clinically significant change has been defined for kidney donors across the 3 measurements. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight a potential opportunity to better support the psychosocial needs of donors who experience perioperative complications in the months following donation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00319579 and NCT00936078.

CONTEXTE: Bien que le don vivant d'un rein soit une procédure sécuritaire, certains donneurs souffrent tout de même de complications périopératoires. OBJECTIFS: Cette étude a examiné l'incidence des complications périopératoires sur la qualité de vie liée à la santé et les symptômes de dépression et d'anxiété rapportés par les donneurs. TYPE D'ÉTUDE: Étude de cohorte prospective. CADRE: Douze centers de transplantation à travers le Canada. SUJETS: 912 donneurs vivants d'un rein. MESURES: Un questionnaire abrégé de 36 questions sur l'état de santé, l'inventaire de dépression Beck et l'inventaire d'anxiété Beck. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Les donneurs ont été inscrits avant le don de façon prospective entre 2009 et 2014. Les complications périopératoires des donneurs ont été classées à l'aide du système de classification Clavien-Dindo. La qualité de vie liée à la santé physique et mentale a été évaluée à l'aide des trois outils de mesure; ces mesures ont été faites avant le don, puis 3 et 12 mois après le don. RÉSULTATS: Au total, 74 donneurs (8 %) ont souffert d'une complication périopératoire; la plupart étaient mineures (n = 67 [91 %]) et ont été résolues avant le congé de l'hôpital. La présence (par rapport à l'absence) d'une complication périopératoire a été associée à une plus faible qualité de vie liée à la santé mentale et à des symptômes de dépression plus graves 3 mois après le don; aucune de ces différences n'a persisté après 12 mois. Les complications périopératoires n'ont pas été associées à des changements dans la qualité de vie liée à la santé physique ou à l'anxiété 3 mois après le don. LIMITES: Certaines complications mineures ont pu être manquées. L'information sur les complications survenues après le congé n'a pas été recueillie. Dans les trois outils de mesure, aucune variation minimale cliniquement significative n'a été définie pour les donneurs d'un rein. CONCLUSION: Ces résultats soulignent une occasion de mieux répondre aux besoins psychosociaux des donneurs d'un rein qui présentent des complications périopératoires dans les mois suivant le don.

Living Kidney Donors' Financial Expenses and Mental Health.

BACKGROUND: Living kidney donors incur donation-related expenses, but how these expenses impact postdonation mental health is unknown. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, the association between mental health and donor-incurred expenses (both out-of-pocket costs and lost wages) was examined in 821 people who donated a kidney at one of the 12 transplant centers in Canada between 2009 and 2014. Mental health was measured by the RAND Short Form-36 Health Survey along with Beck Anxiety Inventory and Beck Depression Inventory. RESULTS: A total of 209 donors (25%) reported expenses of >5500 Canadian dollars. Compared with donors who incurred lower expenses, those who incurred higher expenses demonstrated significantly worse mental health-related quality of life 3 months after donation, with a trend towards worse anxiety and depression, after controlling for predonation mental health-related quality of life and other risk factors for psychological distress. Between-group differences for donors with lower and higher expenses on these measures were no longer significant 12 months after donation. CONCLUSIONS: Living kidney donor transplant programs should ensure that adequate psychosocial support is available to all donors who need it, based on known and unknown risk factors. Efforts to minimize donor-incurred expenses and to better support the mental well-being of donors need to continue. Further research is needed to investigate the effect of donor reimbursement programs, which mitigate donor expenses, on postdonation mental health.

CanVasc Consensus Recommendations for the Management of Antineutrophil Cytoplasm Antibody-associated Vasculitis: 2020 Update.

OBJECTIVE: In 2015, the Canadian Vasculitis Research Network (CanVasc) created recommendations for the management of antineutrophil cytoplasm antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitides (AAV) in Canada. The current update aims to revise existing recommendations and create additional recommendations, as needed, based on a review of new available evidence. METHODS: A needs assessment survey of CanVasc members informed questions for an updated systematic literature review (publications spanning May 2014 to September 2019) using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane. New and revised recommendations were developed and categorized according to the level of evidence and strength of each recommendation. The CanVasc working group used a 2-step modified Delphi procedure to reach > 80% consensus on the inclusion, wording, and grading of each new and revised recommendation. RESULTS: Eleven new and 16 revised recommendations were created and 12 original (2015) recommendations were retained. New and revised recommendations are discussed in detail within this document. Five original recommendations were removed, of which 4 were incorporated into the explanatory text. The supplementary material for practical use was revised to reflect the updated recommendations. CONCLUSION: The 2020 updated recommendations provide rheumatologists, nephrologists, and other specialists caring for patients with AAV in Canada with new management guidance, based on current evidence and consensus from Canadian experts.

Management of Patients With Glomerulonephritis During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Recommendations From the Canadian Society of Nephrology COVID-19 Rapid Response Team.

PURPOSE OF PROGRAM: This article will provide guidance on how to best manage patients with glomerulonephritis (GN) during the COVID-19 pandemic. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: We reviewed relevant published literature, program-specific documents, and guidance documents from international societies. An informal survey of Canadian nephrologists was conducted to identify practice patterns and expert opinions. We hosted a national webinar with invited input and feedback after webinar. METHODS: The Canadian Society of Nephrology (CSN) Board of Directors invited physicians with expertise in GN to contribute. Specific COVID-19-related themes in GN were identified, and consensus-based recommendations were made by this group of nephrologists. The recommendations received further peer input and review by Canadian nephrologists via a CSN-sponsored webinar. This was attended by 150 kidney health care professionals. The final consensus recommendations also incorporated review by Editors of the Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease. KEY FINDINGS: We identified 9 areas of GN management that may be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) clinic visit scheduling, (2) clinic visit type, (3) provision of multidisciplinary care, (4) blood and urine testing, (5) home-based monitoring essentials, (6) immunosuppression, (7) other medications, (8) patient education and support, and (9) employment. LIMITATIONS: These recommendations are expert opinion, and are subject to the biases associated with this level of evidence. To expedite the publication of this work, a parallel review process was created that may not be as robust as standard arm's length peer review processes. IMPLICATIONS: These recommendations are intended to provide optimal care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our recommendations may change based on the evolving evidence.

A RAND-Modified Delphi on Key Indicators to Measure the Efficiency of Living Kidney Donor Candidate Evaluations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Many patients, providers, and potential living donors perceive the living kidney donor evaluation process to be lengthy and difficult to navigate. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We sought consensus on key terms and process and outcome indicators that can be used to measure how efficiently a transplant center evaluates persons interested in becoming a living kidney donor. Using a RAND-modified Delphi method, 77 participants (kidney transplant recipients or recipient candidates, living kidney donors or donor candidates, health care providers, and health care administrators) completed an online survey to define the terms and indicators. The definitions were then further refined during an in-person meeting with ten stakeholders. RESULTS: We identified 16 process indicators (e.g., average time to evaluate a donor candidate), eight outcome indicators (e.g., annual number of preemptive living kidney donor transplants), and two measures that can be considered both process and outcome indicators (e.g., average number of times a candidate visited the transplant center for the evaluation). Transplant centers wishing to implement this set of indicators will require 22 unique data elements, all of which are either readily available or easily collected prospectively. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a set of indicators through a consensus-based approach that may be used to monitor and improve the performance of a transplant center in how efficiently it evaluates persons interested in becoming a living kidney donor.

Canadian Society of Transplantation and Canadian Society of Nephrology Commentary on the 2017 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review an international guideline on the evaluation and care of living kidney donors and provide a commentary on the applicability of the recommendations to the Canadian donor population. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: We reviewed the 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors and compared this guideline to the Canadian 2014 Kidney Paired Donation (KPD) Protocol for Participating Donors. METHODS: A working group was formed consisting of members from the Canadian Society of Transplantation and the Canadian Society of Nephrology. Members were selected to have representation from across Canada and in various subspecialties related to living kidney donation, including nephrology, surgery, transplantation, pediatrics, and ethics. KEY FINDINGS: Many of the KDIGO Guideline recommendations align with the KPD Protocol recommendations. Canadian researchers have contributed to much of the evidence on donor evaluation and outcomes used to support the KDIGO Guideline recommendations. LIMITATIONS: Certain outcomes and risk assessment tools have yet to be validated in the Canadian donor population. IMPLICATIONS: Living kidney donors should be counseled on the risks of postdonation outcomes given recent evidence, understanding the limitations of the literature with respect to its generalizability to the Canadian donor population.

JUSTIFICATION: Examiner une directive internationale sur l'évaluation et la prise en charge des donneurs vivants d'un rein et formuler un commentaire sur l'applicabilité de ces recommandations à la population des donneurs canadiens. SOURCES: Nous avons révisé le guide des pratiques cliniques relatives à l'évaluation et à la prise en charge des donneurs vivants d'un rein (Clinical Practice Guideline for Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors) de 2017 du KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) et nous l'avons comparé aux recommandations canadiennes de 2014 du Protocole de don croisé d'un rein par donneurs participants (Kidney Paired Donation Protocol for Participating Donors). MÉTHODOLOGIE: Un groupe de travail réunissant des membres de la Société canadienne de transplantation et de la Société canadienne de néphrologie a été formé. Les membres ont été sélectionnés pour représenter tout le Canada et plusieurs sous-spécialisations relatives au don vivant d'un rein, notamment la néphrologie, la chirurgie, la transplantation, la pédiatrie et l'éthique. PRINCIPALES CONSTATATIONS: Plusieurs des recommandations du KDIGO s'harmonisent aux recommandations du protocole de don croisé d'un rein. Les chercheurs canadiens ont contribué en grande partie aux données sur l'évaluation des donneurs et des résultats utilisées pour appuyer les recommandations formulées dans les lignes directrices du KDIGO. LIMITES: Certains résultats et outils d'évaluation des risques doivent encore être validés dans la population des donneurs canadiens. CONCLUSION: Compte tenu des plus récentes données, les donneurs vivants d'un rein devraient être mis en garde concernant les risques sur leur santé post-don, tout en comprenant les limites de la littérature en ce qui concerne leur généralisabilité à la population de donneurs canadiens.

A Location-Based Objective Assessment of Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior in Ambulatory Hemodialysis Patients.

BACKGROUND: Dialysis patients have reduced moderate to vigorous physical activity, and light physical activity. This has been shown in self-reported surveys and objective accelerometer studies. Less attention has been directed toward sedentary behavior, which is characterized by low energy expenditure (≤1.5 metabolic equivalents). Furthermore, locations where physical activity and sedentary behavior occur are largely unknown for dialysis patients. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were (1) to determine the minutes per day of moderate to vigorous physical activity, light physical activity, and sedentary behavior for hemodialysis patients; (2) to describe differences in moderate to vigorous physical activity, light physical activity, and sedentary behavior comparing dialysis versus nondialysis days; and (3) to describe the locations where moderate to vigorous physical activity, light physical activity, and sedentary behavior occur using global positioning system (GPS) data. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: The study was performed at a tertiary care hospital in Nova Scotia, Canada. PATIENTS: A total of 50 adult in-center hemodialysis patients consented to the study. MEASUREMENTS: Physical activity and sedentary behavior were measured with an Actigraph-GT3X accelerometer. Location was determined using a Qstarz BT-Q1000X GPS receiver. METHODS: Minutes of daily activity were described as was percentage of wear time for each activity level across different locations during waking hours. Physical activity intensity, quantity, and location were also analyzed according to dialysis vs nondialysis days. RESULTS: Forty-three patients met requirements for accelerometer analysis, of whom 42 had GPS data. Median wear time was 836.5 min/day (interquartile range [IQR]: 788.3-918.3). Median minutes of daily wear time spent in sedentary behavior, light physical activity, and moderate to vigorous physical activity was 636 minutes (IQR: 594.1-730.1), 178 minutes (IQR: 144-222.1), and 1.6 minutes (IQR: 0.6-7.7), respectively. Proportion of daily wear time spent in sedentary behavior, light physical activity, and moderate to vigorous physical activity was 78.4% (IQR: 70.7-84.0), 21.5% (IQR: 16.0-26.9), and 0.2% (IQR: 0.1-1.1), respectively. Home was the dominant location for total linked accelerometer-GPS time (59.4%, IQR: 46.9-69.5) as well as for each prespecified level of activity. Significantly more sedentary behavior and less light physical activity occurred on dialysis days compared with nondialysis days (P ≤ .01, respectively). Moderate to vigorous physical activity did not differ significantly between dialysis and nondialysis days. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size from a single academic center may limit generalizability. Difficult to engage population as less than half of eligible dialysis patients provided consent. Physical activity may have been underestimated as devices were not worn for all waking hours or aquatic activities, and hip-based accelerometers may not capture stationary exercise. CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory, in-center hemodialysis patients exhibit substantial sedentary behavior and minimal physical activity across a limited range of locations. Given the sedentary tendencies of this population, focus should be directed on increasing physical activity at any location frequented. Home-based exercise programs may serve as a potential adjunct to established intradialytic-based therapies given the amount of time spent in the home environment.

CONTEXTE: Il a été démontré par des enquêtes d'auto-déclaration et des études objectives par accéléromètre que les patients en dialyse pratiquent peu d'activités modérées à vigoureuses et une activité physique légère. Les comportements sédentaires, caractérisés par une faible dépense énergétique (≤ 1,5 équivalent métabolique/MET), ont suscité moins d'intérêt. De plus, les endroits où l'activité physique et le comportement sédentaire sont pratiqués sont en grande partie inconnus des patients dialysés. OBJECTIFS: 1) Déterminer le nombre de minutes par jour d'activité physique modérée à vigoureuse, d'activité physique légère et de sédentarité chez les patients hémodialysés. 2) Décrire les différences d'activité physique modérée à vigoureuse, d'activité physique légère et de comportement sédentaire en comparant les journées de dialyse aux journées sans dialyse. 3) Recenser les endroits où les activités physiques modérées à vigoureuses, les activités physiques légères et les comportements sédentaires se produisent à l'aide des données du système de positionnement global (GPS). TYPE D'ÉTUDE: Étude transversale. CADRE: L'étude a été réalisée dans un hôpital de soins tertiaires en Nouvelle-Écosse (Canada).Sujets: Au total, 50 adultes hémodialysés en centre ont accepté de participer à l'étude. MESURES: Le niveau d'activité physique et les comportements sédentaires ont été mesurés à l'aide de l'accéléromètre Actigraph-GT3X. Les lieux ont été déterminés à l'aide d'un récepteur Qstarz BT-Q1000X GPS. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Le nombre de minutes d'activité quotidienne a été exprimé en pourcentage de temps de port de l'appareil pour chaque type d'activité, à différents endroits, pendant les heures d'éveil. L'intensité, la quantité et la localisation de l'activité physique ont également été analysées selon qu'il s'agissait ou non d'une journée de dialyse. RÉSULTATS: Quarante-trois patients remplissaient les conditions requises pour l'analyse par accéléromètre, dont 42 disposaient de données GPS. Le temps de port médian était de 836,5 minutes/jour (EIQ: 788,3-918,3). La médiane du nombre de minutes de port quotidien passées en période de sédentarité, d'activité physique légère ou d'activité modérée à vigoureuse était de 636 minutes (EIQ: 594,1-730,1), de 178 minutes (EIQ: 144-222,1) et de 1,6 minute (EIQ: 0,6-7,7), respectivement. La proportion du temps de port quotidien passé en comportement sédentaire, en activité physique légère et en activité physique modérée à vigoureuse était de 78,4 % (IQR 70,7-84,0), 21,5 % (IQR 16,0-26,9) et 0,2 % (IQR 0,1-1,1), respectivement. Le temps total pour le duo accéléromètre-GPS (59,4 %; IQR 46,9-69,5) et chacun des niveaux d'activité prédéfinis a été majoritairement enregistré au domicile. Les périodes de sédentarité et de faible activité physique ont été nettement plus observées les jours de dialyse en comparaison des jours sans dialyse (P ≤ ,01). L'activité physique modérée à vigoureuse n'a pas varié de façon significative, qu'il s'agisse ou non d'un jour de dialyse. LIMITES: La généralisation des résultats est limitée par la petite taille de l'échantillon et le fait que les sujets provenaient d'un seul centre. Aussi, le recrutement des sujets est difficile, moins de la moitié des patients admissibles a donné son consentement. Enfin, l'activité physique pourrait être sous-estimée puisque les appareils n'étaient pas portés pendant toutes les heures d'éveil ou lors des activités aquatiques, et qu'il est possible que l'accéléromètre, porté à la hanche, n'ait pas enregistré pas les exercices stationnaires. CONCLUSION: Les patients hémodialysés en centre sont très largement sédentaires et pratiquent une activité physique minimale dans un nombre limité d'endroits. Compte tenu de cette tendance, il convient de mettre l'accent sur l'augmentation de l'activité physique dans les lieux fréquentés par ces patients. Étant donné le temps passé à la maison, un programme d'exercices à domicile pourrait servir d'adjuvant potentiel aux traitements intradialytiques établis.

Perioperative Complications During Living Donor Nephrectomy: Results From a Multicenter Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: While living kidney donation is considered safe in healthy individuals, perioperative complications can occur due to several factors. OBJECTIVE: We explored associations between the incidence of perioperative complications and donor characteristics, surgical technique, and surgeon's experience in a large contemporary cohort of living kidney donors. DESIGN: Living kidney donors enrolled prospectively in a multicenter cohort study with some data collected retrospectively after enrollment was complete (eg, surgeon characteristics). SETTING: Living kidney donor centers in Canada (n = 12) and Australia (n = 5). PATIENTS: Living kidney donors who donated between 2004 and 2014 and the surgeons who performed the living kidney donor nephrectomies. MEASUREMENTS: Operative and hospital discharge medical notes were collected prospectively, with data on perioperative (intraoperative and postoperative) information abstracted from notes after enrollment was complete. Complications were graded using the Clavien-Dindo system and further classified into minor and major. In 2016, surgeons who performed the nephrectomies were invited to fill an online survey on their training and experience. METHODS: Multivariable logistic regression models with generalized estimating equations were used to compare perioperative complication rates between different groups of donors. The effect of surgeon characteristics on the complication rate was explored using a similar approach. Poisson regression was used to test rates of overall perioperative complications between high- and low-volume centers. RESULTS: Of the 1421 living kidney donor candidates, 1042 individuals proceeded with donation, where 134 (13% [95% confidence interval (CI): 11%-15%]) experienced 142 perioperative complications (55 intraoperative; 87 postoperative). The most common intraoperative complication was organ injury and the most common postoperative complication was ileus. No donors died in the perioperative period. Most complications were minor (90% of 142 complications [95% CI: 86%-96%]); however, 12 donors (1% of 1042 [95% CI: 1%-2%]) experienced a major complication. No statistically significant differences were observed between donor groups and the rate of complications. A total of 43 of 48 eligible surgeons (90%) completed the online survey. Perioperative complication rates did not vary significantly by surgeon characteristics or by high- versus low-volume centers. LIMITATIONS: Operative and discharge reporting is not standardized and varies among surgeons. It is possible that some complications were missed. The online survey for surgeons was completed retrospectively, was based on self-report, and has not been validated. We had adequate statistical power only to detect large effects for factors associated with a higher risk of perioperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the safety of living kidney donation as evidenced by the low rate of major perioperative complications. We did not identify any donor or surgeon characteristics associated with a higher risk of perioperative complications. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: NCT00319579: A Prospective Study of Living Kidney Donation (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00319579)NCT00936078: Living Kidney Donor Study (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00936078).

CONTEXTE: Bien que le don vivant d'un rein soit sécuritaire chez un individu en santé, plusieurs facteurs sont susceptibles d'engendrer des complications périopératoires. OBJECTIF: Nous avons exploré l'association entre l'incidence des complications périopératoires et les caractéristiques du donneur, la technique chirurgicale employée et l'expérience du chirurgien au sein d'une vaste cohorte contemporaine de donneurs vivants d'un rein. TYPE D'ÉTUDE: Une étude de cohorte multicentrique où certaines données (notamment les renseignements concernant le chirurgien) ont été recueillies rétrospectivement, après l'inclusion complète des sujets (donneurs vivants d'un rein). CADRE: Des centres de transplantation au Canada (n=12) et en Australie (n=5). SUJETS: Des individus ayant fait don d'un rein entre 2004 et 2014, et les chirurgiens qui ont procédé à la néphrectomie. MESURES: Les notes médicales au dossier, opératoires et à la sortie de l'hôpital, ont été recueillies de façon prospective; les données concernant les renseignements périopératoires (peropératoires et postopératoires) ayant été extraites des notes une fois l'inclusion du sujet complétée. Les complications ont été catégorisées selon la classification de Clavien-Dindo, puis caractérisées comme étant mineures ou majeures. En 2016, les chirurgiens ayant pratiqué les néphrectomies ont été invités à répondre à un sondage en ligne au sujet de leur formation et de leur expérience. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Des modèles de régression logistique multivariée utilisant des équations d'estimation généralisées ont été employés pour comparer les taux de complications périopératoires entre les différents groupes de donneurs. L'effet exercé sur le taux de complications par les caractéristiques du chirurgien a été exploré selon une approche similaire. Une régression de Poisson a été utilisée pour évaluer et comparer les taux globaux de complications entre les centres à volume élevé et les centres à faible volume. RÉSULTATS: Des 1 421 candidats répertoriés, 1 042 individus ont subi une néphrectomie, desquels 134 (13 % [IC 95 %: 11­15 %]) ont vécu un total de 142 complications périopératoires (55 peropératoires; 87 postopératoires). La complication peropératoire la plus fréquente était une lésion à l'organe, alors qu'un iléus s'est avéré la principale complication postopératoire. Aucun donneur n'est décédé en période périopératoire. La plupart des complications rencontrées étaient mineures (90 % des 142 complications répertoriées [IC 95 %: 86­96 %]). Toutefois, 12 donneurs (1 % des 1 042 donneurs [IC 95 %: 1­2 %]) ont souffert de complications majeures. Aucune différence significative du point de vue statistique n'a été observée entre les groupes de donneurs et le taux de complications. Des 48 chirurgiens admissibles, 43 (90 %) ont répondu au sondage en ligne. Les taux de complications périoperatoires n'ont pas varié de façon significative en fonction des caractéristiques des chirurgiens, ou selon le volume de patients de l'hôpital. LIMITES: La façon d'inscrire les renseignements médicaux (opératoires ou à la sortie de l'hôpital) dans les dossiers des patients n'est pas normalisée et varie d'un chirurgien à l'autre. Certaines complications pourraient ne pas avoir été notées. Le sondage en ligne destiné aux chirurgiens a été rempli rétrospectivement, il reposait sur des déclarations volontaires et n'avait pas fait l'objet d'une validation. Nous ne disposions d'une puissance statistique que pour détecter les effets importants des facteurs associés à un risque accru de complications périopératoires. CONCLUSION: Cette étude confirme le caractère sécuritaire d'un don vivant de rein, comme en témoigne le très faible taux de complications périopératoires majeures. Nous n'avons pu établir de caractéristiques, du donneur ou du chirurgien, qui soit associées à un risque accru de complications périopératoires.

Financial Costs Incurred by Living Kidney Donors: A Prospective Cohort Study.

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). RESULTS: Living 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.

Initiating Maintenance Dialysis Before Living Kidney Donor Transplantation When a Donor Candidate Evaluation Is Well Underway.

BACKGROUND: Preemptive kidney transplants result in better outcomes and patient experiences than transplantation after dialysis onset. It is unknown how often a person initiates maintenance dialysis before living kidney donor transplantation when their donor candidate evaluation is well underway. METHODS: Using healthcare databases, we retrospectively studied 478 living donor kidney transplants from 2004 to 2014 across 5 transplant centers in Ontario, Canada, where the recipients were not receiving dialysis when their donor's evaluation was well underway. We also explored some factors associated with a higher likelihood of dialysis initiation before transplant. RESULTS: A total of 167 (35%) of 478 persons with kidney failure initiated dialysis in a median of 9.7 months (25th-75th percentile, 5.4-18.7 months) after their donor candidate began their evaluation and received dialysis for a median of 8.8 months (3.6-16.9 months) before kidney transplantation. The total cohort's dialysis cost was CAD $8.1 million, and 44 (26%) of 167 recipients initiated their dialysis urgently in hospital. The median total donor evaluation time (time from evaluation start to donation) was 10.6 months (6.4-21.6 months) for preemptive transplants and 22.4 months (13.1-38.7 months) for donors whose recipients started dialysis before transplant. Recipients were more likely to start dialysis if their donor was female, nonwhite, lived in a lower-income neighborhood, and if the transplant center received the recipient referral later. CONCLUSION: One third of persons initiated dialysis before receiving their living kidney donor transplant, despite their donor's evaluation being well underway. Future studies should consider whether some of these events can be prevented by addressing inappropriate delays to improve patient outcomes and reduce healthcare costs.

Potential implications of a more timely living kidney donor evaluation.

Living donor kidney transplantation is the most promising way to avoid or minimize the amount of time a recipient spends on dialysis before transplantation. We studied 887 living kidney donors at 5 transplant centers in Ontario, Canada, who started their evaluation and donated between April 2006 and March 2014. Using a series of hypothetical scenarios, we estimated the impact of an earlier living donor evaluation completion and donation on the number pre-emptive transplants, the time spent on dialysis, healthcare cost savings from averted dialysis costs (CAD $2016), and the number of additional transplants. During the study period, if the donor transplants occurred 3 months earlier, the healthcare system would save on average $12 055 (standard deviation [SD] $13 594) per recipient; 21 recipients could have avoided dialysis altogether, and 57 additional transplants (a 26% increase) could have occurred each year. For the 220 living kidney donor transplants performed in Ontario, Canada, each year, this translates to a total annual cost savings of $2.7M. In conclusion, a more timely evaluation of living donor candidates and their intended recipients may increase the supply of kidneys for transplantation. Improved evaluation efficiency may also yield more pre-emptive transplants and substantial healthcare cost savings through averted dialysis costs.

Duration of Living Kidney Transplant Donor Evaluations: Findings From 2 Multicenter Cohort Studies.

BACKGROUND: A prolonged living kidney donor evaluation may result in worse outcomes for transplant recipients. Better knowledge of the duration of this process may help inform future donors and identify opportunities for improvement. STUDY DESIGN: 1 prospective and 1 retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: At 16 Canadian and Australian transplantation centers (prospective cohort) and 5 Ontario transplantation centers (retrospective cohort), we assessed the duration of living kidney donor evaluation and explored donor, recipient, and transplantation factors associated with longer evaluation times. Data were obtained from 2 sources: donor medical records using chart abstraction and health care administrative databases. PREDICTORS: Donor and recipient demographics, direct versus paired donation, center-level variables. OUTCOMES: Duration of living donor evaluation. RESULTS: The median total duration of transplantation evaluation (time from when the candidate started the evaluation until donation) was 10.3 (IQR, 6.5-16.7) months. The median duration from evaluation start until approval to donate was 7.9 (IQR, 4.6-14.1) months, and from approval until donation was 0.7 (IQR, 0.3-2.4) months, respectively. The median time between the first and last consultation among donors who completed a nephrology, surgery, and psychosocial assessment in the prospective cohort was 3.0 (IQR, 1.0-6.3) months, and between computed tomography angiography and donation was 4.8 (IQR, 2.6-9.2) months. After adjustment, the total duration of transplantation evaluation was longer if the donor participated in paired donation (6.6 [95% CI, 1.6-9.7] months) and if the recipient was referred later relative to the donor's evaluation start date (0.9 [95% CI, 0.8-1.0] months [per month of delayed referral]). Results depended on whether the recipient was receiving dialysis. LIMITATIONS: Living donor candidates who did not donate were not included and proxy measures were used for some dates in the donor evaluation process. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Endovascular Proximal Forearm Arteriovenous Fistula for Hemodialysis Access: Results of the Prospective, Multicenter Novel Endovascular Access Trial (NEAT).

BACKGROUND: Hemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) are suboptimally used primarily due to problems with maturation, early thrombosis, and patient nonacceptance. An endovascular approach to fistula creation without open surgery offers another hemodialysis vascular access option. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, single-arm, multicenter study (Novel Endovascular Access Trial [NEAT]). SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive adult non-dialysis-dependent and dialysis-dependent patients referred for vascular access creation at 9 centers in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. INTERVENTION: Using catheter-based endovascular technology and radiofrequency energy, an anastomosis was created between target vessels, resulting in an endovascular AVF (endoAVF). OUTCOMES: Safety, efficacy, functional usability, and patency end points. MEASUREMENTS: Safety as percentage of device-related serious adverse events; efficacy as percentage of endoAVFs physiologically suitable (brachial artery flow ≥ 500mL/min, vein diameter ≥ 4mm) for dialysis within 3 months; functional usability of endoAVFs to provide prescribed dialysis via 2-needle cannulation; primary and cumulative endoAVF patencies per standardized definitions. RESULTS: 80 patients were enrolled (20 roll-in and 60 participants in the full analysis set; the latter are reported). EndoAVFs were created in 98% of participants; 8% had a serious procedure-related adverse event (2% device related). 87% were physiologically suitable for dialysis (eg, mean brachial artery flow, 918mL/min; endoAVF vein diameter, 5.2mm [cephalic vein]). EndoAVF functional usability was 64% in participants who received dialysis. 12-month primary and cumulative patencies were 69% and 84%, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Due to the unique anatomy and vessels used to create endoAVFs, this was a single-arm study without a surgical comparator. CONCLUSIONS: An endoAVF can be reliably created using a radiofrequency magnetic catheter-based system, without open surgery and with minimal complications. The endoAVF can be successfully used for hemodialysis and demonstrated high 12-month cumulative patencies. It may be a viable alternative option for achieving AVFs for hemodialysis patients in need of vascular access.

Comparison of intensive versus standard hemodialysis central venous catheter dysfunction protocol using rt-PA: a quality assurance initiative.

PURPOSE: Catheter locking solutions such as recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) are used to treat and prevent clotting of hemodialysis (HD) catheters during HD treatments and the interdialytic period. However, evidence to guide the use of rt-PA for catheter dysfunction is limited. METHODS: We evaluated outcomes using two catheter dysfunction protocols in a cohort of consecutive prevalent dialysis patients (Jan 2013 to Sep 2014) undergoing HD with a tunneled catheter. In the intensive protocol, rt-PA was administered to all catheters based on blood flow and/or line reversal. In the standard protocol, rt-PA administration was based only on blood flow. The primary outcome was the rate of rt-PA use for catheter malfunction (rt-PA treatment days/1000 total line days; [TLD]). Secondary outcomes included the cost of rt-PA/TLD and the rate of catheter-related bacteremia. RESULTS: There were 26 and 35 patients managed by the intensive and standard protocols, respectively. The rate of rt-PA use was 52/1000 TLD (intensive) versus 39/1000 TLD (standard) (rate ratio 1.30, 95% CI 1.12-1.52 CI, p<0.001). The rate of bacteremia was 0.43 and 0.22/1000 TLD for the intensive and standard protocols, respectively (p = 0.491). The cost of rt-PA was CDN $5.58 and CDN $6.15 per TLD for the intensive protocol and standard protocol groups (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Managing catheter dysfunction based on line reversal and blood flow as opposed to only blood flow was associated with a higher rate of rt-PA use, but at a reduced overall cost.

Arteriovenous Vascular Access Selection and Evaluation.

When making decisions regarding vascular access creation, the clinician and vascular access team must evaluate each patient individually with consideration of life expectancy, timelines for dialysis start, risks and benefits of access creation, referral wait times, as well as the risk for access complications. The role of the multidisciplinary team in facilitating access choice is reviewed, as well as the clinical evaluation of the patient.

Au moment de prendre la décision de créer un accès vasculaire, le médecin traitant et l'équipe qui le soutient se doivent d'évaluer chaque patient de façon individuelle et tenir compte de plusieurs facteurs. Ces derniers incluent l'espérance de vie du patient, l'échéancier à respecter pour le démarrage de la dialyse, les risques et les avantages liés à la création d'un accès vasculaire, les temps d'attente à prévoir pour la consultation, de même que les risques de complications encourus à la suite de la procédure. Ce chapitre évalue le rôle de facilitateur que joue l'équipe multidisciplinaire dans la prise de décision de créer un accès vasculaire, de même que l'examen clinique du patient.

Arteriovenous Access Failure, Stenosis, and Thrombosis.

Vascular access-related complications can lead to patient morbidity and reduced patient quality of life. Some of the common arteriovenous access complications include failure to mature, stenosis formation, and thrombosis.

Les complications liées à la création d'un accès vasculaire peuvent s'avérer une cause de morbidité et entraîner une réduction de la qualité de vie du patient. Les complications artérioveineuses les plus répandues incluent un défaut de maturation et le développement d'une sténose ou d'une thrombose.

Arteriovenous Access: Infection, Neuropathy, and Other Complications.

Complications of vascular access lead to morbidity and may reduce quality of life. In this module, we review both infectious and noninfectious arteriovenous access complications including neuropathy, aneurysm, and high-output access. For the challenging patients who have developed many complications and are now nearing their last vascular access, we highlight some potentially novel approaches.

Les complications encourues après la création d'un accès vasculaire entraînent de la morbidité article pour le patient et peuvent contribuer à la diminution de sa qualité de vie. Dans ce chapitre, nous examinons les possibles complications artérioveineuses infectieuses et non infectieuses liées à l'accès vasculaire. La neuropathie, la rupture d'anévrisme et le débit sanguin élevé dans l'accès vasculaire sont notamment abordés. De plus, nous mettons l'accent sur des approches innovantes qui pourraient être utilisées pour les cas complexes de patients ayant développé plusieurs complications, et qui ont peu de sites potentiels pour la création de nouveaux abords vasculaires.