Cannabis and Cigarette Use Before and After Living Kidney Donation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background:It is unclear whether kidney donation leads to lifestyle changes in terms of cannabis and cigarette use.Objective:To describe cigarette and cannabis use before and after kidney donation and to determine their associations with lifestyle and clinical factors.Design:Retrospective cohort study.Setting:The Living Kidney Donor program in the Champlain Local Health Integration Network at The Ottawa Hospital in Ottawa, Canada.Patients:The study included 178 living kidney donors who donated between January 2009 and December 2018.Measurements:Donors were screened for cannabis and cigarette use by telephone interview. Their clinical characteristics and changes in kidney function before and after donation were recorded.Methods:Cannabis and cigarette use before and after kidney donation were compared using chi-square test. Risk factors associated with their use was examined by univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to examine the association of cannabis and Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation (CKD-EPI) estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at donation and at last follow-up. <i>T</i>-test was used to examine the association of cigarette smoking and CKD-EPI eGFR at donation and at last follow-up.Results:Among 305 donors, 262 met inclusion criteria and 178 participated (mean of 4.7 ± 2.9 years from kidney donation). Cannabis and cigarette use were reported by 5% (9 of 178) and 13% (23 of 178) at donation. After donation, 8% (14 of 178) and 5% (9 of 178) started cannabis and cigarettes, respectively; 74% (17 of 23) of smokers remained smokers after donation and 88% (53 of 60) who quit smoking before donation did not restart after donation. In multivariate analysis, non-married/common-in-law status was associated with cannabis use (odds ratio, 2.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-7.11; <i>P</i> = .04). There was no difference in eGFR pre- or post-donation among cannabis or cigarette users.Limitations:The single-center study design limits generalizability. Social desirability bias may have affected survey responses and cigarette smoking was not quantified.Conclusions:Cannabis and cigarette use was uncommon in the studied population and was not associated with remaining kidney function. Cannabis use increased post-donation. Most smokers remained smokers after donation and most donors who quit smoking before donation did not restart after donation. This warrants education and support for potential donors who smoke, to quit smoking prior to donation to reduce risks of cardiovascular and end-stage kidney disease.Trial Registration:Not applicable as this is not a clinical trial.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,024 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».