Search

The clinical practice guideline Management of Obesity in Kidney Transplant Candidates and Recipients was developed to guide decision-making in caring for people with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) living with obesity. The document considers the challenges in defining obesity, weighs interventions for treating obesity in kidney transplant candidates as well as recipients and reflects on the impact of obesity on the likelihood of wait-listing as well as its effect on transplant outcomes. It was designed to inform management decisions related to this topic and provide the backdrop for shared decision-making. This guideline was developed by the European Renal Association's Developing Education Science and Care for Renal Transplantation in European States working group. The group was supplemented with selected methodologists to supervise the project and provide methodological expertise in guideline development throughout the process. The guideline targets any healthcare professional treating or caring for people with ESKD being considered for kidney transplantation or having received a donor kidney. This includes nephrologists, transplant physicians, transplant surgeons, general practitioners, dialysis and transplant nurses. Development of this guideline followed an explicit process of evidence review. Treatment approaches and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies and appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Limitations of the evidence are discussed and areas of future research are presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Existing guidelines on the evaluation and preparation of recipients for kidney transplantation target the entire spectrum of patients with end-stage renal disease. Within the ERA-EDTA Developing Education Science and Care for Renal Transplantation in European States (DESCARTES) Working Group, it was proposed that in a subset of relatively young patients (<40 years) without significant comorbidities (such as diabetes or cardiovascular disease), the work-up for transplantation could be restricted to a small set of tests. Methods Aiming for agreement between transplant centres across Europe, we surveyed the opinion of 80 transplant professionals from 11 European states on the composition of a minimal work-up. Results We show that there is a wide agreement among European experts that the work-up for kidney transplantation of the low-risk candidate, as opposed to the standard risk candidate, could include a limited number of investigations. However, there is some disagreement regarding the small number of diagnostic procedures, which is related to geographical location within Europe and the professional background of respondents. Conclusions Based on the results of the survey, published guidelines and expert meetings by the DESCARTES Working Group, we have formulated a proposal for the work-up of low-risk kidney transplant candidates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There is variation in time to listing and rates of listing for transplantation between renal units in the UK. While research has mainly focused on healthcare organization, little is known about patient perspectives of entry onto the transplant waiting list. This qualitative study aimed to explore patients' views and experiences of kidney transplant listing. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients aged under 75, who were on dialysis and on the transplant waiting list, not on the waiting list, undergoing assessment for listing or who had received a transplant. Patients were recruited from a purposive sample of nine UK renal units, which included transplanting and non-transplanting units and units with high and low wait-listing patterns. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. Results Fifty-three patients (5–7 per renal unit) were interviewed. Patients reported that they had received little information about the listing process. Some patients did not know if they were listed or had found they were not listed when they had thought they were on the list. Others expressed distress when they felt they had been excluded from potential listing based on age and/or comorbidity and felt the process was unfair. Many patients were not aware of pre-emptive transplantation and believed they had to be on dialysis before being able to be listed. There was some indication that pre-emptive transplantation was discussed more often in transplant than non-transplant units. Lastly, some patients were reluctant to consider family members as potential donors as they reported they would feel ‘guilty’ if the donor suffered subsequent negative effects. Conclusions Findings suggest a need to review current practice to further understand individual and organizational reasons for the renal unit variation identified in patient understanding of transplant listing. The communication of information warrants attention to ensure patients are fully informed about the listing process and opportunity for pre-emptive transplantation in a way that is meaningful and understandable to them. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]