Consensus statement on the live organ donor

Summary of Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) engaged an evidence review team and convened a work group to produce a guideline to evaluate and manage candidates for living kidney donation. The evidence for most guideline recommendations is sparse and many "ungraded" expert consensus recommendations were made to guide the donor candidate evaluation and care before, during, and after donation. The guideline advocates for replacing decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation with a comprehensive approach to risk assessment using the best available evidence. The approach to simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics advances a new framework for assessing donor candidate risk and for defensible shared decision making.

KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

The 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors is intended to assist medical professionals who evaluate living kidney donor candidates and provide care before, during and after donation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies that included critical appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations. However, many recommendations, for which there was no evidence or no systematic search for evidence was undertaken by the Evidence Review Team, were issued as ungraded expert opinion recommendations. The guideline work group concluded that a comprehensive approach to risk assessment should replace decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation. Original data analyses were undertaken to produce a "proof-in-concept" risk-prediction model for kidney failure to support a framework for quantitative risk assessment in the donor candidate evaluation and defensible shared decision making. This framework is grounded in the simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics. The processes and framework for the donor candidate evaluation are presented, along with recommendations for optimal care before, during, and after donation. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, especially regarding the lack of definitive prospective studies and clinical outcome trials. Suggestions for future research, including the need for continued refinement of long-term risk prediction and novel approaches to estimating donation-attributable risks, are also provided.In citing this document, the following format should be used: Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Living Kidney Donor Work Group. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors. Transplantation. 2017;101(Suppl 8S):S1-S109.

Predictors of decision ambivalence and the differences between actual living liver donors and potential living liver donors

Background

The decision to become a living liver donor is a stressful event. Ambivalence in decision making may result in psychological distress. Thus, the purpose of this study was to provide a description of the ambivalence of potential living liver donors, to examine the predictors of ambivalence, and to compare the ambivalence of potential living liver donors with that of actual living liver donors.

Methods

This descriptive and correlational study was conducted in a medical center from August 2013 to December 2015. Self-reported questionnaires were used to collect data. A total of 263 potential living liver donors who were assessed for donation to their parents were included in this study.

Results

The mean age of the total sample was 30.7 years (SD = 6.39, range = 20–47), and males comprised 53.6% of the sample. The majority of the potential donors had a college education (70.8%) and were single (63.5%). Of the total sample, the mean score for ambivalence was 4.27 (SD = 1.87, range = 0–7). Multivariate analysis revealed that the Mental Component Summary (MCS) of quality of life (β = -0.24, p < 0.01), family support (β = -0.17, p = 0.007), and intimacy (β = -0.13, p = 0.04) were significant protective predictors of ambivalence. Actual living liver donors had significantly lower ambivalence (3.82 versus 4.60), higher intimacy with recipients (3.55 versus 3.34), higher MCS (45.26 versus 42.80), and higher family support (34.39 versus 29.79) than did the remaining potential living liver donors.

Conclusion

Ambivalence is common in potential living liver donors. The MCS of quality of life, family support, and intimacy were protective predictors in terms of ambivalence. Future research should explore other factors and design interventions targeted toward reducing ambivalence, promoting family support, and enhancing the mental dimensions of quality of life in potential living liver donors.

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation: Operative techniques to optimize the recipient's outcome

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is widely accepted today with good outcomes and safety reported worldwide for both donor and recipient. Nonetheless, it remained a highly demanding technical and complex surgery if undertaken. The last two decades have seen an increased in adult-to-adult LDLT following our first report of right lobe LDLT in overcoming graft size limitation in adults. In this article, we discussed the operative techniques and challenges of adult right lobe LDLT incorporating the middle hepatic vein, which is practiced in our center for the recipient operation. The various issues and challenges faced by the transplant surgeon in ensuring good recipient outcome are explored and discussed here as well. Hence, it is important to understand that a successful recipient operation is dependent of multifactorial events starting at the preoperative stage of planning, understanding the intraoperative technical challenges and the physiology of flow modulation that goes hand-in-hand with the operation. Therefore, one needs to arm oneself with all the possible knowledge in overcoming these technical challenges and the ability to be flexible and adaptable during LDLT by tailoring the needs of each patient individually.

Separate, Dedicated Care Teams for Living Organ Donors

Living donation is an increasingly common option offered to patients in most transplant programs. Staff involved in the education, assessment, and care of this patient group is faced with increasingly complicated assessments both medically and psychologically. Supporting arguments for dedicated care teams for living organ donors include the large number of transplantations performed using living donors, the continued need to promote living organ donation, and the growing complexity of both medical and psychological factors in donor assessments. In addition, there is a need to implement the standards proposed by the 2000 Consensus Group, as well as to develop a body of evidence-based research related both to short- and long-term issues for this patient group. The ethical issues related to simultaneous involvement with both donors and recipients, and a need to ensure confidentiality are additional supporting arguments for the need to provide separate care providers for donors and recipients.

Is There a Role for Living Donor Intestine Transplants?

The use of living donors with intestinal transplantation is controversial because it may not significantly improve candidate access to organs when intestine-only grafts are needed, and may involve excessive donor risk when combined liver-intestine grafts are required. Although limited data are available for comparison at this time, graft and patient survival rates for intestinal transplantations using living donors are no different than for deceased donor transplantations. Potential benefits that may be provided to the intestine transplant recipient through the use of living donors include better HLA matching, shorter ischemia times, better bowel preparation, and better opportunities for introducing immunomodulatory strategies. Conversely, living intestine donors are at risk for mortality, significant morbidity, financial loss, and psychologic trauma. The long-term outcomes of living intestine donors have not yet been reported. Ultimately, these data are essential before the wider use of living donors can be advocated for intestinal transplantation.

Electronic Psychosocial Evaluation Tool: Use in a Living Donor Organ Transplant Program

Psychosocial evaluation of potential organ donors ensures that these patients are prepared for donation and that their psychosocial issues have been addressed. The determination that the decision to donate an organ has been made voluntarily by a competent individual is a primary concern for living donor transplant programs, which must work to the highest ethical standard in this unique area of medicine. Identification of potential vulnerabilities on the part of the donor permits monitoring and/or intercession both before and after donation. Ensuring the confidentiality of patient information is important and represents a cornerstone of social work practice. At our institution, social workers have developed an electronic recording tool for use in evaluating organ donors; this tool is designed to maximize quality and ease of information gathering, ensure standardization of practice across programs, simplify record keeping, and enhance communication while minimizing time investment and ensuring patient confidentiality.

Psychosocial Assessment of Living Organ Donors: Clinical and Ethical Considerations

This article outlines psychosocial and ethical issues to be considered when evaluating potential living organ donors. Six types of living donors are described: genetically related, emotionally related, “Good Samaritan” (both directed and nondirected), vendors, and organ exchangers. The primary domains to be assessed in the psychosocial evaluation are informed consent, motivation for donating and the decision-making process, adequacy of support (financial and social), behavioral and psychological health, and the donor-recipient relationship. Obstacles to the evaluation process include impression management, overt deception, minimization of behavioral risk factors, and cultural and language differences between the donor and the evaluator. Ethical concerns, such as the right to donate, donor autonomy, freedom from coercion, nonmaleficence and beneficence in donor selection, conflicts of interest, “reasonable” risks to donors, and recipient decision making are also explored. To fully evaluate living organ donation, studying psychosocial as well as medical outcomes is crucial.

Financial Considerations in Living Organ Donation

The shortage of cadaveric organs and increased success of living donor transplantation support the use of living organ donors. Clinical social workers have the opportunity to explore a variety of donor-specific issues when performing psychosocial evaluations of living donors, including motivation, psychological stability, and personal and family consequences of donation, as well as the direct and indirect financial consequences faced by living donors. Although most donor-related medical costs are covered, other associated expenses are not reimbursable and may put donors at risk for financial hardship. Out-of-pocket expenses also serve as a disincentive to donate for some volunteers. During the evaluation process, healthcare professionals should openly discuss how surgery, recovery, and any potential complications might impact prospective donors' financial situation. Donors can then decide whether they are able to realistically handle the costs of donation. We present the financial dilemmas experienced by many living donors and highlight efforts that have been made to deal with them.

Living Liver Donors: A Coordinator's Perspective

Living donor liver transplantation is an acceptable alternative for many patients awaiting a liver transplant. The benefits of living donor liver transplantation to the recipient are many; however, there is also an appreciable risk to the donor. Many people, including healthcare professionals, believe that living donor liver transplantation is not ethically justified because any risk to a donor outweighs the benefit to the recipient. Recent studies show adverse events in this population do not include only medical complications; any complication—medical, social, psychological, financial, or other—must be examined to analyze the true incidence of adverse outcomes in living liver donors.

Evaluation of Living Liver Donors

As a result of the cadaveric organ shortage, the number of centers performing living donor liver transplantation has increased. Living donor liver transplantation provides immediate organ availability and avoids the risk of life-threatening complications that occur with long waiting times for cadaveric organs; however, it puts a healthy person at risk for little personal gain. A standardized approach to donor evaluation ensures safety to potential donors. Careful medical (physical examination as well as laboratory and radiological evaluation) and psychological evaluation is imperative to reduce donor complications and ensure good outcomes in recipients. A social worker and psychiatrist assess for mental competency, provide emotional support, and can serve as independent donor advocates. Informed understanding and consent are crucial aspects of the evaluation and include ensuring that the donor understands all potential complications and is free of coercion. Safety of the donor must be the highest priority.

Ethical Aspects of Living Donor Kidney Transplantation and Recipient Adherence to Treatment

Living donor kidney transplantation comprises approximately 30% of kidney transplantations in the United States and is an effective form of renal replacement therapy, with low risk to the donor. Twenty percent of living donors do not have a genetic relationship with their recipients. In the selection of living donors, guiding ethical principles include altruism, the absence of coercion or monetary reward, patient autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence. In order for the benefit of living donor kidney transplantation to outweigh the risk, evidence that the proposed recipient will care for the transplanted organ must exist. Nonadherence to treatment has been identified as a major risk factor for graft rejection. When nonadherence to treatment regimens leads to loss of the graft, the consequences are felt by the recipient, donor, and the treatment team. The decision to transplant an organ to a noncompliant patient from a cadaveric or a living donor raises issues of patient autonomy, justice, paternalism, and benevolence versus nonmaleficence.

Attitudes of Lay Stakeholders and Transplant Professionals About Disclosure to Living Kidney Donors in Exchanges and Chains

Background:

Current policies require very limited informational disclosure between living kidney donors and recipients regardless of the relationship type. No specific policies exist to suggest that exchange/chain donors and their recipients should be treated differently. We surveyed transplant professionals (surgeons and nephrologists) and members of the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) to determine their support for disclosing to donors the health, health behavior, and social information of their exchange/chain donors and exchange/chain recipients.

Methods:

Twenty questions regarding disclosing to donors information about both their exchange/chain donors and exchange/chain recipients were included in 2 larger surveys on disclosure about kidney transplantation. Survey A was sent electronically to NKF list-servs, and survey B was sent to transplant professionals both electronically and by postal mail.

Results:

Survey A yielded 236 valid surveys from NKF donors and recipients (lay stakeholders). Survey B yielded 111 valid surveys from transplant professionals. Both sets of stakeholders support disclosing to donors some health and health behavior information of their exchange/chain donor and exchange/chain recipient, and mostly oppose disclosure of social information. Lay stakeholders favored disclosing significantly more information than transplant professionals. Among lay stakeholders, donor respondents were more supportive than recipient respondents in disclosing to donors health information about the exchange/chain recipient. Among transplant professionals, surgeons were more supportive than nephrologists in disclosing to donors information about the exchange/chain recipient that may impact graft survival.

Conclusions:

There is broad stakeholder support for disclosing some health and health behavior information to donors about their exchange/chain donors and recipients.

Ethical Analysis of Living Organ Donation

In 2003, the first 3-way living kidney donor-swap was performed at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Md. Three new donor protocols including paired donation now allow unrelated individuals to serve as donors. Some ethicists have suggested that emotionally unrelated individuals not be permitted to donate because they will not experience the same satisfaction that a family member who is a donor experiences. Others who frame living donation as an autonomous choice do not see emotionally unrelated or even nondirected donation as ethically problematic. This article uses an ethical framework of principlism to examine living donation. Principles salient to living donation include autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence. The following criteria are used to evaluate autonomous decision making by living donors, including choices made (1) with understanding, (2) without influence that controls and determines their action, and (3) with intentionality. Empirical work in these areas is encouraged to inform the ethical analysis of the new living donor protocols.

Towards a standardized informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy: What do surgeons tell their donors?

INTRODUCTION

Living kidney donors comprise a unique group of "patients", undergoing an operation for the benefit of others. The informed consent process is therefore valued differently. Although this is a team effort, the surgeon is responsible for performing the donor nephrectomy, and often the one held accountable, should adverse events occur. Although there is some consensus on how the informed consent procedure should be arranged, practices vary. The aim of this study was to evaluate the surgical informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy, with special regards to disclosure of complications.

METHODS

A web-based survey was sent to all kidney transplant surgeons (n = 50) in eight transplant centers with questions regarding the local procedure and disclosure of specific details.

RESULTS

Response rate was 98% (n = 49), of which 32 (65%) were involved in living donor education; overall, transplant- (50%), vascular- (31%), and abdominal surgeons (13%), and urologists (6%) performed donor nephrectomies in the eight centers. Informed consent procedures varied, ranging from assumed to signed consent. Bleeding was the only complication every surgeon mentioned. Risk of death was always mentioned by 16 surgeons (50%), sometimes by 13 (41%), three surgeons (9%) never disclosed this disastrous complication. Reported mortality rates ranged from 0.003% to 0.1%. Mentioning frequencies for all other complications varied.

CONCLUSION

Important complications are not always disclosed during the surgical informed consent process for live donor nephrectomy. Informed consent procedures vary. To optimally prepare living kidney donors for the procedure, a standardized informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy is highly recommended.

Exploring Knowledge About Dialysis, Transplantation, and Living Donation Among Patients and Their Living Kidney Donors

Background

In order to make a well-considered decision and give informed consent about renal replacement therapy, potential living kidney donors and recipients should have sufficient understanding of the options and risks.

Purpose

We aimed to explore knowledge about Dialysis & Transplantation (DT) and Living Donation (LD) among prospective living kidney donors and recipients.

Methods

Eighty-five donors and 81 recipients completed the Rotterdam Renal Replacement Knowledge-Test (R3K-T) 1 day before surgery. The questionnaire was available in various languages.

Results

Recipients knew significantly more about DT than donors (p < 0.001); donors knew more about LD than recipients (p < 0.001). A minority of donors (15 %) and recipients (17 %) had a score that was comparable to the knowledge level of the naïve general population. Recipients and donors knew less about DT and LD if their native language was not Dutch. In addition, recipients knew less about DT if they were undergoing pre-emptive transplantation.

Conclusions

We conclude that recipients and donors retain different information. The decision to undergo living donation appears to be not always based on full knowledge of the risks. We recommend that professionals assess knowledge of prospective donors and recipients during the education process using the R3K-T, and extra attention is required for non-native speakers.

Psychosocial assessment of living kidney donors: What implications have temperament and character for decision-making?

OBJECTIVE

We compared the personality of kidney donor candidates to non-donor controls and analyzed the personality profile of candidates psychosocially at risk.

METHODS

49 consecutive living kidney donor candidates underwent an extensive psychosocial evaluation. Psychosocial risk factors concerning knowledge of donation risks (1), donor-recipient-relationship (2), and/or mental health (3) were rated on a 3-point rating scale (0=high risk, 2=no risk). Furthermore, candidates as well as 49 age-and gender-matched non-donor controls filled in questionnaires concerning psychological distress (Symptom Checklist 90-R) and personality (Temperament and Character Inventory).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between candidates and controls concerning psychological distress or personality. Psychosocial assessment identified 13 candidates (26.5%) with increased psychosocial risk. This group displayed compared to candidates without psychosocial risk no difference concerning age, gender, formal education, donor-recipient relationship and psychological distress. However, this group scored significantly higher on reward dependence compared to suitable donors and controls (p<0.05). Reward dependence was associated with a lack of adequate knowledge on donation (r=-0.35, p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Reward dependence has important implications for decision-making, because it is associated with an increased tendency to deny potential risks of donation. Careful identification and assessment of reward dependent donor candidates is needed to ensure a free-willed decision.

Postoperative Psychiatric Complications in Living Liver Donors

BACKGROUND

To understand the impact of psychologic variables on donor quality of life, we studied long-term data on postoperative psychiatric complications in living liver donors. This study is a focused psychological investigation of diagnoses, treatments, and long-term clinical courses of living liver donors with psychiatric complications.

METHODS

Of the 142 donors who underwent live-donor liver transplantation at Nagoya University Hospital between April 2004 and July 2014, we investigated those without a history of mental illness who had developed such illness after transplantation and required psychiatric treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 6 (4.2%) donors developed the following psychiatric complications after transplantation: major depressive disorder (n = 2), panic disorder (n = 2), conversion disorder (n = 1), and substance use disorder (n = 1). Concerning psychiatric treatment, all donors received antianxiety drugs, 3 took antidepressants, and supportive psychiatric therapy was concomitantly provided to all subjects. The average treatment period was 53.3 months. Regarding subject outcomes, 3 donors achieved remission, and the other 3 continued treatment. All subjects showed improvement in Global Assessment of Functioning Scale.

CONCLUSION

It is important to accurately diagnose postoperative psychiatric complications and provide long-term treatment in close coordination with transplant surgeons.

Towards a standardised informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy: the PRINCE (Process of Informed Consent Evaluation) project-study protocol for a nationwide prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Informed consent is mandatory for all (surgical) procedures, but it is even more important when it comes to living kidney donors undergoing surgery for the benefit of others. Donor education, leading to informed consent, needs to be carried out according to certain standards. Informed consent procedures for live donor nephrectomy vary per centre, and even per individual healthcare professional. The basis for a standardised, uniform surgical informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy can be created by assessing what information donors need to hear to prepare them for the operation and convalescence.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The PRINCE (Process of Informed Consent Evaluation) project is a prospective, multicentre cohort study, to be carried out in all eight Dutch kidney transplant centres. Donor knowledge of the procedure and postoperative course will be evaluated by means of pop quizzes. A baseline cohort (prior to receiving any information from a member of the transplant team in one of the transplant centres) will be compared with a control group, the members of which receive the pop quiz on the day of admission for donor nephrectomy. Donor satisfaction will be evaluated for all donors who completed the admission pop-quiz. The primary end point is donor knowledge. In addition, those elements that have to be included in the standardised format informed consent procedure will be identified. Secondary end points are donor satisfaction, current informed consent practices in the different centres (eg, how many visits, which personnel, what kind of information is disclosed, in which format, etc) and correlation of donor knowledge with surgeons' estimation thereof.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Approval for this study was obtained from the medical ethical committee of the Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, on 18 February 2015. Secondary approval has been obtained from the local ethics committees in six participating centres. Approval in the last centre has been sought.

RESULTS

Outcome will be published in a scientific journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR5374; Pre-results.

The 1966 Ciba Symposium on Transplantation Ethics: 50 Years Later

In March 1966, the Ciba Foundation sponsored the first international, interdisciplinary symposium focused on ethical and legal issues in transplantation. The attendees included not only physicians and surgeons but also judges and legal scholars, a minister, and a science journalist. In this article, we will consider some of the topics in organ transplantation that were discussed by the attendees, what we have learned in the intervening half century, and the relevance of their discussions today. Specifically, we examine the definition of death and its implications for organ procurement, whether it is ethical and legal to "maim" a living individual for the benefit of another, how to ensure that the consent of the living donor is voluntary and informed, the case of identical twins, the question of whether ethically minors can serve as living donors, the health risks of living donation, the ethics and legality of an organ market, and the economic barriers to living donation. We show that many of the concerns discussed at the Ciba symposium remain highly relevant, and their discussions have helped to shape the ethical boundaries of organ transplantation today.

Practices for Supporting and Confirming Decision-Making Involved in Kidney and Liver Donation by Related Living Donors in Japan: A Nationwide Survey

This nationwide survey investigated the actual practices for supporting and confirming the decision-making involved in related living-organ donations in Japan, focusing on organ type and program size differences. Answers to a questionnaire survey were collected from 89 of the 126 (71%) kidney and 30 of the 35 (86%) liver transplantation programs in Japan that were involved in living-donor transplantations in 2013. In 70% of the kidney and 90% of the liver transplantation programs, all donors underwent "third-party" interviews to confirm their voluntariness. The most common third parties were psychiatrists (90% and 83%, respectively). Many programs engaged in practices to support decision-making by donor candidates, including guaranteeing the right to withdraw consent to donate (70% and 100%, respectively) and prescribing a set "cooling-off period" (88% and 100%, respectively). Most donors were offered care by mental health specialists (86% and 93%, respectively). Third parties were designated by more of the larger kidney transplant programs compared with the smaller programs. In conclusion, the actual practices supporting and confirming the decision to donate a living organ varied depending on the organ concerned and the number of patients in the program.

Pretransplant uric acid levels may be predictive for prognosis of renal transplant donors

BACKGROUND

The living kidney donor counseling prior to the operation may be helpful to learn how to properly care for the remaining single kidney for the rest of their lives. Worsening kidney function is associated with elevated serum uric acid (UA) levels. In this study, we compared the baseline laboratory findings of renal transplant donors with their follow-up laboratory values.

METHODS

The study consisted of 173 adult donors including 91 females and 82 males with a mean age of 46.82 ± 11.31 years. The follow-up clinical and laboratory examinations were performed on the third day at the end of the first and the sixth months of the surgery. According to donor's creatinine levels we constituted two groups: high creatinine and normal creatinine.

RESULTS

Patients within the high creatinine group had significantly higher mean serum UA levels when compared with the normal creatinine group. In multivariate analysis, among the other effective variables, UA level alone was found to be the most effective parameter predicting the post-transplant creatinine levels (p = 0.004, odds ratio: 12.4, 95% CI: 2.3-68.3) at sixth month post-transplantation. In the ROC analysis for the effects of UA, the following cutoff values were found: >6 mg/dL in men (sensitivity 81.3%, specificity 76.9%, positive predictive value 89.7%, negative predictive value 62.5%, accuracy 80%) and ≥5 mg/dL in women (sensitivity 72.2, specificity 74.4%, positive predictive value 89.7%, negative predictive value 62.5%, accuracy: 73.7%).

CONCLUSION

Pretransplant serum UA levels can give important clues regarding the renal functions of the donors during the postoperative period.

Donor-Derived Infections: Incidence, Prevention, and Management

Organ donors reflect the diverse US population, and there are an increasing number of donors born in, who have resided in, or who have traveled to underdeveloped areas of the world or areas with geographically restricted infections. As such, these donors are exposed to pathogens that can potentially be transmitted to recipients of the donor’s organs. Additionally, there are newer techniques to identify many pathogens that may be transmitted from the donor to the transplant recipients. Finally, high-profile reports of several donor-derived infections have heightened awareness of donor-derived infections and have likely contributed to increased recognition. In this chapter, the incidence, methods of identification and prevention, and management of unexpected donor-derived infections will be reviewed.

'Because you can't live on love': living kidney donors' perspectives on compensation and payment for organ donation

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE

Living kidney donation accounts for approximately half of all kidney transplantation in many countries and is central to health policy focused on increasing organ supply. However, little examination of the economic consequences of living kidney donation has been undertaken from the perspective of donors themselves. This article documents living kidney donors' views regarding recompense and payment for organ donation, based on their experience.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-five living kidney donors from New Zealand participated in this study.

METHODS

This qualitative study, based on thematic analysis, uses semi-structured in-depth interviews to examine the experiences of living kidney donors. Themes were organized around altruism and the 'gift', perceptions of shared corporeality and identity, and donor support.

RESULTS

Most participants agreed the donation process was costly in terms of time and money. Many incurred personal costs, and some experienced financial hardship. All the participants viewed financial hardship as a barrier to organ donation and favoured recompense for direct and indirect costs. Most did not support payment for organs, and none supported commercialization.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The findings show that framing organ donation as a 'gift' can stymie discussion about reciprocity, remuneration and exchange, making talk about financial recompense difficult. Financial well-being, nonetheless, has implications for the ability to care for self and others post-operatively. We conclude that the economic consequences for living kidney donors in jurisdictions where recompense for direct and indirect costs is insufficient are unfair. Review of financial assistance for live organ donors is therefore recommended.

Informed consent for live liver donors: A qualitative, prospective study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Adult-to-adult live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) poses serious health risks and no direct health benefits to donors. Ensuring live donors' autonomy through informed consent is critical. We assessed live liver donors' (LD) comprehension, information needs, risk perceptions, and demographics.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were prospectively conducted with LDs after completing donor evaluation and informed consent at our transplant center. Likert scales measured informed consent domains. Open-ended responses underwent thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty LDs participated (100% participation rate). Although 90% of LDs reported being informed about donation 'a great deal', only 66% reported understanding information about donation 'a great deal.' Many (40%) reported difficulty understanding medical terminology. Information LDs most desired to feel comfortable with their decision included: incidence and type of donor complications (67%), description of donation procedure (57%), and the process of donor preparation (43%). Most (83%) LDs rated risks to themselves as 'not at all' to 'somewhat' risky, and minimized these risks.

CONCLUSIONS

Although LDs perceived that they were adequately informed, their actual comprehension about donation was inadequate. Findings suggest the value of informed consent for preparation for the procedure and potential periprocedural risks rather than for decision-making. More comprehensible information disclosure may optimize informed consent.

Features and ethical considerations associated with living kidney and liver transplantations in South Korea

When the Organ Transplantation Act came into effect in 2000 in South Korea, living organ donations were legalized and the Korean Network for Organ Sharing (KONOS) had a duty to approve the application of donation. The number of living organ donors has increased and the waiting time of recipients has been steady or decreased. The Organ Transplantation Act mainly focuses on the informed consent process of donations, so unrelated directed donations are permitted unless there is a suspicion of organ trafficking. But the annual reports show that directed donations of unrelated and related donors may have an ethical concern about organ sales. The donations of family members show another ethical concern. The numbers of ABO-incompatible transplantations have steadily increased since 2008, and lineal descendants, including minors, comprised 61% of living liver donors in 2012. Addressing the unethical practices without inhibiting living organ donations is the current task in South Korea. Private agencies have actively operated the living organ donations programs. The web-based computerized organ exchange program has been cooperatively run by hospital-based organizations. The strict legal regulations that could decrease living organ donations are hard to adopt. In the current situation, the functions of the official system need to be more developed. A national organ exchange program run by KONOS could be an option which could reduce ABO-incompatible transplantations and relieve the ethical concern of organ sales in unrelated directed donations.

Development of a Donor-Centered Approach to Risk Assessment: Rebalancing Nonmaleficence and Autonomy

Living kidney donors are often excluded from the shared decision making and patient-centered models that are advocated in medical practice. Thresholds for acceptable risk vary between transplant centers, and between clinicians and donors. Although donor selection committees commonly focus on medical risks, potential donors also consider nonmedical risks and burdens, which may alter their assessment of an acceptable level of medical risk. Thus, transplant centers may encounter ethical tensions between nonmaleficence and respect for donor autonomy. A donor-centered model of risk assessment and risk reconciliation would integrate the donor's values and preferences in a shared decision about their eligibility to donate. This paper argues for shifting to a donor-centered model of risk assessment, and presents a research agenda to facilitate the greater participation of donors in their own evaluation and approval processes.

The Psychosocial and Independent Living Donor Advocate Evaluation and Post-surgery Care of Living Donors

Solid organ transplantation as a treatment for end stage organ failure has been an accepted treatment option for decades. Despite advances in medicine and technology, and increased awareness of organ donation and transplantation, the gap between supply and demand continues to widen. Living donation has been an option that has increased the number of transplants despite the continued shortage of deceased organs. In the early 2000s live donor transplantation reached an all-time high in the United States. As a result, a consensus meeting was convened in 2000 to increase the oversight of living donor transplantation. Both the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the United Network for Organ Sharing developed regulations that transplant programs performing live donor transplantation. These regulations and guidelines involve the education, evaluation, informed consent process and living donor follow-up care. Two areas in which had significant changes included the psychosocial and the independent living donor advocate (ILDA) evaluation. The purpose of this paper was to outline the current regulations and guidelines associated with the psychosocial and ILDA evaluation as well as provide further recommendations for the administration of a high quality evaluation of living donors. The goals and timing of the evaluation and education of donors; qualifications of the health care providers performing the evaluation; components of the evaluation; education provided to donors; documentation of the evaluation; participation in the selection committee meeting; post-decline and post-donation care of donors is described. Caveats including the paired donor exchange programs and non-directed and directed donation are also considered.

Disclosing Health and Health Behavior Information between Living Donors and Their Recipients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Living donor guidelines-both national and international-either do not address or are vague about what information can be shared between prospective living donors and transplant candidates, as well as when to make such disclosures and who should make them. This study explored the attitudes of donors and recipients regarding how much information they believe should be shared.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Two Email invitations were sent by the National Kidney Foundation (national headquarters) to its Email listservs, inviting members to participate in an online survey to assess the attitudes of kidney transplant stakeholders regarding the disclosure of health and health risk behavior information.

RESULTS

From approximately 4200 unique Email addresses, 392 (9.3%) respondents completed part or all of the survey. The analyses were limited to the 236 respondents who self-identified as either donors (potential and actual, n=160) or recipients (candidates and actual, n=76). Overall, 79% (186 of 234) of respondents supported disclosure of general recipient health information that would affect post-transplant outcome to donors, and 88% (207 of 235) supported disclosure of general donor health information to recipients. Recipients and donors were also supportive of sharing donor and recipient information, particularly information relevant to graft and patient survival. There is some reticence, however, about sharing social information. The closer the relationship, the more information they are willing to share. Both donors and recipients wanted the transplant team involved in the information disclosure. Over three quarters of donors (79%) and recipients (78%) did not think the recipient had a right to know why a donor was excluded from donating.

CONCLUSIONS

Both donors and recipients want a significant amount of health information to be disclosed. The opinions of other stakeholders need to be surveyed to determine whether a revision of current policies and practices is warranted.

Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: Improving Efficiencies in Live Kidney Donor Evaluation--Recommendations from a Consensus Conference

The education, evaluation, and support of living donors before, during, and after donation have historically been considered the roles and responsibilities of transplant programs. Although intended to protect donors, ensure true informed consent, and prevent coercion, this structure often leaves referring nephrologists unclear about the donor process and uncertain regarding the ultimate outcome of potential donors for their patients. The aim of this article is to help the referring nephrologist understand the donor referral and evaluation process, help the referring nephrologist understand the responsibilities of the transplant program, and offer suggestions about how the referring nephrologist can help to improve efficiencies in the process of donor education and evaluation. A partnership between referring nephrologists and transplant programs is an important step in advancing living kidney donation. The referring nephrologists are the frontline providers and are in a unique position to offer education about living donation and improve efficiencies in the process. Understanding the donor referral and evaluation process, the responsibilities of the transplant program, and the potential role referring nephrologists can play in the process is critical to establishing such a partnership.

Focus group study of public opinion about paying living kidney donors in Australia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The unmet demand for kidney transplantation has generated intense controversy about introducing incentives for living kidney donors to increase donation rates. Such debates may affect public perception and acceptance of living kidney donation. This study aims to describe the range and depth of public opinion on financial reimbursement, compensation, and incentives for living kidney donors.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Twelve focus groups were conducted with 113 participants recruited from the general public in three Australian states in February 2013. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the transcripts.

RESULTS

Five themes were identified: creating ethical impasses (commodification of the body, quandary of kidney valuation, pushing moral boundaries), corrupting motivations (exposing the vulnerable, inevitable abuse, supplanting altruism), determining justifiable risk (compromising kidney quality, undue harm, accepting a confined risk, trusting protective mechanisms, right to autonomy), driving access (urgency of organ shortage, minimizing disadvantage, guaranteeing cost-efficiency, providing impetus, counteracting black markets), and honoring donor deservingness (fairness and reason, reassurance and rewards, merited recompense). Reimbursement and justifiable recompense are considered by the Australian public as a legitimate way of supporting donors and reducing disadvantage. Financial payment beyond reimbursement is regarded as morally reprehensible, with the potential for exploitative commercialism. Some contend that regulated compensation could be a defensible strategy to increased donation rates provided that mechanisms are in place to protect donors.

CONCLUSIONS

The perceived threat to community values of human dignity, goodwill, and fairness suggests that there could be strong public resistance to any form of financial inducements for living kidney donors. Policy priorities addressing the removal of disincentives may be more acceptable to the public.

Opting out: confidentiality and availability of an 'alibi' for potential living kidney donors in the USA

Ethicists and guidelines have suggested that potential living kidney donors who withdraw from evaluation be offered an 'alibi.' We sought to determine what potential living kidney donors are told about their ability to opt out, alibi availability and postwithdrawal confidentiality. We reviewed 148 consent forms for living kidney donor evaluation from US transplant centres that performed >5 living kidney transplants in 2010-2011 (response rate 87%). We found that while 98% of centres used evaluation consent forms that indicated that the donor could withdraw, only 21% of these documents offered an alibi. Another 23% of centres' consent forms indicated that the transplant team would be willing to inform the intended recipient that an individual was not a potential donor. Relatively few consent documents explicitly addressed the confidentiality of the donor's health information (31%), candidacy status (18%), decision (24%) or reasons (23%) following withdrawal. To preserve potential donors' autonomy and relationships, we advocate that all transplant centres offer general alibis in their evaluation consent forms. We conclude by offering recommendations for evaluation consent discussions of opting out, alibis and postwithdrawal confidentiality.

The impact of the israeli transplantation law on the socio-demographic profile of living kidney donors

The Israeli transplantation law of 2008 stipulated that organ trading is a criminal offense, and banned the reimbursement of such transplants by insurance companies, thus decreasing dramatically transplant tourism from Israel. We evaluated the law's impact on the number and the socio-demographic features of 575 consecutive living donors, transplanted in the largest Israeli transplantation center, spanning 5 years prior to 5 years after the law's implementation. Living kidney donations increased from 3.5 ± 1.5 donations per month in the pre-law period to 6.1 ± 2.4 per month post-law (p < 0.001). This was mainly due to a rise in intra-familial donations from 2.1 ± 1.1 per month to 4.6 ± 2.1 per month (p < 0.001). In unrelated donors we found a significant change in their socio-demographic characteristics: mean age increased from 35.4 ± 7.4 to 39.9 ± 10.2 (p = 0.001), an increase in the proportion of donors with college level or higher education (31.0% to 63.1%; p < 0.001) and donors with white collar occupations (33.3% to 48.3%, p = 0.023). In conclusion, the Israeli legislation that prohibited transplant tourism and organ trading in accordance with Istanbul Declaration, was associated with an increase in local transplantation activity, mainly from related living kidney donors, and a change in the profile of unrelated donors into an older, higher educated, white collar population.

The independent living donor advocate: a guidance document from the American Society of Transplantation's Living Donor Community of Practice (AST LDCOP)

The independent living donor advocate (ILDA) serves a mandated and supportive role in the care of the living organ donor, yet qualifications and role requirements are not clearly defined. Guidance comes from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Conditions for Transplant Center Participation and interpretive guidelines, Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) Policy and CMS and OPTN site surveys, yet interpretation of regulations varies. Herein, the AST Living Donor Community of Practice (LDCOP) offers seven recommendations to clarify and optimize the ILDA role: (a) the ILDA must have a certain skill set rather than a specific profession, (b) the ILDA must be educated and demonstrate competence in core knowledge components, (c) the ILDA's primary role is to assess components of informed consent, (d) centers must develop a transparent system to define ILDA independence, (e) the ILDA should have a reporting structure outside the transplant center, (f) the ILDA's role should be integrated throughout the donor care continuum, (g) the ILDA role should include a narrow "veto power." We address controversies in ILDA implementation, and offer pathways to maximize benefits and minimize limitations of approaches that may each meet regulatory requirements but confer different practice benefits. We propose a research agenda to explore the impact of the ILDA.

The need for a standardized informed consent procedure in live donor nephrectomy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Informed consent in live donor nephrectomy is a topic of great interest. Safety and transparency are key items increasingly getting more attention from media and healthcare inspection. Because live donors are not patients, but healthy individuals undergoing elective interventions, they justly insist on optimal conditions and guaranteed safety. Although transplant professionals agree that consent should be voluntary, free of coercion, and fully informed, there is no consensus on which information should be provided, and how the donors' comprehension should be ascertained.

METHODS

Comprehensive searches were conducted in Embase, Medline OvidSP, Web-of-Science, PubMed, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2014, issue 1) and Google Scholar, evaluating the informed consent procedure for live kidney donation. The methodology was in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Interventional Systematic Reviews and written based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 1,009 hits from which 21 articles fell within the scope of this study. Procedures vary greatly between centers, and transplant professionals vary in the information they disclose. Although research has demonstrated that donors often make their decision based on moral reasoning rather than balancing risks and benefits, providing them with accurate, uniform information remains crucial because donors report feeling misinformed about or unprepared for donation. Although a standardized procedure may not provide the ultimate solution, it is vital to minimize differences in live donor education between transplant centers.

CONCLUSION

There is a definite need for a guideline on how to provide information and obtain informed consent from live kidney donors to assist the transplant community in optimally preparing potential donors.

Developing a framework for evaluating kidney transplantation candidacy in children with multiple comorbidities

Children with multiple comorbidities, including neurodevelopmental delay, can develop end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). When and if these children should be eligible for kidney transplantation is an area of debate within the pediatric nephrology community and the public. Discussions focus on expected survival and quality of life posttransplant, as well as resource allocation decisions, as donor kidneys remain a limited resource. This paper focuses on the evidence available regarding outcomes in this population and the ethical issues that should be considered. The authors offer a framework for transplant teams evaluating children with comorbidities for kidney transplant, focusing on the benefits and burdens that transplantation can be expected to achieve.

Review of anesthesia in liver transplantation

Liver transplantation (LT) is a well-accepted treatment modality of many end-stage liver diseases. The main issue in LT is the shortage of deceased donors to accommodate the needs of patients waiting for such transplants. Live donors have tremendously increased the pool of available liver grafts, especially in countries where deceased donors are not common. The main ethical concern of this procedure is the safety of healthy donors, who undergo a major abdominal surgery not for their own health, but to help cure others. The first part of the review concentrates on live donor selection, preanesthetic evaluation, and intraoperative anesthetic care for living liver donors. The second part reviews patient evaluation, intraoperative anesthesia monitoring, and fluid management of the recipient. This review provides up-to-date information to help improve the quality of anesthesia, and contribute to the success of LT and increase the long-term survival of the recipients.

Morbidity and mortality of live lung donation: results from the RELIVE study

The Renal and Lung Living Donors Evaluation Study assesses outcomes of live lung (lobectomy) donors. This is a retrospective cohort study at University of Southern California (USC) and Washington University (WASHU) Medical Centers (1993–2006), using medical records to assess morbidity and national databases to ascertain postdonation survival and lung transplantation. Serious complications were defined as those that required significant treatment, were potentially life-threatening or led to prolonged hospitalization. The 369 live lung donors (287 USC, 82 WASHU) were predominantly white, non-Hispanic and male; 72% had a biological relationship to the recipient, and 30% were recipient parents. Serious complications occurred in 18% of donors; 2.2% underwent reoperation and 6.5% had an early rehospitalization. The two centers had significantly different incidences of serious complications (p < 0.001). No deaths occurred and no donors underwent lung transplantation during 4000+ person-years of follow-up (death: minimum 4, maximum 17 years; transplant: minimum 5, maximum 19). Live lung donation remains a potential option for recipients when using deceased donor lungs lacks feasibility. However, the use of two live donors for each recipient and the risk of morbidity associated with live lung donation do not justify this approach when deceased lung donors remain available. Center effects and long-term live donor outcomes require further evaluation.

Living organ donations: a comparison between the positions of national bioethics committees

Numerous documents have been published by the national bioethics committees of the European Union and Council of Europe member countries on the subject of organ transplantation. The present paper examines those that address the question of living donation with a focus on kidney grafts. Although it is not possible to ensure absolute completeness since not all the documents produced over the years are accessible and English translations are often lacking, this review covered evaluations of the most significant ones. There has been a preponderance of attention to the issue of informed consent, while the issue of donor risk has been addressed only summarily, if at all.