Consensus statement on the live organ donor

More on parental living liver donation for children with fulminant hepatic failure: addressing concerns about competing interests, coercion, consent and balancing acts

Parental living liver donation for children with fulminant hepatic failure raises complex ethical issues. According to a recent editorial in this journal, these include contradictory interests, the possibility of coercion and compromised consent and the need to balance the risks to the donor against the potential benefits for the recipient. Here I argue that in this setting, interests are often aligned rather than conflicted, that coercion of parental donors is rare, that consent may sometimes be valid even when it is not fully informed and that the correct balance to consider is the relative weights of risks and benefits for the donor. I conclude that living liver donation by parents of children with fulminant hepatic failure is consistent with societal norms of parental behavior, ethically acceptable and should be permitted regardless of the efficiency of the deceased donor organ recovery program.

The Ethics of Living Donor Lung Transplantation

A constant awareness of the risk to the living donors must be maintained with any living donor organ transplantation program, and comprehensive short- and long-term follow-up should be strongly encouraged to maintain the viability of these potentially life-saving procedures. There has been no perioperative or long-term mortality following lobectomy for living lobar lung transplantation, and perioperative risks associated with donor lobectomy seem to be similar to those seen with standard lung resections. These risks might increase, however, if the procedure is offered on an occasional basis and not within a well-established program. The long-term outcomes and functional effects of lobar donation raise important questions that are unanswered. This has proved difficult to follow closely, because of the fact that many donors live far from the transplant medical center and are reluctant to return for routine follow-up evaluation. The death of a recipient can further exacerbate this situation, because there is reluctance to insist on further routine examinations for a grieving donor. Prospective donors must be informed of the morbidity associated with lobectomy and the potential for mortality, and for potential negative recipient outcomes in regard to life expectancy and quality of life after transplantation. Although cadaveric transplantation must be considered because of the risk to the donors, living lobar lung transplantation should continue to be used under properly selected circumstances. The results reported by the authors' group and others are important if this procedure is to be considered as an option at more pulmonary transplant centers in view of the institutional, regional, and international differences in the philosophic and ethical acceptance of the use of living organ donors for transplantation. The integration of ethical discussion into topics that are relevant and of interest to thoracic surgeons, such as living lung donation, is a recent and welcome event. Many of the clinical situations that thoracic surgeons deal with on a daily basis have important and complex ethical implications, and there has been little training to deal effectively with these issues. This is changing as invited discussions on ethically compelling topics are finding their way into journals and the programs of national meetings. What may be of more importance, however, is the development of an ethics curriculum for those training in the specialty. The core curriculum recommended by the Thoracic Surgical Directors Association (which represents the leadership of the 89 approved residency training programs in the United States) has one lecture pertaining to ethics out of the several hundred offerings in its requisite curriculum. It is hoped that this will change in the near future.

Outcomes of 385 adult-to-adult living donor liver transplant recipients: a report from the A2ALL Consortium

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to characterize the patient population with respect to patient selection, assess surgical morbidity and graft failures, and analyze the contribution of perioperative clinical factors to recipient outcome in adult living donor liver transplantation (ALDLT).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Previous reports have been center-specific or from large databases lacking detailed variables. The Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study (A2ALL) represents the first detailed North American multicenter report of recipient risk and outcome aiming to characterize variables predictive of graft failure.

METHODS

Three hundred eighty-five ALDLT recipients transplanted at 9 centers were studied with analysis of over 35 donor, recipient, intraoperative, and postoperative variables. Cox regression models were used to examine the relationship of variables to the risk of graft failure.

RESULTS

Ninety-day and 1-year graft survival were 87% and 81%, respectively. Fifty-one (13.2%) grafts failed in the first 90 days. The most common causes of graft failure were vascular thrombosis, primary nonfunction, and sepsis. Biliary complications were common (30% early, 11% late). Older recipient age and length of cold ischemia were significant predictors of graft failure. Center experience greater than 20 ALDLT was associated with a significantly lower risk of graft failure. Recipient Model for End-stage Liver Disease score and graft size were not significant predictors.

CONCLUSIONS

This multicenter A2ALL experience provides evidence that ALDLT is a viable option for liver replacement. Older recipient age and prolonged cold ischemia time increase the risk of graft failure. Outcomes improve with increasing center experience.

Laparoscopic nephrectomy: safe and comfortable surgical alternative for living donors and for good results of graft function

Laparoscopic nephrectomy for kidney donation from living related donors has the advantages of a less invasive surgical access, better cosmesis, and a shorter hospital stay for the donor. However, some workers have reported up to 10% life-threatening complications for the donor using this technique. The purpose of our study was to evaluate hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy for living donors of kidney transplants in terms of graft function. Thirty donors who underwent open nephrectomy (ON) were compared with 27 who had hand-assisted nephrectomy (HALN). Surgery and ischemia times, hospital stay, bleeding, graft function, remaining kidney function, and complications were compared in both groups. Mean surgery time was 126.9 minutes for ON and 98 minutes for HALN (P = .0005), warm ischemia time was 3 minutes versus 6 for ON vs HALN, respectively (P = .02). Hospitalization stay was 6.3 days for ON versus 4.8 days for HALN (P = .0015). Differences in change in hematocrit and in serum creatinine levels were not significant; graft outcomes were also similar. Complications were minimal. We conclude that HALN is a valid, safe technique to obtain kidneys from living related donors, significantly reducing the hospital stay and allowing return to normal activities sooner, with risks falling within those reported in the literature.

Living Donor Kidney Transplant: Medicolegal and Insurance Aspects

Kidney transplantation is quite a routine complex procedure, not without risks and consequences to the donor, the recipient, and the health care professionals. Kidney-related medical malpractice suits are growing rapidly, and for clinicians and surgeons, the risk of being sued can be only reduced by practicing high-quality medicine and by appropriately communicating with donors and recipients. Actually relevant guidelines are available including safety and quality assurance standards for procurements, preservation, processing, and distribution for organs to maximize their quality and thereby the rate of success of transplants and to minimize the risk of such a procedure. We also find it essential that practice of living donor kidney transplant is in line with the general rules of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and its Additional Protocol. In this article, financial incentives and insurance aspects related with living donors kidney transplants are also illustrated.

Attitudes, psychology, and risk taking of potential live kidney donors: strangers, relatives, and the general public

It is unclear whether potential living kidney donors and the general public differ in attitudes and psychological characteristics. We performed a case-control study to explore differences in these groups using a standardized questionnaire (analyzed using conditional logistic regression). Strangers (N = 42) were more willing than controls (N = 126) to incur risks: 64% strangers versus 35% controls accepting >50% medical complications (MC) risk; 90% strangers versus 61% controls accepting >8 days hospitalization; 71% strangers versus 43% controls accepting >3 months unpaid; 55% strangers versus 16% controls accepting 100% kidney failure (KF) risk; 70% strangers versus 34% controls accepting < or =10% likelihood of successful transplant (all p < 0.01). Relatives (N = 251) were also more willing than controls (N = 251) to incur risks. Strangers were most willing to incur MC, KF and transplant failure. Groups did not differ in attitudes, depression or anxiety. Potential stranger and related donors are willing to undergo greater risks with donation than the general public, but do not differ in other attitudes, depression or anxiety. This should help reassure transplant centers and the public that both forms of live donation do not necessarily involve increased ethical risks of donor coercion or irrational thought processes. Still, careful attention to communication of all risks of donation is warranted.

Is tolerance induction the answer to adolescent non-adherence?

By definition, tolerance will eliminate the problem of adolescent medication non-adherence. Although adolescents' propensity toward non-adherence makes them at first glance to be particularly attractive candidates for tolerance trials, there are also immunologic, psychosocial and ethical barriers that temper enthusiasm for their inclusion at present. Limits in emotional and cognitive maturity are combined during the teenage years with adult-like immunologic maturity to lessen the potential for successful implementation of tolerance and near tolerance strategies. Alternatively, an interval step to tolerance in adolescents is to eliminate the medications most likely contributing to non-adherence through harsh side effects such as steroids and calcineurin inhibitors. This manuscript will review the general topic of transplantation tolerance with specific attention given to the application of pro-tolerant therapies in adolescent recipients.

Living-donor kidney transplantation: a review of the current practices for the live donor

The first successful living-donor kidney transplant was performed 50 yr ago. Since then, in a relatively brief period of medical history, living kidney transplantation has become the preferred treatment for those with ESRD. Organ replacement from either a live or a deceased donor is preferable to dialysis therapy because transplantation provides a better quality of life and improved survival. The advantages of live versus deceased donor transplantation now are readily apparent as it affords earlier transplantation and the best long-term survival. Live kidney donation has also been fostered by the technical advance of laparoscopic nephrectomy and immunologic maneuvers that can overcome biologic obstacles such as HLA disparity and ABO or cross-match incompatibility. Congressional legislation has provided an important model to remove financial disincentives to being a live donor. Federal employees now are afforded paid leave and coverage for travel expenses. Candidates for renal transplantation are aware of these developments, and they have become less hesitant to ask family members, spouses, or friends to become live kidney donors. Living donation as practiced for the past 50 yr has been safe with minimal immediate and long-term risk for the donor. However, the future experience may not be the same as our society is becoming increasingly obese and developing associated health problems. In this environment, predicting medical futures is less precise than in the past. Even so, isolated abnormalities such as obesity and in some instances hypertension are no longer considered absolute contraindications to donation. These and other medical risks bring additional responsibility in such circumstances to track the unknown consequences of a live-donor nephrectomy.

Use of a minimally invasive donor nephrectomy program to select technique for live donor nephrectomy

BACKGROUND

Live donor nephrectomy (LDN) is a major surgical procedure with an accepted low mortality and morbidity. Minimally invasive donor nephrectomy (MIDN) has been shown to decrease the wound morbidity associated with the lumbotomy of the classic open technique. Transplant programs face the challenge of initiating their MIDN programs without jeopardizing the safety of the donor and the graft quality. We present the experience at the University of Calgary after the initiation of a MIDN program, with a preoperative selective approach using the 3 major techniques for LDN.

METHODS

From December 2001 to May 2004, 50 consecutive, accepted, live kidney donors were evaluated and chosen to undergo nephrectomy by an open, laparoscopic, or hand-assisted technique. Patients were chosen for a particular technique based on the criteria of vascular anatomy, size of abdominal cavity, previous surgery, and technical implications for the recipient.

RESULTS

A total of 15 open, 11 laparoscopic, and 24 hand-assisted nephrectomies were performed. There were no statistically significant differences in sex, age, or body mass index between the groups. There were statistically significant differences in surgical times (P < .001) and in the number of days spent in the hospital (P < .001). All kidneys had primary function. There were 2 conversions in the hand-assisted group and 1 blood transfusion in the open group. Death-censored graft survival was 100% with an observation time of 20 months (SD +/- 9 months; range = 3-32 months). One graft from the hand-assisted group was lost from patient death with functioning graft 8 months after transplant.

CONCLUSIONS

The learning curve for MIDN does not necessarily need to impact donor or recipient outcomes. The initiation of an MIDN program can be implemented safely if the cases are selected carefully and the use of the classic open technique is kept as an alternative.

Living donor liver transplantation: the historical and cultural basis of policy decisions and ongoing ethical questions

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is in a state of flux. Technical innovations and demand have outpaced internal and external regulatory efforts. This has led to a wide array of centers performing LDLT for a variety of indications without clear evidence on the risks to the donor or recipient or the system as a whole. The birth from necessity of LDLT in Asia has led to the extrapolation of the technique in America and Europe that has not been sufficiently studied in the appropriate populations. While there is a clear benefit in some patients, the appropriate donors and recipients have not been defined. Regulatory and ethical consideration should be focused on minimizing acceptable risk in donors and recipients and expanding the investigation into the costs and outcomes of this challenging procedure. The recently funded adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation cohort sponsored by the National Institutes of Health aims to answer some of these questions over the next five years.

To do or not to do living donor hepatectomy in Jehovah's Witnesses: single institution experience of the first 13 resections

Living donor liver transplantation has come to be an acceptable alternative to deceased donor transplants. Several ethical issues related to living donation have been raised in the face of reported perioperative morbidity and mortality. We report our experience in 13 consecutive Jehovah's Witness (JW) donor hepatectomies. From June 1999 to April 2004, 13 adult JW donors underwent donor hepatectomies at the USC-University Hospital. Nine donors underwent right lobectomy with a 62% mean volume of the liver resected. Four donors underwent a left lateral segmentectomy with a mean volume of 17.8%. Cell scavenging techniques, acute normovolemic hemodilution and fractionated products were used. The mean hospital stay was 6.2 days. All donors are alive and well at a median follow-up time of 3 years and 4 months. Live liver donation can be done safely in JW population if performed within a comprehensive bloodless surgery program.

The donation process of living kidney donors

BACKGROUND

The rates of both genetic and non-genetic living donors are increasing. However, previous research has almost exclusively explored the decision-making of genetic donors. Therefore, in this study both genetic and non-genetic donors are investigated with focus on their whole donation process.

METHODS

Thirty-nine donors were interviewed the day before nephrectomy and 3 weeks afterwards. Twenty-three donors were genetic relatives, 16 were not. The interviews were analysed qualitatively, mainly by narrative structuring.

RESULTS

All donors but one passed seven steps in the donation process. They included: (i) awareness of suffering; compassion and empathy; (ii) imminence of transplantation; recognition of oneself as potential donor; (iii) information acquisition and deliberation; (iv) attribution of responsibility to oneself; announcement of decision to donate; (v) examination; maintaining the decision; (vi) facing nephrectomy; and (vii) postoperative experiences. Two types of decision-making were displayed: immediate and later announcement of decision. Half the donors belonged to each type. Various relationship groups displayed different types. The examination period was the most stressful time, partly due to imperfect coordination and excessive time-wasting. One-third found postoperative pain the most painful experience ever. There was a lack of attention to regressive needs and to recognition of the deed.

CONCLUSIONS

The two types of decision-making seem similar in ethical requirements. It is not a genetic or non-genetic relationship per se that determines what kind of decision the donors make. Psychological support, especially during Steps 5 and 7, should be improved and the donors included in a structured donation programme. Possible health care ambivalence toward living donation should not affect the donors.

Pediatric transplantation, 1994-2003

This article uses OPTN/SRTR data to review trends in pediatric transplantation over the last decade. In 2003, children younger than 18 made up 3% of the 82,885 candidates for organ transplantation and 7% of the 25,469 organ transplant recipients. Children accounted for 14% of the 6,455 deceased organ donors. Pediatric organ transplant recipients differ from their adult counterparts in several important aspects, including the underlying etiology of organ failure, the complexity of the surgical procedures, the pharmacokinetic properties of common immunosuppressants, the immune response following transplantation, the number and degree of comorbid conditions, and the susceptibility to post-transplant complications, especially infectious diseases. Specialized pediatric organ transplant programs have been developed to address these special problems. The transplant community has responded to the particular needs of children and has provided them special consideration in the allocation of deceased donor organs. As a result of these programs and protocols, children are now frequently the most successful recipients of organ transplantation; their outcomes following kidney, liver, and heart transplantation rank among the best. This article demonstrates that substantial improvement is needed in several areas: adolescent outcomes, outcomes following intestine transplants, and waiting list mortality among pediatric heart and lung candidates.

Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation: History, Current Practice, and Implications for the Future

More than 1600 Americans have received adult-to-adult living donor liver transplants. As the number of patients with end-stage liver disease is expected to grow significantly in the next 20 years due to hepatitis C infection, living donor liver transplantation has become a promising solution to the shortage of donor organs. The use of living donors provides organs in an environment of scarcity, allows patients to receive transplants when medically optimized, and produces liver segments with minimal ischemic damage. The donor complications most frequently cited in the medical literature include bile leaks and strictures, biloma, hepatic encephalopathy, wound infection, and pressure sores. In the wake of 2 donor deaths in the United States and subsequent media publicity, there have been new efforts by the transplant community to describe the risks and outcomes for donors, and establish safeguards to protect them from excessive pressure to donate.

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.

Incentive models to increase living kidney donation: encouraging without coercing

Kidney transplantation is a superior treatment strategy than chronic dialysis for end-stage renal disease patients. However, there is a severe shortage of cadaveric kidneys that are available for transplantation. Therefore many patients are turning to living donors. We describe four models of incentives to improve rates of living kidney donation: the market compensation model, the fixed compensation model, no-compensation model and the expense reimbursement model. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each of these models. Any incentive to improve rates of living kidney donation must be accompanied by safeguards. These safeguards will prevent living donors from being viewed primarily as a resource for transplants. These safeguards will also prevent vulnerable individuals from being coerced into donation and will monitor long-term outcomes of donors using a donor registry. We recommend the use of the expense reimbursement model along with these safeguards, in order to increase rates of living kidney donation.

Differences in Attitude Toward Living and Postmortal Liver Donation in the United States, Germany, and Japan

Living liver donation is a possible immediate option for decreasing the shortage of liver allografts worldwide. Risks related to the donation make this procedure ethically controversial. Study groups of medical students (N= 330) from three different nations were analyzed with a complex questionnaire, and data were subjected to multiparameter analysis. The readiness for living liver donation was dependent upon the cultural background of the study groups. It was higher in the U.S. than in Germany and Japan, with a higher donation readiness for children as recipients than adults. Major differences among distinct sociodemographic groups need to be carefully addressed when setting up consensus guidelines for the clinical practice of living donation.

The nondirected living donor program: a model for cooperative donation, recovery and allocation of living donor kidneys

We describe an altruistic nondirected (ND) and live donor/deceased donor list exchange (LE) donor program administered by an organ procurement organization (OPO) in the Washington, DC area. Screening eliminated 25 donors (17 NE; 8 LE) from the 97 donor applications (62 ND; 35 LE) completed. Twenty-one donors (16 ND; 5 LE) failed to follow through with the psychiatric evaluation, which eliminated 13 donors (9 ND; 4 LE). Two donors dropped out and 12 (9 ND; 3 LE) were medically unsuitable after final clinical evaluation. Twenty donor procedures were performed (10 ND; 10 LE) with four pending (2 ND; 2 LE). This resulted in a modest 3-5% increase in the OPO-procured kidney organ pool. The average cold ischemia time of the grafts not transported between transplant centers was 205 +/- 66 min compared with 243 +/- 48 min for transported grafts. With no documented adverse outcomes, donors had a hospital stay of length 2.9 days and at home recuperation of 12.3 days. Three- and 6-month creatinines were 1.44 +/- 1.36 and 1.68 +/- 0.61 for grafts not transported between transplant centers, and 1.6 +/- 0.27 and 1.6 +/- 0.44 for transported grafts. An OPO-administered altruistic donor program can serve as a model for cooperative donation, recovery and allocation of living donor kidneys.

Prospective psychosocial monitoring of living kidney donors using the Short Form-36 health survey: results at 12 months

BACKGROUND

Lack of prospective psychosocial outcome studies on living kidney donors impedes identification of risk factors for poor outcome.

METHODS

Psychiatric assessment of living kidney donors was performed preoperatively and at 4 and 12 months postoperatively using a semistructured interview, the Short Form (SF)-36 Health Survey, and Patient Health Questionnaire psychiatric assessment. A total of 48 of 51 consecutive donors (94%) over a 5-year period were available for follow-up and completed all assessments.

RESULTS

At preoperative assessment, only 1 of the 48 donors (2%) had a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition Axis I psychiatric disorder, but 15 (31%) developed a disorder during the 12 months, a 29% incidence. Disorders were depressive (12%), anxiety (6%), and adjustment (13%). Seven donors (15%) demonstrated a disorder at 12 months (depressive 10%, anxiety 2%, adjustment 2%). There was a corresponding decline in psychosocial function as measured by the SF-36 Mental Component Summary score; it decreased at both 4 and 12 months (P<0.01, P<0.05); for 19% of donors, this was a larger decrease than would be expected for the cohort (>2 standard error of measurement units). Scores for SF-36 scales of General Health and Vitality decreased significantly (P<0.05), as did those of Bodily Pain, indicating greater impairment from pain. Psychiatric disorder at 12 months was associated with donor psychosocial function (Mental Component Summary) and psychiatric disorder at 4 months (P<0.01), physical function (SF-36 Physical Component Summary score) at 4 and 12 months (P<0.01), and recipient psychiatric disorder at 12 months (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Donors should be alerted to possible psychosocial impairment, assessed for risk factors, and monitored for at least 12 months. Treatment should be available.

Living donor surgery: overview of surgical and anesthesia issues

Organ transplantation occupies the center stage in the treatment of many forms of end-stage organ disease. When the limits of conventional medical care are exhausted, bridging therapies, cadaveric transplantation, and posttransplant medical care come to the fore. Living donor transplantation has grown out of the numerical and immunosuppression limitations of this process. Living donor transplantation medicine and surgery encompass two of the most fascinating and compelling social and ethical dilemmas of modern health care. This article provides an overview of medical and ethical concerns for those who decide to become living donors and those who care for them in the perioperative period.

Aortic pulse wave velocity in renal transplant patients

BACKGROUND

In subjects with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) undergoing hemodialysis, aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) is increased independently of blood pressure level and mostly is a strong predictor of cardiovascular risk. Few studies on this subject have been performed in renal transplant patients.

METHODS

Aortic PWV was determined noninvasively in 106 patients with kidney transplantation and treated using a standard immunosuppression protocol. Mean age was 43 +/- 14 years. During the follow-up period (mean duration 54.3 +/- 28.9 months), the following parameters were studied: characteristics of the renal graft, degree of renal insufficiency, number of acute rejections, cardiovascular risk factors, drug medications, and cardiovascular complications.

RESULTS

Aortic PWV was increased in subjects with renal transplants independently of age and mean blood pressure. Acute renal rejection and smoking habits were the principal factors modulating together: the increase of aortic PWV and the reduction of the glomerular filtration rate (GFR). The latter renal parameter was also influenced by the donor age. Two main parameters were predictors of cardiovascular events: a past history of cardiovascular disease and the pulse pressure x heart rate product, the major mechanical consequence of increased PWV.

CONCLUSION

In renal transplant subjects, tobacco consumption and mostly acute renal rejection modulate both aortic stiffness and chronic renal failure independent of blood pressure level and donor characteristics. Pulsatile stress mediates cardiovascular complications and predicts cardiovascular risk, particularly in the presence of increased heart rate.

A decade of living lobar lung transplantation: perioperative complications after 253 donor lobectomies

Living lobar lung transplantation places two donors at risk for each recipient. We examined the perioperative outcomes associated with the 253 donor lobectomies performed at our institution during our first decade of living lobar lung transplantation. There have been no perioperative or long-term deaths. 80.2% of donors (n = 203) had no perioperative complications, while fifty (19.8%) had one or more complication. The incidence of intraoperative complications was 3.6%. Complications requiring reoperation occurred in 3.2% of donors. 15.0% of donors had other perioperative complications; the most serious were two donors who developed pulmonary artery thrombosis, while the most common was the need for an additional thoracostomy tube or a thoracostomy tube for >/=14 d for persistent air leaks and/or drainage. Right-sided donors were more likely to have a perioperative complication than left-sided donors (odd ratio 2.02, p = 0.04), probably secondary to right lower and middle lobe anatomy. This experience has shown donor lobectomy to be associated with a relatively low morbidity and no mortality, and is important if this procedure is to be considered an option at more pulmonary transplant centers, given continued organ shortages and differences in philosophical and ethical acceptance of live

The essence of living parental liver donation--donors' lived experiences of donation to their children

The use of living parental liver donors will continue and probably increase because of lack of cadaveric livers for paediatric transplantation and the excellent graft survival of parental livers. Therefore, it is important for the health care professionals involved in living parental liver donation to understand the experience of being a liver donor. The aim of this study was to investigate the expressed deeper feelings of parents who donated a part of their liver to their own child. The study took the form of in-depth interviews with 11 donors. All donors were biological parents of the recipient, nine fathers and two mothers. The interpretive phenomenology method was used, and interpretive analysis was carried out in three interrelated processes in line with Benner. Data collection was guided by the researcher's preliminary understanding of the donor experience from being involved in the surgery and care of the donors as well as the paediatric recipients. However, the research question was approached from the perspective of holistic care for the donor. In this study, the essence of living parental liver donation was found to be the struggle for holistic confirmation. There were three categories leading to this central theme; the total lack of choice, facing the fear of death and the transition from health to illness. There was total agreement among the respondents that there is no choice when it comes to the question of donation. The findings in this study stress the importance of organizing the parental liver donation programme with as much focus on the donor as on the child. Based on the results of this study, several clinical implications are suggested for the formation of guidelines for living parental liver donation.

Twenty-two nondirected kidney donors: an update on a single center's experience

At the University of Minnesota, we have defined 'nondirected donation' as organ donation by a volunteer who offered to donate an organ to anyone on the cadaver waiting list. From October 1, 1997, through October 31, 2003, we have had 360 inquiries about nondirected donation, have completed 42 detailed nondirected donor (NDD) evaluations for kidney donation, and have performed 22 NDD transplants. We herein review our program policies and how they have evolved, describe our evaluation and the motivation of our potential donors, summarize the outcome of NDD transplants, and raise issues requiring further attention and study. Our experience continues to support nondirected donation for kidney transplants.

Expanding criteria for the use of living donors: what are the limits?

The cadaver organ shortage has pushed the transplant community to extend the boundaries beyond the traditional criteria used for living donor transplantation. This new liberal policy involves: (1) the type of donor, such as emotionally related individuals, the direct or indirect interchange of donors, anonymous as well as rewarded donation; (2) challenging immunological criteria, using incompatible ABO blood types and or transplantation across a positive cross-match; (3) relaxing clinical criteria related to elderly, hypertensive, or obese donors, or patients with nephrolithiasis, fibromuscular renal artery disease, hematuria, or renal cell carcinomas. However, these practices may be dangerous. They must be clearly validated to promote a liberal policy of donor acceptance since it may carry a risk for both the donor and the recipient as well as for society. It is crucial to ensure the physical integrity of the donor as well as to provide guarantees, for instance a 1-year policy of life insurance, an indefinite long-term medical follow-up and the assurance of going to the top of the waiting list if the donor becomes uremic in the future.

Risk appreciation for living kidney donors: another new subspecialty?

Quantitative estimates of the risk of end stage renal disease (ESRD) for living donors would seem essential to defensible donor selection practices, as the 'safe/unsafe' model for donor selection is not viable. All kidney donors take risk, and four fundamental, qualitative criteria should instead be used to decide when donor rejection is justified. These criteria are lack of donor education about transplantation, donor irrationality, lack of free and voluntary donation, and/or that donor acceptance would unavoidably threaten the public trust or the integrity of the center's selection procedures. Such a data-based selection policy, with explicit documentation of unbiased and comprehensive donor education, will help neutralize the center's self interest in a more defensible way than by rejecting 'complicated' kidney donors out of hand, and in a more practical way than by the creation of center-independent donor counselors or waiting for donor registries to come to fruition. Living kidney donors with isolated medical abnormalities comprise a sizable subset of at risk donors for whom center acceptance practices vary markedly. This population provides a paradigm opportunity for quantitative risk estimation and counseling.

Pediatric transplantation

Analysis of the OPTN/SRTR database demonstrates that, in 2002, pediatric recipients accounted for 7% of all recipients, while pediatric individuals accounted for 14% of deceased organ donors. For children fortunate enough to receive a transplant, there has been continued improvement in outcomes following all forms of transplantation. Current 1-year graft survival is generally excellent, with survival rates following transplantation in many cases equaling or exceeding those of all other recipients. In renal transplantation, despite excellent early graft survival, there is evidence that long-term graft survival for adolescent recipients is well below that of other recipients. A causative role for noncompliance is possible. While the significant improvements in graft and patient survival are laudable, waiting list mortality remains excessive. Pediatric candidates awaiting liver, intestine, and thoracic transplantation face mortality rates generally greater than those of their adult counterparts. This finding is particularly pronounced in patients aged 5 years and younger. While mortality awaiting transplantation is an important consideration in refining organ allocation strategies, it is important to realize that other issues, in addition to mortality, are critical for children. Consideration of the impact of end-stage organ disease on growth and development is often equally important, both while awaiting and after transplantation.

Kidney transplants from young children and the mentally retarded

Kidney donation by young children and the mentally retarded has been supported by court decisions, arguments based on obligations inherent in family relationships, an array of contextual factors, and the principle of beneficence. These justifications for taking organs from people who cannot protect themselves are problematic and must be weighed against our obligation to protect the vulnerable. A compromise solution is presented that strongly protects young children and the mentally retarded but does not abdicate all responsibility to relieve suffering. Guidelines are proposed that prohibit the retrieval of kidneys from young children and the mentally retarded but permit one exception. They would allow retrieval of a kidney when the consequence to a first order relative with whom the donor has a meaningful and valuable relationship is otherwise imminent death. This would be done in accordance with additional guidelines that minimize harm to the donor. Since most patients with end stage renal disease can be maintained on dialysis the need for a kidney to prevent death should be an uncommon occurrence. This compromise is proposed as a solution to a dilemma that exists because two ethical principles are in conflict and one cannot be honored without violating the other.

An "opting in" paradigm for kidney transplantation

Almost 60,000 people in the United States with end stage renal disease are waiting for a kidney transplant. Because of the scarcity of organs from deceased donors live kidney donors have become a critical source of organs; in 2001, for the first time in recent decades, the number of live kidney donors exceeded the number of deceased donors. The paradigm used to justify putting live kidney donors at risk includes the low risk to the donor, the favorable risk-benefit ratio, the psychological benefits to the donor, altruism, and autonomy coupled with informed consent; because each of these arguments is flawed we need to lessen our dependence on live kidney donors and increase the number of organs retrieved from deceased donors. An "opting in" paradigm would reward people who agree to donate their kidneys after they die with allocation preference should they need a kidney while they are alive. An "opting in" program should increase the number of kidneys available for transplantation and eliminate the morally troubling problem of"organ takers"who would accept a kidney if they needed one but have made no provision to be an organ donor themselves. People who "opt in" would preferentially get an organ should they need one at the minimal cost of donating their kidneys when they have no use for them; it is a form of organ insurance a rational person should find extremely attractive. An "opting in" paradigm would simulate the reciprocal altruism observed in nature that sociobiologists believe enhances group survival. Although the allocation of organs based on factors other than need might be morally troubling, an "opting in" paradigm compares favorably with other methods of obtaining more organs and accepting the status quo of extreme organ scarcity. Although an "opting in" policy would be based on enlightened self-interest, by demonstrating the utilitarian value of mutual assistance, it would promote the attitude that self-interest sometimes requires the perception that we are all part of a common humanity.

Remaining experiences of living kidney donors more than 3 yr after early recipient graft loss

Living kidney donor programs, based on willingness among family members and close relatives to donate, have made it possible to perform a satisfactory number of kidney transplantations. Early graft loss in the recipient may occur and it is not known if such an event will result mainly in acute, rather transient, emotional reactions or if long-lasting reactions may be evoked in the living kidney donor. The aim of the present study was to assess and describe the remaining experiences of donors (n = 10) more than 3 yr after early recipient graft loss or death of the recipient. A phenomenographic, interview-based research approach was used. Five different fields or domains were identified: (i) the decision to donate; (ii) the information provided; (iii) care received at the time of donation; (iv) responses at graft failure; and (v) concerns remaining at the time of the interview. All donors expressed that they had volunteered to donate and that no stress had been put on them. The information given prior to and in connection with the donation procedure was deemed insufficient but all donors were satisfied with the medical care provided in connection with the nephrectomy and in the immediate post-operative period. Graft failure was immediately accepted on the intellectual level by nine of 10 donors but still evoked emotional reactions and responses included a wish that continuing contact with the transplant staff had been provided. The present interview-based study shows that it is of importance that the donor is thoroughly informed about all donor as well as recipient-related factors including the potential risk of recipient graft failure. In case of graft failure, or the death of the recipient, the transplant unit staff members should offer contact for discussions of medical matters as well as for psychosocial support. In individual cases it may be necessary to maintain such a supportive contact channel for a prolonged period of time.

Is this live-organ donor your patient?

The transplant community is in the midst of an ethical reflection regarding the manner in which live-organ transplantation should be practiced. There is a fundamental aspect to be addressed and reaffirmed. It is the doctor-patient relationship between the transplant surgeon and the live-organ donor. This relationship brings a mutual responsibility to the physician and the donor patient to each other, which should not be abrogated by the claim of donor autonomy nor the obligation fostered by the recipient's needs. If equipoise is not affirmatively achieved in the risk-benefit calculation for the donor and the recipient, then sound medical judgment should override all other concerns.

Becoming a living kidney donor

Earlier investigations of attitudes of living kidney donors have been performed in retrospect. We saw a need to investigate in depth those motives and feelings that are relevant in potential kidney donors. With a phenomenologic approach, interviews were performed with 12 potential donors. Seven categories of motives were identified: a desire to help, increased self-esteem from doing good deeds, identification with the recipient, self-benefit from the relative's improved health, mere logic, external pressure, and a feeling of moral duty. In the individual, these categories interacted to create a perception of donation being the only option.

Role of living liver donation in the United Kingdom

Patients who need a new liver usually face a long wait. Some die before a suitable donor is found. Living liver donation is offered routinely in some countries. Should the United Kingdom follow suit?

Prospective psychosocial monitoring of living kidney donors using the SF-36 health survey

BACKGROUND

Psychosocial assessment and monitoring of living kidney donors is not yet standard practice, despite calls for it in the literature.

METHODS

Psychosocial assessment of living kidney donors was performed preoperatively and 4 months postoperatively, using the SF-36 Health Survey, the Patient Health Questionnaire psychiatric assessment, and semistructured interview.

RESULTS

Assessment was acceptable to the majority of donors; 92% (44) of 48 consecutive donors completed both assessments. Preoperatively, both physical function (SF-36 Physical Component Score [PCS]) and psychosocial function (SF-36 Mental Component Score [MCS]) were significantly higher than community (state of Victoria) norms. Postoperatively, PCS and MCS fell significantly, but not below the Victorian norm. Seven donors (16%) developed adjustment disorder or anxiety disorder; their MCS were significantly lower than those without psychiatric disorder.

CONCLUSIONS

It is concluded that routine psychosocial assessment performed by a psychiatrist, including the use of questionnaires, is acceptable to donors and identifies those impaired. Potential donors need to be well prepared for such assessment and well educated about the extent of physical and psychosocial impairment that might occur in the postoperative period.

Organizational and ethical aspects of living donor liver transplantation

The well-known shortage of organs for transplantation can partly be managed with organs (or parts of them) from living donors. This form of organ donation is hampered by two important drawbacks: the harm to the donor and the lack of certainty that the donation is free of coercion. As often happens in medicine, both aspects have no clear solution. Therefore, all guarantees must be built into the processes leading to transplantation, under the control of peers. Also, the transplantation centers as the organ providers (in the large sense, the donor family and eventually an intermediate agency) must undergo this peer review. Eventually, a local ethical committee could perform an initial screening if there is a legal background for its competence in this matter. Alternatives for living donation are to be expected in the future, but this cannot circumvent the actual problems.

Hepatitis C: what every case manager should know

Over the next decade, case managers can anticipate encountering increasing numbers of clients with hepatitis C. This article provides a sociopolitical and medical overview of hepatitis C, diagnosis, risk and transmission factors, co-infection of HIV and hepatitis C treatment issues. The article identifies and analyzes policy and practice implications for case managers in health care.

The process of adult living liver donation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate both the opinion that living liver donors have of the process and the psychological, economic, and social consequences of donation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Six months after the donation, an anonymous survey was sent to 22 donors of the right liver lobe between March 2000 and December 2002.

RESULTS

15 surveys were returned with all of the questions answered. Almost all the donors had no prior knowledge of living donation. When they were considered to be suitable donors, all of them felt happy, 21% were scared and 15% felt joy and insecurity. The information provided was well understood and accurately described the experiences of 93% of donors. All donors understood the vital risk, and 93% understood that transplantation is not always completely successful. All donors would repeat the experience. Mean hospital stay was 12.6 days. Mean convalescence was 50.6 days. Salaried donors were on sick leave for a mean of 96.4 days (21-150 days), causing financial problems in six cases (36%), due to no financial compensation and compulsory redundancy in one case. All donors had completely recovered at six months after donation.

DISCUSSION

Adult living donation of the right liver lobe is an accepted therapeutic alternative. In order to regulate medical and economic protection to avoid additional disturbances after donation, the public, patients, and physicians require more complete information about living donation.

The living kidney donation process: the donor perspective

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the living kidney donation (LKD) process using donors' opinions on the impact on social, emotional, and financial aspects affecting donor quality of life.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From May 2000 to December 2002, we studied 22 donors of living kidneys at the Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain, who completed an anonymous survey 6 months after donation.

RESULTS

Most donors (86%) had themselves informed the recipient about their wish to donate, the other 14% were asked by family members. Eighty-eight percent stated that the information provided to the donor about the evaluation process was well explained and understood whereas 12% disagreed with the statement. At the time of thin decision, 90.5% of donors understood the vital risk. For 95%, the explanations about the process corresponded with the actual experience. One hundred percent of donors stated after donation that they would again favor it. Mean hospital stay was 6 days (range, 3-9 days). Those donors with a labor contract have been out of work for an average of 57.8 days (range, 18 days to 6 months). Twenty-five percent of donors admitted financial effects as a result of donation. All but 1 felt completely recovered with the same quality of life after donation.

DISCUSSION

LKD is a good therapeutic alternative. Some aspects should be developed, such as more information about living donation and the need to considering donors as healthy persons without loss of earnings. Recognition of the benefits of living donation requires more wide participation of all citizens nationally.