肾脏病学与治疗学杂志

Aim: This study sought to explore factors affecting Iranian living related donors’ motivation for kidney donation. Background: Living related donor kidney transplant is an ideal treatment among other options for chronic renal failure due to the greater compatibility of donor and recipient’s human leukocyte antigen. Accordingly, identifying factors affecting living related donors’ motivation for kidney donation is essential for transplant teams, including nurses, and can help them adopt strategies for encouraging family members to donate.
Methods: This was a descriptive qualitative study to which fourteen family donors (six females and eight males) were recruited purposively from transplantation centers of all teaching hospitals affiliated to Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. The study data were collected through in-depth semi-structured interviews and were analyzed by using the conventional content analysis approach.
Findings: Factors affecting Iranian living related donors’ motivation for kidney donation fell into three main categories including feelings of love and responsibility, spiritual motives, and knowledge of greater success rate of living related donor transplant. The first category consisted of the two sub-categories of close and constant companionship and inability to tolerate recipient’s discomfort.
Conclusion: The findings of the present study indicate that both personal factors (such as feeling of responsibility and spiritual motives) and organizational factors (such as informing family members about the importance and the benefits of family donation) are among the main motives for kidney donation by living related donors. Employing strategies for promoting these factors could facilitate the process of kidney donation by living related donors.

????? (ESRD) ?????????????????? ESRD ????????????????????????????????????? ESRD ?????? 2014 ?????????? ESRD ?? (N=264) ????????????????????????????? (n=132)???????????????????? 132 ??????????????????????????????????????????????????? ESRD ?????????????? (42.4% ? 20.5%) ???? (28% ? 16.7%)????????21.2% ? 4.5%???????65.9% ? 27.3%????????19.7% ? 6.1%?????????????????????????22% ? 9.1%?????????????????????????47.7% ? 23.5%??????41.7% ? 34.1%??????17.4% ? 6.1%???????48.5% ? 28%?????????95.1% ? 39.4%????????76.5% ? 59.1%??????70.5% ? 47.7%??????????????? Logistic ???????????????????? ESRD ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

?????? (NLR) ???????????????????????????????? NLR ??? AKI ????????????????????? 295 ? AKI ??????????????????????????????????????????????? NLR???????????????????????????????????? NLR ?????????? NLR ?? AKI ??????????????????????????? ROC ???????????? NLR ? 9.90 ????? 73% ????? 87% ?????HR?7.31?CI 3.36-15.91?p < 0.001?????NLR ???? AKI ?????????????

?? 1??? 25 ????????????????????????????????????????????????? I ??????????????????????????????????????????? (TI??N) ?????????????????? QuantiFERON ????? 10 ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????2????46???????CKD?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????TIN??????????III???????????????????????????????????????TIN????????????????????????????????????TINU???? Quantiferon ?????? TINU ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 2 ?? 6 ???????????????????TINU ?????????????????????????????????????????????

???????????????? (AKI) ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????SYL ?????????? RRT ?? AKI ????????? AKI ??????????????????????? AKI ????????????????????????????? 13 ?????? AKI ??????AKI ?????????????????????????? 3 ???????????????????????????????? 303 ???????????? 108 ??61 ????12 ?????? AKI?????? 45.65± 21.23 ??????? AKI ?????70.4%???????????????????? 26.9%?62% ? 11.1%????n=36?33.34%?????n=21?19.4%?????????12 ??11%?? AKI ??????10 ??10%?? AKI ??????21.3% ??? AKI ??????55 ??50.9%??????????? 30 ??27.8%???????????????????????????????????? 3 ??????? 34 ? (31.5%) ???41 ? (38%) ????????25 ? (23%) ?????8 ? (7.5%) ?????????????????????? AKI ????????????????????????????

Introduction: Treatment of Multiple Myeloma with high cut off filters was started in 2007. Working hypothesis: The High Cut Off hemodialysis is a cost-efficient treatment. Objective: To demonstrate that a combination treatment of chemotherapy and High cut off dialysis improves patient survival and quality of life, while saving costs by chronic dialysis. Methodology: Up to 13 treatments with HCO filters have been applied in the University Hospital Lozano Blesa of Zaragoza to patients with acute renal failure (ARF) secondary to Multiple myeloma. Results: 13 treatments were performed on 12 patients with high cut off hemodialysis. Six patients were diagnosed with monoclonal gammopathy Kappa and 6 were diagnosed with monoclonal gammopathy Lambda, with high levels of light chains in serum over 500 mg/L (11,036 mg/L on average at the beginning). We have achieved an improvement of renal function and have allowed the patient to live without dialysis dependence in 77%. We demonstrated that the savings would be 11.782 Euros. Discussion: This paper focused on the idea that although the high cost of high cut off filters is an inconvenience, this should not impede their use because the technique has been proven more effective and cost efficient Conclusion: The treatment is cost-effective; cost savings can be estimated in more than 11,000 euros/patient.