RESUMEN
Organ shortage is the major limitation to kidney transplantation in the developed world. Conversely, millions of patients in the developing world with end-stage renal disease die because they cannot afford renal replacement therapy-even when willing living kidney donors exist. This juxtaposition between countries with funds but no available kidneys and those with available kidneys but no funds prompts us to propose an exchange program using each nation's unique assets. Our proposal leverages the cost savings achieved through earlier transplantation over dialysis to fund the cost of kidney exchange between developed-world patient-donor pairs with immunological barriers and developing-world patient-donor pairs with financial barriers. By making developed-world health care available to impoverished patients in the developing world, we replace unethical transplant tourism with global kidney exchange-a modality equally benefitting rich and poor. We report the 1-year experience of an initial Filipino pair, whose recipient was transplanted in the United states with an American donor's kidney at no cost to him. The Filipino donor donated to an American in the United States through a kidney exchange chain. Follow-up care and medications in the Philippines were supported by funds from the United States. We show that the logistical obstacles in this approach, although considerable, are surmountable.
Asunto(s)
Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Donación Directa de Tejido , Costos de la Atención en Salud/legislación & jurisprudencia , Fallo Renal Crónico/economía , Trasplante de Riñón/economía , Donadores Vivos/provisión & distribución , Obtención de Tejidos y Órganos/economía , Países en Desarrollo , Tasa de Filtración Glomerular , Supervivencia de Injerto , Recursos en Salud , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud , Humanos , Fallo Renal Crónico/cirugía , Pruebas de Función Renal , Trasplante de Riñón/legislación & jurisprudencia , Trasplante de Riñón/métodos , Filipinas , Formulación de Políticas , Pronóstico , Factores de Riesgo , Obtención de Tejidos y Órganos/métodos , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
Failure to convert computer-identified possible kidney paired donation (KPD) exchanges into transplants has prohibited KPD from reaching its full potential. This study analyzes the progress of exchanges in moving from "offers" to completed transplants. Offers were divided into individual segments called 1-way transplants in order to calculate success rates. From 2007 to 2014, the Alliance for Paired Donation performed 243 transplants, 31 in collaboration with other KPD registries and 194 independently. Sixty-one of 194 independent transplants (31.4%) occurred via cycles, while the remaining 133 (68.6%) resulted from nonsimultaneous extended altruistic donor (NEAD) chains. Thirteen of 35 (37.1%) NEAD chains with at least three NEAD segments accounted for 68% of chain transplants (8.6 tx/chain). The "offer" and 1-way success rates were 21.9 and 15.5%, respectively. Three reasons for failure were found that could be prospectively prevented by changes in protocol or software: positive laboratory crossmatch (28%), transplant center declined donor (17%) and pair transplanted outside APD (14%). Performing a root cause analysis on failures in moving from offer to transplant has allowed the APD to improve protocols and software. These changes have improved the success rate and the number of transplants performed per year.
Asunto(s)
Internet , Trasplante de Riñón , Obtención de Tejidos y Órganos/métodos , Algoritmos , Técnicas de Apoyo para la Decisión , Selección de Donante/métodos , Selección de Donante/organización & administración , Selección de Donante/tendencias , Humanos , Donadores Vivos , Modelos Estadísticos , Obtención de Tejidos y Órganos/organización & administración , Obtención de Tejidos y Órganos/tendencias , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
The study compares the efficacy of colonoscopic decompression versus decompression and tube placement in the treatment of Ogilvie's syndrome. Nine patients were treated with a single colonoscopic decompression which resulted in four recurrences. In contrast, there were no recurrences observed in 11 patients who underwent decompression and subsequent tube placement (p less than 0.05). There was no morbidity observed from either decompression or tube placement. Tube placement added less than 10 min of additional procedure time to the colonoscopy. The tube utilized in this study was an enteroclysis tube with sideholes cut in the distal 20 cm. The tube was easily inserted over a Teflon-coated flexible guide wire inserted through the colonoscope into the cecum following decompression. This study demonstrates that colonoscopic decompression followed by tube placement is the preferred treatment modality for acute nontoxic megacolon.