Prevalence, Mechanisms, Treatment, And Complications Of Hypertension Postliving Kidney Donation

Contact: Audrey Hu Whatsapp/hp: 0086 13880143964 Email: audrey.hu@wecistanche.com

Stuart Deoraj et al

Living kidney donors represent a unique population of patients. Potential donors are selected based on the belief that their preoperative fitness is likely to mitigate the risks of long- and short-term harm following uninephrectomy. Studies performed on post-donation outcomes have largely focused on mortality and the risk of end-stage renal failure, but have also investigated secondary outcomes such as cardiovascular morbidity and hypertension. It has been postulated that hypertension is a possible outcome of living kidney donation. A variety of studies have been conducted to investigate the prevalence, epidemiology, mechanisms, treatment strategies, and long-term ramifications of hypertension post-donation. These studies are heterogeneous in their population, design, methodology, and outcome measures and have presented contradicting outcomes. Additionally, the absence of a well-matched control group has made it challenging to interpret and generalize the reported findings. As such, it is not possible to definitively conclude that hypertension occurs at a higher rate among donors than the general population. This article will review the evidence of post-donation hypertension prevalence, mechanisms, treatment, and complications.

Cistanche tubulosa prevents kidney disease, click here to get the sample

1. Introduction

Kidney transplantation, for the majority of patients with end-stage renal failure, remains the treatment of choice of renal replacement therapy (RRT) [1] [2]. Despite the dawn of complex, patient- and evidence-directed immunosuppressive treatment, compared with deceased kidney donation, living kidney donation is significantly associated with sustainably improved long-term physical, biochemical, and psychological outcomes of the recipients [3, 4]. Regardless, however, deceased donation currently accounts for over 60 percent of kidney transplantation occurring in both the United Kingdom and the United States, alluding somewhat to the complexities and challenges associated with appropriate donor selection [5, 6].

A vast wealth of evidence exists on the long-term health complications associated with end-stage renal failure and dialysis, particularly regarding the effects on patient-related qualitative outcomes and cardiovascular mortality which adjusts following kidney transplantation [7–10]. The volume of high-quality literature on long-term outcomes following an elective nephrectomy from an otherwise healthy donor is comparatively scanty. This review is aimed at assessing previous literature for evidence of the long-term sequelae in living kidney donation, focusing on the onset, epidemiology, prevalence, outcomes, and burden of hypertension following donor nephrectomy.

2. Challenges in the Literature Review of Living Kidney Donors

Living kidney transplant donors represent a unique subset of the general population both pre-and post-donation. The process of performing a surgical procedure with the intent of harvesting a fully functioning organ from a healthy individual has historically been debated as a potentially ethical grey area, which is counterbalanced by the belief that the harm induced to the donor is negligible and comparatively outweighed by the potential benefit provided to the recipient [11].

In an ideal setting, a robust selection process for kidney donors, including preoperative counseling and physical assessment, is aimed at identifying potential donors at the peak of health and exists at the upper end of the population normal distribution curve for their age- and sex-matched peers. Following the donation, they represent a cohort of healthy individuals with solitary kidneys. These characteristics make this cohort of patients inherently challenging to effectively match to control groups from the general population, even when adjusted for age and gender. Conclusions drawn from this data on the quantitative and qualitative outcomes are therefore challenging to interpret or generalize [12].

Additionally, the majority of donors are discharged from follow-up relatively quickly given the low incidence of perioperative morbidity and mortality [13, 14]. In the UK, long-term follow-up data is largely missing in these patients because their follow-up does not form part of standard clinical practice for the majority of donors.

Another major pitfall in the existing literature on donors is a lack of transparency and uniform standardization in the selection and fitness testing of potential donors. Uncertainty regarding the parameters of fitness among donors in previous literature dramatically increases the challenges faced in generalizing the findings previously reported, particularly when counseling these patients in the clinic. The diagnosis of hypertension is likely to be one of the indications for longer-term follow-up of donors, a phenomenon that may introduce bias by apparently inflating the proportion of hypertensive donors who are included in studies.

It is noteworthy that biochemical evidence suggests that following nephrectomy, the circadian rhythm of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) undergoes significant remodeling [15]. Inconsistencies in the measurement methodology and time may well skew the findings of these longitudinal studies. A further issue identified includes the heterogeneity in ethnicity among study groups, which significantly impacts generalisability to clinical practice in multi-ethnic societies [16, 17].

In addition to the above, despite the apparent health of potential donors, the demographics of these patients is a key aspect that must be considered. The vast majority of studies on the topic of hypertension as a long-term outcome of living kidney donation do not discriminate between related and unrelated donors. Epidemiological data suggest that renal disease is predominantly seen in patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease. These primary illnesses are also prevalent among lower socioeconomic groups. Living-related or partnered donors may share similar genetic and socioeconomic traits as their recipients and, as such, may be exposed to similar cardiovascular risks [18–20].

What is also unclear from the literature is the blood pressure outcome of the recipients specifically from donors who develop de novo hypertension. Given that the blood pressure profile in transplant patients is heavily dependent on the phenotype of the transplanted kidney, hypertension among recipients may allude to an underlying process specific to the donor, rather than simply uninephrectomy.

Understandably, controlled studies have yet to accomplish matching which accommodates beyond age and sex and also considers the role of shared socioeconomic and genetic factors in prognosis among this unique cohort. Alongside this, the qualitative aspect of the psychological stressors associated with living kidney donation has only recently become apparent and represents yet another aspect of hypertension prediction which has not been explored or appropriately matched in previous trials and studies [21–24].

3. Prevalence of Postdonation Hypertension in Living Kidney Donors

The literature regarding the incidence and prevalence of hypertension in the years following living kidney donation is characterized predominantly by inconsistency in study design and outcomes [12]. While the majority of these papers assessed kidney donors retrospectively as a cohort, little data is presented on pre-donation clinical parameters including smoking status, cardiovascular fitness, or family history.

Among these studies, there is wide variability in the time point post-donation at which blood pressure is assessed and reported. Exclusion criteria vary between studies, occasionally, including individuals with pre-donation hypertension or subgroups with statistically significant variability in their pre-donation blood pressure [16, 25]. The lack of cohesiveness in the donor cohorts of reported literature drives a significant degree of uncertainty in the generalisability of the data. Often the cohort size within these studies is small, hampered by loss to follow-up, in itself a form of bias as highlighted above [26, 27]. In these studies, there is a significant variation of donor characteristics. Particularly relevant to the smaller studies, comparison against age- and sex-matched controls becomes challenging for subgroup analyses.

The definition and robustness of a diagnosis of hypertension vary, with some studies relying heavily on medication lists and only one study investigating the use of ambulatory blood pressure measurements (ABPM) in the diagnosis of hypertension. Holscher et al. assessed over 41000 patients with a relatively short follow-up period of two years divided into blocks from which statistical estimation was used to arrive at a diagnosis of hypertension given significant data gaps [19]. They identified an exponential rise in hypertension prevalence at two years but based their diagnosis on center-reported data rather than objective measures of blood pressure. Comparatively, Yadav et al. conducted a prospective observational study on a smaller group of only 51 patients of whom most were women who were followed up for only three months but utilized ABPM [18, 27]. Another study by Holscher et al., drawn from the American WHOLE-Donor trial, relied heavily on the use of self-reported diagnosis of hypertension and did not use baseline objective measures of blood pressure in the calculation of post-donation prevalence.

This study reported a hazard ratio of 1.19 (p = 0:04), for the outcome of self-reported hypertension among donors compared to healthy controls [28]. Preexisting trial data from a population study was used as a surrogate marker for the outcome of hypertension among the general population. It was weighted for age, race, and sex, but was not validated to match more detailed health characteristics of the donor population. Among the studies, the average age at donation varies significantly, allowing wide margins of error [25, 29]. Additionally, as discussed previously, the absence of a truly comparable control group that meets an adequate threshold from which to draw conclusions about the natural history of living kidney donation creates significant obscurity in the understanding of the study findings.

The single largest landmark controlled study assessing long-term outcomes in 1900 donors compared to a group of 30000 age-, gender-, BMI- (body mass index-), and blood pressure-matched controls, by Mjøen et al., informs the counseling of long-term renal failure outcomes in potential kidney donors [26]. This study did not report on hypertension prevalence, but assessed all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. The adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality following kidney donation, once adjusted by multiple imputations, was 1.4 (p=0:03). Of note, this value is widely different from the unadjusted hazard ratio of 3.18 (p<0:001), suggestive of the misleading potential of inappropriate control matching. Other types of studies including projected analyses using simulation software suggest a significantly higher prevalence of hypertension should be expected among donors compared to controls, but the reliability of these types of studies remains undermined by the problematic nature and uncertainty of predicting late events [30].

It is unsurprising, given the above, that studies assessing the prevalence of hypertension following elective uninephrectomy in healthy donors have highly variable reported outcomes compared to either controls or age- and sex-matched individuals from general population epidemiological studies. Studies that have proposed that there is a significant risk of developing increased blood pressure following donation are faulted by poor design, the absence of a meaningful control group, and small sample size [2, 12, 16, 25, 31, 32].

Among these studies, Thiel et al. reported on a prospective Swiss cohort of 1214 donors with a follow-up of 10 years and identified that compared to the Framingham data of age-and sex-matched controls, the risk of hypertension at 1 year was triplicated by kidney donation compared to the general population [25]. This study reported that the predicted risk of developing hypertension compared to healthy controls was 3.64 (p < 0:001). Despite the prospective design of this study, significant data gaps requiring sensitivity analyses were employed. 26% of patients were lost to follow-up, and this study design did not exclude patients from analysis who had significantly higher pre-donation systolic blood pressure.

Comparatively, similar limitations can be identified among studies suggesting that the prevalence of hypertension is equivalent to or less than that expected of the general population [17, 33–40]. Sanchez et al. performed a robust analysis of 3700 donors matched to controls based on NHANES epidemiological studies and reported on the prevalence of hypertension among predominantly Caucasian donors, relying heavily on donor self-reporting. The matching performed in this study did not include robust exclusion criteria among the NHANES cohort. As such, the data reported on population statistics among age-matched groups but lacked an intensive subgroup consisting of controls with other baseline features that would make them more comparable to donors. They identified that the prevalence of hypertension was significantly less than that expected of age-matched controls, a finding which is challenging to generalize given the limitations above. This study performed subgroup analyses which identified that the incidence of hypertension is highly dependent on the accumulation of risk factors in addition to uninephrectomy. Of note, the patients who developed post-donation hypertension were categorically distinct from those who did not. They were older, tended to be smokers with higher BMIs and higher creatinine and cholesterol measurements post-donation. The mean starting blood pressure in patients who developed hypertension was higher than that of those who did not develop hypertension after 50 years. Additionally, the slope of blood pressure incrementation overtime was steeper for those who developed hypertension by a small but statistically significant margin of 0.9 mmHg/decade (p < 0:0001).

Over a period of forty-five years, a progressive rise in blood pressure was identified among all patients. In those who achieved hypertension, a rate of increase of 2.9 mmHg per decade in systolic pressure was recorded, compared to a rate of increase of 2 mmHg per decade among nonhypertensive patients. A progressive rise in blood pressure has previously been demonstrated among adults and has been attributed to age-related phenomena, genetic and environmental-mental factors, and vascular remodeling.

The underlying characteristics of these patients were distinct, with higher-end blood pressure identified among persons with higher BMI (p < 0:001), smokers (p < 0:001), older donors (p < 0:001), lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (p < 0:001), and first-degree relatives of the recipient (p < 0:001). Additionally, this study identified that the risk of hypertension was exacerbated by the cumulative presence of these synergistic risk factors.

Among the most robust studies, Saran et al. suggested that a group of donors matched against epidemiological data from the NHANES III and Whickham studies showed a statistically significant trend towards a higher prevalence of hypertension over time, particularly past the age of 60 [32]. Given that this publication related to a small cohort of patients assessed between the years 1963 and 1982, the findings reported in this paper are challenging to apply to current clinical practice [32].

A key meta-analysis of published studies of donors by Boudville concluded that over time, an average rise of 5 mmHg in systolic blood pressure was observed in donors as opposed to controls. Having assessed forty-eight papers accumulating greater than 5000 patients, the authors mentioned that the certainty of this finding was consistently hampered by poor study design, incomplete follow-up, and small individual studies with variable endpoints and exclusion criteria [12].

One consistent finding throughout the literature is the certainty that the presentation of hypertension is not a unanimous phenomenon. Recurrently, a tendency towards hypertension was observed to predominate in ethnic minorities, donors with higher BMI, men, and older donors longitudinally over time [2, 19, 34, 35, 41]. While this effect is likely on par with the expected blood pressure rise within this group over time, an inflated prevalence among donors is possible, but challenging to quantify or prove conclusively given the current body of evidence. An important consideration however includes a small study by Doshi et al., conducted in 100 African-American donors in which all donors were genotyped for APOL1 gene mutations and stratified by risk [42]. Although homozygous donors are believed to be the most pathogenic genotype of APOL1, the study identified that the risk of post-donation hypertension among these patients was equivalent to lower risk genotypic variations.

The few studies which were adequately powered to assess subgroups within the donor cohort also concurred that hypertension was more prevalent among relatives and partners of kidney transplant recipients, indicating a social or genetic phenomenon that may contribute to the outcomes identified [19].

It is noteworthy that other human studies that may provide insight into the prevalence of hypertension include the subgroup analyses of patients with renal tumors under the age of 75 who have either radical nephrectomy or nephron-sparing therapy. As directly comparable groups, there is a propensity towards hypertension among persons with radical nephrectomy [43].

In contrast to the nature of human studies, a clinical-biochemical controlled study published in an animal model of uninephrectomy with follow-up over a period of 18 months supported the findings of a statistically significant prevalence of hypertension among male nephrectomized rats vs. non nephrectomized males. In this study, renal salt handling and diuresis appeared significantly better among female rats compared to male rats. Despite the pitfalls of animal studies, the findings of this paper serve as a modeling tool in the absence of a clear answer among human studies [44].

Overall, it is reasonable to conclude from the literature that the prevalence of hypertension among donors occurs likely, at least at the same rate as expected among matched controls for the first decade following donation. Beyond this time frame, the data is increasingly unclear because of significant gaps in follow-up. This rate is also unlikely to be uniform among all donors but may be dependent on coincidental modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors including race, age, gender, pre-donation blood pressure, and BMI.

4. Potential Mechanisms of Postdonation Hypertension in Living Kidney Donors

Hypertension is frequently associated with chronic kidney disease via complex, multistep mechanisms which include water and salt handling, endothelial dysfunction, RAAS activation, and nervous system hyperactivity [46]. To a degree, derangement of these steps is likely primed by preexisting illnesses, which are largely absent among healthy living kidney donors compared to the general population.

A popular explanation for hypertension among living kidney donors refers to the “nephron number” theory. This theory explains that the risk of developing hypertension is inversely proportional to the active number of nephrons (Figure 1) [47]. The mechanism by which nephron number contributes to hypertension is poorly understood. While this phenomenon has been identified in rat models, the true incidence and mechanism of hypertension among living kidney donors remain unclear and are likely cushioned by an adaptive response in the remaining kidney. A summary of the current evidence is provided in Table 1.

Following kidney donation, structural analysis of the remaining kidney suggests a number of important adaptive changes. This includes firstly a significant hypertrophy and endowment of nephron-rich parenchyma. Second, adaptive benign hyperfiltration and an increased cardiac output have been observed [48–50]. These mechanisms suggest that nephron number may not be a significant determinant of hypertension among donors.

This raises the possibility of a “second hit” phenomenon, which relies on a superadded insult following nephrectomy [48]. What is clear from the literature is that living kidney donors are heterogeneous in their baseline characteristics. Of note, a higher baseline blood pressure, elevated BMI, older age, and certain ethnic origins augment the trajectory of blood pressure post-donation. This suggests that among healthy individuals who have undergone an elective uninephrectomy, the generation of hypertension is driven by specific mechanisms which interact with the adaptive cardiovascular remodeling, rather than directly related to donation.

Animal models have provided evidence of reduced effectiveness of salt handling and have demonstrated blood pressure in unine nephrectomized animal models to be salt-sensitive [51]. In this study of 3-week-old rats which were randomized to either sham or uninephrectomy operations, a period of 6-8 weeks of study was employed with the second layer of randomization to either high or normal salt diets. This study demonstrated that the incidence of hypertension was the greatest among predominantly male, unine nephrectomized rats that were exposed to high salt intake. Additionally, a relative 11 beta-hydroxylase deficiency identified in rat models potentially represents an alternate explanatory mechanism [52]. In this study, 8-week-old rats were randomized to either sham or uninephrectomy operations followed by a period of monitoring aldosterone, protein, and corticosteroid metabolites. These models suggest that the generation of hypertension is a separate event from simply structural glomerular damage and indicates that uninephrectomy is not directly causal of hypertension, but instead results in downstream mechanisms which augment blood pressure [53].

Given the evidence of heterogeneity in the onset of hypertension among donors and an apparent prevalence of hypertension, particularly among men, Hispanic and Black donors, the onset of hypertension following kidney donation is likely only in part related to the structural and functional adaptations. There is likely a genetic or epigenetic component that fulfills the “second hit,” which is yet to be fully elucidated.

5. Complications of Postdonation Hypertension in Living Kidney Donors

In the general population, uncontrolled hypertension has a strong causal effect on the outcomes of end-organ damage, particularly cardiovascular mortality, the burden of polypharmacy, end-stage renal failure, and proteinuria [54]. Similar to above, the natural history of hypertension in living kidney donors is not fully elucidated, and the outcomes reported in the literature are marked by inconsistency. Some studies suggest that long-term outcomes of uninephrectomy are beneficial to mortality and that there is no difference from the general population, while others suggest a significant trend towards increased morbidity and mortality.

Mjøen et al. reported that cumulative all-cause mortality and chronic kidney disease are inflated among donors [45]. The role of hypertension itself as a factor in this propensity is however unclear. This study matched over 1500 donors against 30000 healthy controls according to a variety of criteria. The study matching protocol was highly robust and included the careful exclusion of controls based on health characteristics that would have prevented them from becoming living kidney donors. Of note, the control group had strict BMI, blood pressure, and age exclusion criteria. Consequently, the control group employed was likely highly comparable to the donor population. The study reported that the hazard ratio of adjusted all-cause mortality among donors was 1.4 (p = 0:03). Additionally, the adjusted Cox regression analysis end-stage renal disease after multiple imputations was 11.38 (p ≤ 0:001) for donors compared to controls. Importantly, this subgroup analysis compared 31 patients to 34522 controls. Despite its strong statistical significance, the validity of this finding is challenging to translate into practice.

Epidemiological data suggest cardiovascular disease to be a global pandemic directly associated with mortality [45]. In contrast to this, long-term studies have suggested malignancy to outrank cardiovascular disease as a leading cause of death in living kidney donors [55]. A number of studies have gone on to postulate that the role of hypertension is likely an aspect of adaptive physiological change, but accept that there is adequate uncertainty about long-term outcomes which is fostered by the study limitations [56–60].

It is well recognized from robust cardiovascular studies that following uninephrectomy, significant physical adaptations occur, inclusive of cardiac remodeling characterized by a statistically significant increase in ventricular mass among donors compared to controls [58]. The role of this however may prove to be representative of adaptive phenomena rather than immediately pathogenic.

The evidence suggests that cardiovascular mortality in donors is no different from the general population in the first-decade post-donation, suggesting that cardiac remodeling and cardiovascular adaptations may not carry the weight of clinical significance [61]. Additionally, multiple logistic regression has identified that the onset of hypertension correlates poorly with glomerular filtration rate, smoking, and proteinuria [33].

It is noteworthy however that this finding may be cushioned by the cherry-picking bias imposed on the literature by having pristinely healthy donors compared to the age- and sex-matched population, making generalization of these findings largely misleading.

6. Treatment and Prevention of Postdonation Hypertension in Living Kidney Donors

Living kidney donation is associated with a robust series of assessments and counseling of potential donors. Pre donation assessment and counseling need to develop on par with the developing awareness of the downstream sequelae of kidney donation including the physical and psychological elements. While there are studies assessing the risk of depression following kidney transplantation, there is undoubtedly a coexistent psychosocial benefit of kidney transplantation. These psycho-social elements and their outcome on the physical well-being of donors are yet to be unpicked. A propensity towards hypertension has been identified within certain subgroups within the donor population which may or may not have subsequent knock-on effects on cardiovascular mortality. As such, appropriate kidney donation must be accompanied by the robust screening of potential donors for hypertension and cardiovascular mortality. These should not necessarily be barriers to donation but should be used to inform potential donors of risks in a holistic way.

The evidence suggests that uninephrectomy is not clearly a risk factor for the development of de novo hypertension for all donors. The outcome of hypertension appears to be the end result of the synergistic effects of kidney donation with modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors. As such, pre-donation counseling should include a risk calculator in order to provide potential donors with evidence-based decisions.

The development of hypertension and cardiovascular mortality, similar to that of the general population, is likely driven by a combination of modifiable and nonmodifiable factors. Donors should be counseled about salt restriction and monitoring of blood pressure at home. Given the uncertainty presented in the data on the long-term sequelae of hypertension among donors, it is unclear what target blood pressure should be recommended.

Modifiable risk factors, such as smoking and elevated BMI, that impede the health and well-being of patients and appear to contribute to hypertension should be addressed, although these should not be considered per se a contraindication to donating [62]. Older donors should be counseled on the apparently increased likelihood of developing hypertension. Additionally, given the finding of increased cardiovascular and all-cause mortality over time, longer follow-up should be instituted for donors as part of clinical practice, particularly among men, those who are older, those who belong to ethnic minority groups, those who smoke, and those with higher BMI at the time of donation [26]. The median time to diagnosis of hypertension according to Sanchez et al. was 15 years. As such, long-term follow-up for these late cardiovascular events is required.

It is worth noting that by standard description, kidney donors do not fall into a category that is truly comparable to age- and sex-matched controls in the general population. Given that hypertension may well represent the end product of an adaptive process in an individual who is apparently at no greater risk of cardiovascular mortality, some studies have postulated that a reasonable degree of permissive hypertension is likely appropriate, rather than intensive blood pressure control [63].

Further study is required to delineate the prevalence of hypertension among kidney donors, particularly given the changes in approach to the identification, selection, and management of donors. One such study which may shed light on the role of uninephrectomy on the outcome of hypertension may include an analysis of recipients from donors who develop post-donation de novo hypertension. This may indicate a donor-specific phenomenon responsible for the genesis of hypertension.

7. Conclusion

There remains significant uncertainty regarding the prevalence, pathophysiology, complications, and management of hypertension following living kidney donation. It is unclear whether or not there is a significant risk of hypertension in donors compared to the general population. It appears clear from the evidence that the propensity for hypertension is a heterogeneous phenomenon that affects donors to different degrees and may be related to ethnicity, age, time from transplant, and BMI.

The mechanisms driving hypertension are likely to be inexorably linked with renal salt handling and a deficiency in nephron number contextualized to individual characteristics and are similarly likely to be part of an adaptive process following uninephrectomy. The long-term sequelae of hypertension among donors remain unclear.

Overall, there may be a small to a modest increase in blood pressure post-donation, which is more apparent in certain subgroups of donors, but the validity of these findings has consistently been hampered by the absence of a meaningful control group, significant bias, small sample size, retrospective design, and poor follow-up. Additionally, this propensity to developing de novo hypertension is likely reliant on a complex interplay of nephrectomy contextualized to individual risk factors. Among these patients, the risk of developing hypertension appears to result in significant cardiovascular remodeling. These outcomes do not appear at present to have a significant bearing on clinical outcomes, but further long-term data is required to resolve this matter conclusively.

References

[1] N. Hill, S. Fatoba, J. Oke, et al., “Global prevalence of chronic kidney disease – a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Plos One, vol. 11, no. 7, p. e0158765, 2016.

[2] P. Delaney, L. Weekers, B. Dubois, et al., “Outcome of the living kidney donor,” Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 41–50, 2012.

[3] E. Nemati, B. Einollahi, M. Lesan Pezeshki, V. Porfarziani, and M. Reza Fattahi, “Does kidney transplantation with deceased or living donor affect graft survival?,” Nephro-Urology Monthly, vol. 6, no. 4, p. e12182, 2014.

[4] M. I. Bellini, A. E. Courtney, and J. A. McCaughan, “Living Donor Kidney Transplantation Improve Graft and Recipient Survival in Patients with Multiple Kidney Transplants,” Journal of Clinical Medicine, vol. 9, no. 7, article 2118, 2020.

[5] ODT Clinical - NHS Blood and Transplant, Living donation, 2020, June 2020.

[6] National Kidney Foundation, Organ donation and transplantation statistics, 2020, June 2020.

[7] G. Chertow, N. Levin, G. Beck, et al., “Long-term effects of frequent in-center hemodialysis,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1830– 1836, 2016.

[8] H. Information, H. Statistics, K. States, K. States, T. Center, and N. Health, Kidney disease statistics for the United States | NIDDK, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 2020, June 2020.

[9] E. Tang, A. Bansal, M. Novak, and I. Mucsi, “Patient-reported outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease and kidney transplant—part 1,” Frontiers in Medicine, vol. 4, 2018.

[10] R. Chan, R. Brooks, J. Erlich, J. Chow, and M. Suranyi, “The effects of kidney-disease related loss on longterm dialysis patients’ depression and quality of life: positive affect as a mediator,” Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 160– 167, 2009.

[11] K. Wadhwa and O. Kayes, “Live kidney donation: what are our ethical responsibilities?,” Trends in Urology & Men's Health, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 25–28, 2013.

[12] N. Boudville, G. Ramesh Prasad, G. Knoll, et al., “Meta-analysis: risk for hypertension in living kidney donors,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 145, no. 3, pp. 185– 196, 2006.

[13] D. Segev, “Perioperative mortality and long-term survival following live kidney donation,” JAMA, vol. 303, no. 10, p. 959,2010.

[14] M. Bellini, R. Wilson, P. Veitch, et al., “Hyperamylasemia post living donor nephrectomy does not relate to pain,” Cureus, vol. 12, no. 5, 2020.

[15] N. Ohashi, S. Isobe, S. Ishigaki, et al., “The effects of unilateral nephrectomy on blood pressure and its circadian rhythm,” Internal Medicine, vol. 55, no. 23, pp. 3427–3433, 2016.

[16] R. Hakim, R. Goldszer, and B. Brenner, “Hypertension and proteinuria: long-term sequelae of uninephrectomy in humans,” Kidney International, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 930–936,1984.

[17] T. Yasumura, I. Nakai, T. Oka, et al., “Experience with 247 living related donor nephrectomy cases at a single institution in Japan,” The Japanese Journal of Surgery, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 252–258, 1988.

[18] M. Abomelha, S. Assari, A. Shaaban, K. al-Otaibi, and M. Kourah, “Experience with living related donor nephrectomy: evaluation of 200 cases,” Annals of Saudi Medicine, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 416–419, 1993.

[19] C. Holscher, S. Bae, A. Thomas, et al., “Early hypertension and diabetes after living kidney Donation: A National Cohort Study,” Transplantation, vol. 103, no. 6, pp. 1216– 1223, 2019.

[20] D. Conan, R. Glynn, P. Ridker, J. Buring, and M. Albert, “Socioeconomic status, blood pressure progression, and incident hypertension in a prospective cohort of female health professionals,” European Heart Journal, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 1378– 1384, 2009.