Background and objectives: Increasing demand for live-donor kidneys has encouraged the use of obese donors despite the absence of long-term outcome data and evidence that obesity can adversely affect renal function. We wished to determine whether obesity increased the risk for renal dysfunction and other medical comorbidities in donors several years after donation.Design, setting, participants, & measurements: Ninety-eight patients who donated a kidney 5 to 40 years previously were stratified according to body mass index (BMI) at donation and evaluated for renal dysfunction and risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Patients who were from the 2005 through 2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey database; did not have renal disease; and were matched for age, gender, race, and BMI served as two-kidney control subjects.Results: Renal function in obese (BMI >30) and nonobese (BMI <30) donors was similar, and both donor groups had reduced renal function compared with BMI-matched two-kidney control subjects. Obesity was associated with more hypertension and dyslipidemias in both donors and two-kidney control subjects; however, there were no significant differences between the two groups within each BMI category.Conclusions: These results indicate that obese donors are not at higher risk for long-term reduced renal function compared with nonobese donors and that the increased incidence of hypertension and other cardiovascular disease risk factors in obese donors is due to their obesity and is not further exacerbated by nephrectomy. These findings support the current practice of using otherwise healthy overweight and obese donors but emphasize the need for more intensive preoperative education and postoperative health care maintenance in this donor group.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is known to improve left ventricular (LV) systolic function and symptoms of systolic heart failure. The effect of CRT on atrial fibrillation (AF) burden is less clarified. Methods: 18 patients mean age of 77 ± 11 (72% male) underwent CRT implantations. There were no changes to concomitant anti-arrhythmic medication and permanent AF patients were excluded. Echocardiograms were obtained six month before and after device implantation. LV ejection fraction (LVEF), LV end diastolic dimension (LVEDd), left atrial (LA) dimension, and magnitude of mitral regurgitation (MR) were measured by echocardiogram before and after CRT. The burden of AF was evaluated by 24-hour Holter monitoring before and by device arrhythmic log after implantation. There were no concomitant medication changes. The results were later divided into presence (Group I) and absence (Group II) of paroxysmal or persistent AF. No patient was in permanent AF at the time of CRT implantation. Results: LVEF improved after CRT in both groups. Patients with AF showed the most beneficial effects of LVEF with average improvement of 41% (P-value=0.004) in comparison to 13% improvement in patients without AF (P-value=0.044). The LVEDd was improved by 11.9% in patients with AF (P-value=0.01) while it was improved by only 5.6% in patients without AF (P-value=0.08). LA Dimension was decreased by 4.4% in patients with AF (P-value=0.038). MR was reduced on average from moderate to mild for both groups. The number of AF episodes and duration of the AF were also decreased in all of our AF patients. The pre and post effect of CRT in patients with and without AF is shown in the table below: Conclusions: The AF burden in patients who received CRT was significantly reduced. There were excellent correlations between improvement of LVEF, LVEDd, LA dimension, and AF burden. This may be due to LV and LA remodeling. Further studies need to elaborate the mechanisms of this finding.