Consensus statement on the live organ donor

What are the harms of refusing to allow living kidney donation? An expanded view of risks and benefits

Recent Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network policies relating to living kidney donation (LKD)warrant renewed attention to the ethics of transplantation from living donors. These policies focus on risks related to potential donor evaluation, informed consent and follow-up. The ethical basis of living donation is a favorable risk/benefit ratio for the donor, but regulations and research have given less attention to the benefits of donation. Relatedly, the transplant field has also failed to consider potential harms from denying patients the opportunity to donate. These harms may be substantial in the setting of directed kidney donation to a spouse/partner, sibling or child.We argue that complete assessment of donor risks and benefits demands consideration of not only the risks and benefits of donation, but also those of refusing a donor. In contrast to the ever-expanding literature on risks of donation, there are no data describing outcomes for individuals who were turned down as kidney donors. We consider factors contributing to this omission in the transplant literature, argue that current regulations may perpetuate a narrow understanding of relevant risks and benefits in LKD, and identify areas for improvement in research and clinical practice.

The start of the transplant journey: referral for pediatric solid organ transplantation

The focus of the majority of the psychosocial transplant literature is on post-transplant outcomes, but the transplant journey starts much earlier than this, at the point when transplantation is first considered and a referral for transplant evaluation is made. In this review, we cover information regarding the meaning of the referral process for solid organ transplantation. We discuss various factors of the referral for transplantation including the impact of referral on the pediatric patient and the family, potential expectations and misconceptions held by pediatric patients and parents, the role of health literacy, decision-making factors, and the informational needs of pediatric patients and parents. We elucidate steps that providers can take to enhance transplant referral and provide suggestions for much needed research within this area.

Associations of smoking with alterations in renal hemodynamics may depend on sex--investigations in potential kidney donors

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Cigarette smoking is a risk factor for renal damage, but little is known about subclinical effects of smoking on renal hemodynamics and parameters of renal function in humans. We examined the associations of smoking with systemic and renal hemodynamics and renal function parameters in healthy individuals.

METHODS

Data from 196 potential living kidney donors were analysed retrospectively. Mean arterial blood pressure (MAP), effective renal plasma flow (ERPF) and creatinine clearance had been measured. We additionally calculated parameters of renal hemodynamics. Data were analyzed for the effects of smoking and sex dependent on age and MAP.

RESULTS

Systemic and renal hemodynamic parameters did not differ between smokers and non-smokers. In non-smokers of both sexes MAP was negatively correlated with ERPF, and higher MAP was associated with increased renal vascular resistance and with afferent arteriolar resistance, with glomerular pressure (PG) remaining constant. However, in male, but not in female smokers, ERPF and PG increased with MAP. A correlation of age with a steeper decline in ERPF in male smokers was lost in multiple regression analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

As compared to women, smoking men may exhibit an increased glomerular hydrostatic pressure, which is a known promoter of kidney damage.

An overview of psychosocial assessment procedures in reconstructive hand transplantation

There have been more than 90 hand and upper extremity transplants performed worldwide. Functional and sensory outcomes have been reported in several studies, but little is known about the psychosocial outcomes. A comprehensive systematic literature review was performed, addressing the psychosocial impact of reconstructive hand transplantation. This review provides an overview of psychosocial evaluation protocols and identifies standards in this novel and exciting field. Essentials of the psychosocial assessment are discussed and a new protocol, the 'Chauvet Protocol', representing a standardized assessment protocol for future multicenter psychosocial trials is being introduced.

Health-related quality of life in kidney donors from the last five decades: results from the RELIVE study

Live donation benefits recipients, but the long-term consequences for donors remain uncertain. Renal and Lung Living Donors Evaluation Study surveyed kidney donors (N = 2455; 61% women; mean age 58, aged 24-94; mean time from donation 17 years, range 5-48 years) using the Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36). The 95% confidence intervals for White and African-American donors included or exceeded SF-36 norms. Over 80% of donors reported average or above average health for their age and sex (p < 0.0001). Donors' age-sex adjusted physical component summary (PCS) scores declined by half a point each decade after donation (p = 0.0027); there was no decline in mental component summary (MCS) scores. White donors' PCS scores were three points higher (p = 0.0004) than non-Whites'; this difference remained constant over time. Nine percent of donors had impaired health (PCS or MCS score >1 SD below norm). Obesity, history of psychiatric difficulties and non-White race were risk factors for impaired physical health; history of psychiatric difficulties was a risk factor for impaired mental health. Education, older donation age and a first-degree relation to the recipient were protective factors. One percent reported that donation affected their health very negatively. Enhanced predonation evaluation and counseling may be warranted, along with ongoing monitoring for overweight donors.

The development of practice guidelines for independent living donor advocates

The practice recommendations discussed here are based on the findings of the national survey as well as the opinions of the authors. The recommendations that are proposed here are not exhaustive and are aspirational in intent and are likely to evolve with time. Practice guidelines are recommended for legal and regulatory issues (e.g., state or federal laws), consumer or public benefit (e.g., improving service delivery, avoiding harm to the patient, decreasing disparities in underserved or vulnerable populations), and for professional guidance (e.g., new role, professional risk management issues, advances in practice). Without such practice guidelines, donors, and indirectly the candidates, may be at increased risk for possible bias or undue harm.

Preventive intervention for living donor psychosocial outcomes: feasibility and efficacy in a randomized controlled trial

There are no evidence-based interventions to prevent adverse psychosocial consequences after living donation. We conducted a single-site randomized controlled trial to examine the postdonation impact of a preventive intervention utilizing motivational interviewing (MI) to target a major risk factor for poor psychosocial outcomes, residual ambivalence (i.e. lingering hesitation and uncertainty) about donating. Of 184 prospective kidney or liver donors, 131 screened positive for ambivalence; 113 were randomized to (a) the MI intervention, (b) an active comparison condition (health education) or (c) standard care only before donation. Ambivalence was reassessed postintervention (before donation). Primary trial outcomes-psychosocial variables in somatic, psychological and family interpersonal relationship domains-were assessed at 6 weeks and 3 months postdonation. MI subjects showed the greatest decline in ambivalence (p = 0.050). On somatic outcomes, by 3 months postdonation MI subjects reported fewer physical symptoms (p = 0.038), lower rates of fatigue (p = 0.021) and pain (p = 0.016), shorter recovery times (p = 0.041) and fewer unexpected medical problems (p = 0.023). Among psychological and interpersonal outcomes, they had a lower rate of anxiety symptoms (p = 0.046) and fewer unexpected family-related problems (p = 0.045). They did not differ on depression, feelings about donation or family relationship quality. The findings suggest that the intervention merits testing in a larger, multisite trial.

Written informed consent for living kidney donors: practices and compliance with CMS and OPTN requirements

We sought to assess how written informed consent practices for candidate living kidney donors have changed over the last 5 years and to assess compliance with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) and Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) regulations that took effect in 2007. We requested evaluation consent forms from US centers that performed >5 living kidney transplants during the prior year (n = 184). We received 148 consent forms; each was reviewed for information provided and inclusion of CMS- and OPTN-required elements. We found that nearly all transplant centers now obtain written consent for living kidney donor evaluation. However, most centers' evaluation consent forms do not include all CMS and OPTN requirements. Multiple items balancing donor and recipient interests and confidentiality were omitted. In addition, information about payment for routine follow-up care, complications related to surgery and other health problems following surgery were highly variable and frequently ambiguous. As centers revise their consent forms to address the 2013 OPTN policies, our findings may help them identify areas of potential deficiency. We propose that UNOS develop a uniform donor evaluation consent form to improve the clarity, consistency and efficiency of living donor consent.

Renal transplantation from elderly living donors

Acceptance of elderly living kidney donors remains controversial due to the higher incidence of comorbidity and greater risk of postoperative complications. This is a review of publications in the English language between 2000 and 2013 about renal transplantation from elderly living donors to determine trends and effects of donation, and the outcomes of such transplantation. The last decade witnessed a 50% increase in living kidney donor transplants, with a disproportionate increase in donors >60 years. There is no accelerated loss of kidney function following donation, and the incidence of established renal failure (ERF) and hypertension among donors is similar to that of the general population. The overall incidence of ERF in living donors is about 0.134 per 1000 years. Elderly donors require rigorous assessment and should have a predicted glomerular filtration rate of at least 37.5 mL/min/1.73 m(2) at the age of 80. Though elderly donors had lower glomerular filtration rate before donation, proportionate decline after donation was similar in both young and elderly groups. The risks of delayed graft function, acute rejection, and graft failure in transplants from living donors >65 years are significantly higher than transplants from younger donors. A multicentred, long-term, and prospective database addressing the outcomes of kidneys from elderly living donors is recommended.

How young is too young to be a living donor?

Assessing people in adolescence and early adulthood who wish to become living organ donors (LDs) provides unique challenges. In several Canadian provinces, 16-year-old can legally consent to living organ donation. While the World Health Organization states that adolescence corresponds roughly to the ages of 10-19 years, parts of the brain associated with judgment continue to develop into the mid-20s. Therefore, it is legally possible for some young people to donate organs before their capacity to judge the benefits and risks of surgery has fully matured. Potential young living donors (YLDs) may be financially and/or psychologically dependent on their recipients (e.g. parents), which can make it difficult to determine if the YLD's donation is voluntary. This paper suggests ways to manage three ethical challenges in the use of young people as LDs: (1) determining the YLD's ability to appreciate the consequences of living organ donation, (2) determining whether the YLD's donation is voluntary and (3) evaluating the unique risks and benefits to the YLD. We conclude that there are compelling ethical reasons to offer the opportunity of living donation to selected young people. A thorough and fair evaluation process can address social, emotional and developmental issues associated with YLDs.

Optimal testing of the live organ donor for blood-borne viral pathogens: the report of a consensus conference

In 2011, live donor transmission events involving Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Hepatitis C virus (HCV) prompted consideration of changing the process of live donor testing and evaluation in the United States. Following CDC recommendations for screening all live donors with nucleic acid testing for HIV, HCV and Hepatitis B (HBV), a consensus conference was convened to evaluate this recommendation. Workgroups focused on determining whether there was an evidence based rationale for identifying live donors at increased risk for HIV, HBV and HCV, testing options and timing for diagnosing these infections in potential donors and consent issues specific to potential increased risk donor utilization. Strategies for donor assessment were proposed. Based on review of the limited available evidence as well as guidance documents and policies currently in place in the United States and other countries, the conference participants recommended that HIV, HBV and HCV NAT should not be required for live donor evaluation; the optimal timing of live donor testing for these blood borne pathogens has not been determined.

Transparent vessels?: What organ donors should be allowed to know about their recipients

A live organ donor needs to be informed carefully about the risks and benefits of her donation for both herself and her recipient, but a key ethical question is how much the donor is allowed to know about the recipient. To decide this question, we must first decide whether, out of respect for autonomy, the donor should decide how much she wants to know, or whether the transplant team, as the professionals, should decide what information is relevant to the donor's decision. I argue that the transplant team should control the process. While the donor has the right to know enough about her recipient to assess the risk to herself and the prospects for a successful donation, she is not entitled to any further information, no matter how much she wants it. In particular, I argue that donors are not entitled to information that has not been shown to affect outcomes, but that they should be told if a recipient is HIV or that he has rejected a previous organ due to non-compliance. Donors have a right to make decisions with all the information they need, but recipients need not make their lives completely transparent.

Prevention of poor psychosocial outcomes in living organ donors: from description to theory-driven intervention development and initial feasibility testing

CONTEXT

Although some living donors experience psychological, somatic, and interpersonal difficulties after donation, interventions to prevent such outcomes have not been developed or evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To (1) summarize empirical evidence on psychosocial outcomes after donation, (2) describe a theoretical framework to guide development of an intervention to prevent poor outcomes, and (3) describe development and initial evaluation of feasibility and acceptability of the intervention.

METHODS

Based on a narrative literature review suggesting that individuals ambivalent about donation are at risk for poor psychosocial outcomes after donation, the intervention targeted this risk factor. Intervention structure and content drew on motivational interviewing principles in order to assist prospective donors to resolve ambivalence. Data were collected on donors' characteristics at our institution to determine whether they constituted a representative population in which to evaluate the intervention. Study participants were then recruited to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. They were required to have scores greater than 0 on the Simmons Ambivalence Scale (indicating at least some ambivalence about donation).

RESULTS

Our population was similar to the national living donor population on most demographic and donation-related characteristics. Eight individuals who had been approved to donate either a kidney or liver segment were enrolled for pilot testing of the intervention. All successfully completed the 2-session telephone-based intervention before scheduled donation surgery. Participants' ratings of acceptability and satisfaction were high. Open-ended comments indicated that the intervention addressed participants' thoughts and concerns about the decision to donate.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention is feasible, acceptable, and appears relevant to donor concerns. A clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of the intervention is warranted.

Comparison of communication and personal characteristics of living kidney donors and a matched quota sample

Deceased organ donation does not meet the need for kidney transplants. Thus, it is important to examine topics relevant to kidney donors such as communication leading to the donation decision and donor characteristics. This study reports personal characteristics and communication leading to the decision to donate among living kidney donors and a demographically matched quota sample. Donors had higher scores for compassion, while non-donors reported more volunteerism. Donors and non-donors did not differ in conversation or conformity orientations of family communication styles. Only 4.7% of donors reported being asked to donate directly. Matched respondents reported feeling more comfortable than unsettled with the idea of being asked directly and indicated a preference to learn of the need directly or indirectly, giving them the option to volunteer. The majority of donors were giving to family members and friends, and the matched sample indicated greater willingness to donate to immediate family members, followed by friends. Practical implications of the findings are offered.

Rates and correlates of health maintenance behaviors after living kidney donation

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE

Donating a kidney may provide an opportunity for donors to reevaluate their health maintenance behaviors (eg, regular exercise, smoking cessation, medical checkups). Although the effect of donation on donors' health, quality of life, and financial outcomes has received growing attention, no studies have examined whether donation is related to changes in health maintenance behaviors. The study aims were to (1) describe and compare kidney donors' health maintenance behaviors before and after donation, and (2) determine the correlates of health maintenance behaviors after donation. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND MEASURES: We conducted a telephone-interview study with 85 randomly selected laparoscopic kidney donors in a major US transplant center to assess health behaviors before and after donation, postdonation characteristics (eg, quality of life, postsurgical pain), and demographics.

RESULTS

Sample demographics included a median age of 48 years; 55% were female, 82% were white, 71% were married, and 52% were college graduates. Few health behaviors changed significantly from before to after donation. Only the rate of medical checkups increased after donation (P< .001). Logistic regression was used to examine the association of demographics and postdonation characteristics with postdonation health maintenance behaviors, after adjusting for predonation behavior. Older age, higher income, less postsurgical pain, and better physical functioning were associated with more exercise after donation. Longer time since donation was associated with a higher prevalence of obesity.

CONCLUSIONS

These results may help identify donors who are at greater risk for poor health maintenance behaviors after donation and suggest areas of health behavior that should be the focus of education sessions before donation.

Informed consent for living donation: a review of key empirical studies, ethical challenges and future research

Given the organ scarcity, live organ donation is increasingly considered a viable alternative for kidney and liver transplantation. Yet living donation challenges the ethical principle of nonmaleficence by subjecting healthy individuals to medical, psychosocial and unknown risks. Therefore, transplant providers, policy-makers and donors are committed to ensuring that prospective donors provide adequate informed consent to undergo the procedure. Informed consent for living donation is ethically required as a means of demonstrating respect for donor's autonomy and protecting their safety. However, all elements of informed consent are fraught with difficulties due to the unique nature of the donation process and outcome. This paper reviews empirical research on informed consent for live kidney donors (LKD) and live liver donors (LLD) for both adult and pediatric recipients. As this review shows, studies that empirically assessed the quality of informed consent elements reveal considerable variability and deficiencies across the informed consent process, suggesting the need for improvement. This review highlights challenges to each element of consent for both LKDs and LLDs, and situates trends within broader policy contexts, ethical debates and avenues for future innovative research.

Clinical research and social status investigation for donor and recipient of living-related kidney transplant

OBJECTIVE

Renal transplantation is the best options for treating end-stage renal disease. Better patient and allograft survival rates are provided by living donation, which has been safe, with minimal immediate and long-term risk for the donor. This study aims to investigate the life status and summarize the clinical experience in living-related kidney transplant (LRKT) before and after renal transplantation.

METHODS

A total of 310 cases of LRKT have been performed in our center since 1998. Tissue matching and risk factors assessment in donors and recipients were performed before donation. Small lumbar incision was used in all cases for unilateral nephrectomy. Donors and recipients were followed up regularly after renal transplantation.

RESULTS

All living donors were healthy, with normal renal function after unilateral nephrectomy. The 1- and 5-year patient/graft survival rates of LRKT were 98.3 %/97.6 % and 91.3 %/86.9 %, respectively. The cumulative incidence of delayed graft function (DGF) and acute rejection (AR) was 2.9 % (9 cases). Thirteen cases developed pulmonary infection (4.2 %) and eight cases were cured. The graft function in most cases returned to normal range soon after kidney transplant. Moreover, the creatinine and BUN levels of grafts donated by children or siblings of recipients were markedly lower than those donated by parents, at 1 month after transplant.

CONCLUSION

Adequate pretransplant assessment, better tissue matching, and reduced ischemia time may result in lower incidence of DGF, AR and higher patient/graft survival rates for LRKT. It is important to improve selection criteria and health assessment of donors. Long-term follow-up is essential to ensure a healthy life for donors and recipients after kidney transplant.

A national survey of independent living donor advocates: the need for practice guidelines

In 2000, representatives of the transplant community convened for a meeting on living donation in an effort to provide recommendations to promote the welfare of living donors. One key recommendation included in the consensus statement was that all transplant centers which have performed living donor surgeries have an independent living donor advocate (ILDA) "whose only focus is on the best interest of the donor." The aims of this study were to begin to understand the sociodemographic characteristics, selection and training, and clinical practices of ILDAs. All US transplant centers performing living donor surgeries were contacted to identify the ILDA at their center. One hundred and twenty ILDAs completed an anonymous survey. Results indicated considerable variability with regard to the sociodemographic characteristics of ILDAs, how the ILDA was selected and trained, and the ILDAs' clinical practices, particularly ethical challenges encountered by ILDAs. The variability observed may result in differential selection of donors and could have a potential negative impact on the lives of both donors and transplant candidates. The variability in the background, training, and practice of ILDAs suggests the need for strategies, such as practice guidelines, to standardize the interaction between ILDAs and living donors.

Transplant tourism: a modern iteration of an ancient problem

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To explore the scope and implications of emerging global problem of transplant tourism, a practice in which patients seek transplant services (most commonly kidney allografts) in countries other than their permanent residence. Potential remedies that must be implemented if abuses are to be curbed are also offered.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although traveling abroad for medical services may not be problematic from a number of perspectives, what makes transplant tourism so troubling is its link with organ trafficking and transplant commercialism. Unlike many illegal markets, however, this one is driven by the need of patients with irreversible kidney failure, who, along with kidney vendors, are the most vulnerable participants in the process in terms of medical and financial outcomes.

SUMMARY

This review explores the scope and implications of transplant tourism, and offers potential remedies that must be implemented if abuses are to be curbed.

Living donation: the global perspective

Of 195 independent countries in the world, 83 have transplant programs. Some countries (areas) have emphasized living donation; others, decreased donation. As a consequence, rates of living donation vary widely between geographic areas and often between countries within the same geographic area. The major ethical issue in living donation is the risk to the donor. Internationally, numerous guidelines have been developed outlining acceptable donor evaluation and criteria for approval. An ongoing issue is that there remains considerable variation between countries (and programs within a country) in evaluation and in acceptance criteria. A major problem for most countries is the shortage of organs. As a consequence, illegal or quasi-legal unregulated markets have developed in some areas. These markets have not provided protection for either donor or recipient. The transplant community has taken a unified stand against these underground unregulated markets.

Psychosocial and socioeconomic issues facing the living kidney donor

At the 2010 Conference on Living Kidney Donor follow-up, a workgroup was convened to comment on the state of the evidence in 4 broad areas: (a) health-related quality of life postdonation; (b) donors' financial and economic concerns; (c) outcomes issues specific to newer areas of donation, namely, kidney exchange and anonymous (directed and nondirected) donation; and (d) the role of informed consent in relation to postdonation psychosocial outcomes. The workgroup sought to offer recommendations regarding research priorities for the next decade and data collection strategies to accomplish the needed research. The workgroup concluded that there has been little consideration of the nature or predictors of any long-term psychosocial outcomes in living donors. In some areas (eg, kidney exchange and anonymous donation), there is limited information on outcomes even in the early aftermath of donation. Across all 4 psychosocial areas, prospective studies are needed that follow donors to examine the course of development and/or resolution of any donation-related difficulties. The formation of a national registry to routinely collect psychosocial follow-up data may be an efficient strategy to monitor donor outcomes in both the short- and long-term years after donation.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: single-center experience

OBJECTIVE

Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (LLDN) has become the standard procedure for renal transplantation. This technique is considered less invasive for the donor, allowing lower postoperative analgesic requirements and a faster return to daily activities. In Japan, 1123 renal transplantation were performed in 2009. And, almost 83% were living related procedures. The aim of this study was a retrospective assessment of the safety and outcomes of LLDN on renal transplantations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the intraoperative data and surgical complications for 21 patients who underwent retroperitoneoscopic living donor nephrectomy between June 2009 and March 2011.

RESULTS

LLDN was successfully completed in all patients, without conversion to open surgery. Mean operative time was 243.5 ± 46.0 minutes with an average blood loss of 46.0 ± 46.1 mL. Warm ischemic time was 2.1 ± 0.62 minutes. Hospital stay was 11.1 ± 2.7 days. There were no major donor complications. One patient presented a wound infection responding to conservative treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

LLDN is a safe effective procedure. The vascular stapler is useful to manage the renal vessels.

[The influence of relationship dynamics on the psychosocial outcome of genetically related and unrelated living kidney donor-recipient pairs]

OBJECTIVES

Renal diseases and their treatment can cause distress and psychosocial problems for both patients and relatives.

METHODS

Relationship dynamics and parameters of quality of life were assessed in 10 genetically related (brothers) and 14 genetically unrelated donor-recipient pairs (spouses) involved in living kidney donation (LKD).

RESULTS

LKDs were described by related donors and recipients as fundamentally positive and in many cases led to an intensification of the relationship between donor and recipient. LKDs between unrelated donors and recipients appeared to achieve the same results as donations between related donors and recipients. Particularly the general desire to help determined the decision-making process of donors.

CONCLUSION

In addition to general clinical parameters, especially motivational and relationship dynamics should be evaluated in the pre- and postoperative clinical psychological assessment of potential donors and recipients of LKD.

Very long-term follow-up of living kidney donors

Knowledge of the very long-term consequences of kidney donors has not been previously reported extensively. The 398 persons who had donated a kidney between 1952 and 2008 at Necker hospital were contacted. Among the 310 donors who were located, the survival probabilities for this population were similar to those of the general population and end stage renal disease incidence was 581 per million population per year. All located donors still alive were asked to complete a medico-psychosocial questionnaire and give samples for serum creatinine and urinary albumin assays. Among the 204 donors who responded to the questionnaire, mean eGFR was 64.4±14.6ml/min per 1.73m(2) and mean microalbuminuria was 27.0±83mg/g. Most donors never regretted the donation and consider that it has no impact on their professional or social lives. Among the 59 donors who gave a kidney more than 30years ago (mean 40.2years, range 30-48years) had a mean eGFR of 67.5±17.4μmol/l, a mean microalbuminuria level of 44.8±123.2mg/g and none was dialyzed. In conclusion, living kidney donation does not impact survival, kidney function, medical condition or psychological or social status over the very long-term.

Approach to the pretransplant evaluation of the living kidney donor

Evaluation of the potential kidney donor is a complex activity that differs substantially from other types of preoperative assessments. The well being of the donor, who derives no medical benefit from this surgery, must be assured in both the short term and long term, and the potential adverse consequences to the recipient must be determined as well. The criteria that must be met for a person to donate a kidney are rigorous and include medical, social, psychosocial, ethical, and legal issues. Donor evaluation can be divided into assessments to protect the health and safety of the donor and assessments to protect the health and safety of the recipient. This article provides an approach to evaluating a donor, focusing on the complex issues that an evaluator is faced with. A careful assessment of risks and benefits to both the donor and recipient can lead to favorable outcomes.

Donor safety in live-related liver transplantation

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), since its advent in late 1980's and early 1990's, has rapidly increased especially in countries like Japan, Korea and India where cadaveric programmes are not as well established as in the western world. The main advantage of LDLT is the availability of an organ in the elective setting in the course of a progressive liver disease. This is most applicable in patients with Cirrhosis and Hepatocellular carcinoma. LDLT, from the donor's perspective does carry a risk of not only morbidity but mortality. To date the surgical mortality risk is estimated at 0.1% for left lateral donation and 0.5% for right liver donation. Donor mortality has been reported from various centres in India. There are reports of complications like Hepatic artery thrombosis, portal vein thrombosis and especially biliary leaks and strictures occurring at a significantly increased frequency after living as compared to deceased donor liver transplantation. The key to reduce donor morbidity and mortality is meticulous donor selection and thorough donor work up. In the present study we will analyse the factors that contributed to donor mortality and morbidity and prepare a detailed work up plan, intraoperative and post-operative strategy to reduce donor morbidity and mortality.

Risk assessment and management for medically complex potential living kidney donors: a few deontological criteria and ethical values

A SOUND EVALUATION OF EVERY BIOETHICAL PROBLEM SHOULD BE PREDICATED ON A CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF AT LEAST TWO BASIC ELEMENTS: (i) reliable scientific information and (ii) the ethical principles and values at stake. A thorough evaluation of both elements also calls for a careful examination of statements by authoritative institutions. Unfortunately, in the case of medically complex living donors neither element gives clear-cut answers to the ethical problems raised. Likewise, institutionary documents frequently offer only general criteria, which are not very helpful when making practical choices. This paper first introduces a brief overview of scientific information, ethical values, and institutionary documents; the notions of "acceptable risk" and "minimal risk" are then briefly examined, with reference to the problem of medically complex living donors. The so-called precautionary principle and the value of solidarity are then discussed as offering a possible approach to the ethical problem of medically complex living donors.

When good intentions are not enough: obtaining follow-up data in living kidney donors

The Organ Procurement Transplant Network/United Network for Organ Sharing (OPTN/UNOS) has increased the amount of data collected before and after donation and increased the duration of donor follow-up to 2 years, yet there is evidence that reporting is incomplete. We examined the frequency of missing data in the OPTN/UNOS donor follow-up registry and found that reporting rates were low, particularly for donors who may have limited access to health care. We argue that a national donor follow-up registry is essential to ensure transparency in ascertaining long-term health outcomes among all living donors and in providing assessments of quality assurance within transplant programs. We have suggested approaches to strengthen the donor follow-up registry system. These include setting clear and high standards for follow-up reporting, a system of incentives and penalties that would motivate transplant centers to comply with these standards and would encourage donors to follow-up and lifelong follow-up reporting by primary care providers. We argue that the US government must provide funding to support a donor follow-up registry that can allow for meaningful and valid conclusions, in recognition of donors' public service and to maintain trust in the system of living organ donation.

Development of the Center for Living Donation: Incorporating the Role of the Nurse Practitioner as Director

For decades, live organ donors have been cared for within the transplant program by the same team that cared for the recipient without any standardization, practice guidelines, or evidence-based evaluation. In an effort to improve the care of living donors, regulations and guidelines to dictate care and follow-up have been instituted. Practices still vary from center to center, and the quality of care that live donors receive also varies. A “Living Donor Center” focused solely on the care of actual and potential donors before and after donation is one way to provide the infrastructure to comply with regulatory mandates and deliver high-quality care to this specialized population of patients. A Center for Living Donation was developed within a Transplantation Institute to address the short- and long-term needs of live donors and confine all donor care to a team of experts led by a doctorally prepared nurse practitioner as the director. A transplant nurse practitioner is uniquely poised to assume such a role because of such competencies as clinical and professional leadership, ability to act as a change agent, communication skills, and ability to lead a multidisciplinary team.

Living kidney donor decision making and communication

There is high demand for kidney donors in the United States, and it is widely accepted that living donation is optimal for individuals who need a kidney. Much research has focused on the potential recipient, but little has been studied about the communication and decision making of living kidney donors. Interviews assessed the communication and decision-making processes of 43 kidney donor volunteers. Almost all of the participants were not asked, but instead volunteered, to donate. The majority of donors reported having conversations with the recipient and speaking about their decisions with other individuals in their social networks besides the recipient. Some participants said that they stopped talking to others because of negative feedback. Future research should further examine the communication of donors with non-recipient others and potential methods of training recipients and donors to communicate effectively about the donation process.

Disclosing recipient information to potential living donors: preferences of donors and recipients, before and after surgery

Consensus guidelines, while recommending that potential living donors should be given information that could impact their donation decision, are nonspecific about the types of information that should be disclosed. We surveyed potential (n = 36) and past (n = 45) living donors and transplant candidates (n = 45) and recipients (n = 45) about their preferences for sharing or knowing specific information about the recipient, how this information would impact decision-making, and who should be responsible for disclosing information. Potential donors were less likely than all others to feel that recipient information should be disclosed to potential donors. Donors and recipients felt most strongly about disclosing if the recipient lost a previously transplanted kidney due to medication nonadherence as well as the likelihood of 1- and 5-year graft survival. Most donors would be less likely to pursue donation if the recipient lost a previously transplanted kidney due to medication nonadherence or generally had problems with taking medications as prescribed. Transplant programs should consider how to best balance the potential donor's right to receive information that could reasonably be expected to affect their decision-making process with the recipient's right to privacy and confidentiality.

Stranger donors: a key link in transplant chains

Living donation to strangers is a complex issue that has caused some transplant centers to ban the practice altogether. Most prominent of the troublesome issues is the common source of these donors; namely, the Internet. These "stranger donors," however, are critical to both paired kidney transplants and chain kidney transplants. This article presents the ethical complexities of donors in these transplant arrangements and offers 2 case examples from our facility. Rigorous donor screening and informed consent processes are crucial, and together they help make transplant pairs and chains ethically feasible.

[Autoaggressive donation motives in the context of living kidney donation]

BACKGROUND

Which psychodiagnostic criteria indicate artificial donation motives at work in living organ donation?

METHODOLOGY

Using a casuistic we investigated self-harmful behaviour with regard to peculiarities in transference as well as countertransference.

RESULTS

Diagnostically of great important is the discrepancy between the difficulty of the examiner to understand the donation request in its psychosocial context and the vehemence with which the donor insists on going through with the transplantation. At the same time, one may notice a lack of reflective ability impeding an ambivalent attitude toward the donation. The doctor/patient relationship is restricted by aggressive affects, and the body of the donor is reduced to an object with exchangeable organs.

DISCUSSION

When evaluating donor-recipient pairs who belong into the group of pairs with particular emotional investment according to Article 8.1 of the German Organ Transplantation Law, one should consider the possibility of autoaggressive motives as a background to a living organ donation. Also, when discussing the extension of anonymous and predominantly altruistically motivated living organ donation one should consider the exclusion of autoaggressive motives.

Stranger Donors: A Key Link in Transplant Chains

Living donation to strangers is a complex issue that has caused some transplant centers to ban the practice altogether. Most prominent of the troublesome issues is the common source of these donors; namely, the Internet. These “stranger donors,” however, are critical to both paired kidney transplants and chain kidney transplants. This article presents the ethical complexities of donors in these transplant arrangements and offers 2 case examples from our facility. Rigorous donor screening and informed consent processes are crucial, and together they help make transplant pairs and chains ethically feasible.