English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Kidney transplant improves patients’ survival and quality of life. Worldwide, concern about the equality of access to the renal transplant wait-list is increasing. In Iran, patients have the choice to be placed on either the living or deceased-donor transplant wait-list.    Methods  This was a prospective study performed on 416 kidney transplant recipients ( n  = 217 (52.2%) from living donors and  n  = 199 (47.8%) from deceased donors). Subjects were recruited from four referral kidney transplant centers across Tehran, Iran, during 2016–2017. The primary outcome was to identify the psycho-socioeconomic factors influencing the selection of type of donor (living versus deceased). Secondary objective was to compare the outcomes associated with each type of transplant. The impact of psycho-socioeconomic variables on selecting type of donor was evaluated by using multiple logistic regression and the effect of surgical and non-surgical variables on the early post-transplant creatinine trend was assessed by univariate repeated measure ANOVA.    Results  Based on standardized coefficients, the main predictors for selecting living donor were academic educational level (adjusted OR = 3.25, 95% CI: 1.176–9.005,  p  = 0.023), psychological status based on general health questionnaire (GHQ) (adjusted OR = 2.46, 95% CI: 1.105–5.489,  p  = 0.028), and lower monthly income (adjusted OR = 2.20, 95% CI: 1.242–3.916,  p  = 0.007). The waiting time was substantially shorter in patients who received kidneys from living donors ( p  < 0.001). The early post-transplant creatinine trend was more desirable in recipients of living donors (β = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.16–1.44,  p -value = 0.014), patients with an ICU stay of fewer than five days (β = − 0.583, 95% CI: − 0.643- -0.522, p-value = < 0.001), and those with less dialysis duration time (β = 0.016, 95% CI: 0.004–0.028, p-value = 0.012). Post-operative surgical outcomes were not different across the two groups of recipients ( p  = 0.08), however, medical complications occurred considerably less in the living-donor group ( p  = 0.04).    Conclusion  Kidney transplant from living donors was associated with shorter transplant wait-list period and better early outcome, however, inequality of access to living donors was observed. Patients with higher socioeconomic status and higher level of education and those suffering from anxiety and sleep disorders were significantly more likely to select living donors.

Living or deceased-donor kidney transplant: the role of psycho-socioeconomic factors and outcomes associated with each type of transplant