Sánchez VA, Vázquez DR, Ramírez SF, Aguirre MM, González GA, Bazán BA

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 88-92
PDF size: 208.66 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction. There is a highly significance difference in the waiting patient list and donors in Mexico; now there is new techniques developed to increase the pool of donors such as new drugs, the use of margin donors, methods that decrease antibody titters, cardiac death accepted in many places around the world, trying to full fill the demands. Objective. To present the characteristics founded in our population during the process of evaluation for possible donors to show the pattern to what it’s doing and what is has been described. Material and methods. There were reviewed the processes of the cadaveric donors in the period from 2001 to 2007 in the Hospital Juarez of Mexico. Results. There was caught a whole of 27 donors in the period of the study (six years), 13 (48%) male and 14 (52%) female. The reasons of cerebral death were a subarachnoid hemorrhage (59.25%), tumors of the nervous central system (25.9%) and neuroinfection or trauma (3.7%). Conclusion. In spite of that the criteria of selection both of donor and of recipient tend to retard the transplant for the diverse involved studies, in our country the number of donors has increased and with it the reserve of organs has passed from 16 to 40%.

REFERENCES

1. Stevens LA, Levey AS. Chronic Kidney disease in the elderly-how to assess risk. The New England Journal of Medicine 2005; 20: 352.

2. McClellan WM. Epidemiology and risk factors for chronic kidney disease. The Medical Clinics of North America 2005; 419: 445.

3. 2004 OPNT/SRTR Annual Report 1994-2003. Consultado en: http:/www.unos.org

4. 2007 CENATRA Gráficas de trasplantes en México 2001-2007. Consultado en: http:/www.cenatragob.mx/rnt

5. Basic J, Coric M, Kes P, Bubic F, Pasini J, et al. Disease in kidney from deceased donor. Am J Transplantation 2007; 7: 2829-33.

6. Metzger R, Delmonico F, Feng S, Port F, Wynne J, Merion R. Expanded criteria donors for kidney transplantation. Am J Trasplant 2003; 3: 114-25.

7. Stegall MD, Gloor J, Winters JL, et al. A comparison of plasmapheresis versus High dose IVIG desensitization in renal allograft recipient whit high levels of donor specific alloantibody. Am J Trasplant 2006; 6: 346-51.

8. Ishida H, Koyama I, Sawada T, et al. Anti-AB titer changes in patients whit ABO incompatibility after living related kidney transplantation: survey of 101 cases to determine whether splenectomies are necessary for successful transplantation. Transplant 2000: 70: 681-5.

9. Kayler LK, Farber JL, Colombe, et al. Characterization of rejection episodes in patients following positive crossmatch and ABO incompatible live donor renal transplantation. Traspl Int 2006; 19: 128-39.

10. Kootstrag G. The asystolic, or non-heart beating, donor. Transplantation 1997; 63: 917-21.

11. Halloran P, Hunsicker L. Delayed graft function. Am J Transplant 2001; 1: 115-20.

12. Gagandeep S, Matsuoka L, Mateo R, Cho Y, Genyk Y, Sher L, et al. Expanding the donor kidney pool: utility of renal allografts procured in a setting of uncontrolled cardiac death. Am J Transplantation 2006; 6: 1682-8.

13. Donauer J, Wipert J, Geyer M, et al. ABO incompatible Kidney transplantation using antigenic-specific inmunoadsorption and rituximab: A single center experience. Xenotrasplantation 2006; 13: 108-10.

14. Nathan H, Conrad S, Held P, et al. Organ donation in the United States. Am J Transplant 2003; 3: 29-40.

15. Kaplan B, Williams R. Organ donation: the gift, the weight and the tyranny of good acts. Am J Transplantation 2007; 7: 497-8.