Screening Using Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration 2021 Equation Glomerular Filtration Rate Underestimates in Living Kidney Donors Compared With Measurement of Glomerular Filtration Rate

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background: Living kidney donation (KD) evaluation particularly focuses on glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Assessing GFR in living kidney donors can be done by estimation (eGFR) or measurement (mGFR). This study aims to evaluate the impact of eGFR equations, focusing on the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) 2021 equation for donor eligibility screening and the reclassification of donors excluded by eGFR criteria to mGFR assessments. Methods: Retrospective, single-center observational study of 2512 kidney donors evaluated between 2011 and 2023, at the Mayo Clinic. We performed analyses and comparisons of 4 eGFR formulae and 2 mGFR methods in terms of performance, eligibility criteria according to Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes guidelines/age-adjusted criteria, eligibility reclassification, and subgroup analyses. Results: The CKD-EPI 2021 resulted in a higher percentage of patients being eligible for KD (81.4%) and achieved the highest P10 (32%-34%) and P30 (87%-88%) across all mGFR methods. When patients were deemed eligible for donation by any eGFR formula, 95% retained this status on reassessment with mGFR. Conversely, when an eGFR formula classified a patient as ineligible, this was revised to be eligible in about 90% of cases on reassessment with mGFR, with a higher reclassification rate observed when the IoCl was used instead of CrCl. Conclusions: The CKD-EPI 2021 performs best for screening potential KD. If a KD is deemed ineligible by CKD-EPI 2021, there is a high likelihood that they will be reclassified as eligible when assessed with mGFR. This study strongly supports using mGFR in donor evaluations, especially when the eGFR does not meet the criteria to ensure equity of access to being a living donor.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.