Ambivalence in living liver donors

The use of nondirected donor organs in living donor liver transplantation: Perspectives and guidance

Interest in anonymous nondirected living organ donation is increasing in the United States and a small number of transplantation centers are accumulating an experience regarding nondirected donation in living donor liver transplantation. Herein, we review current transplant policy, discuss emerging data, draw parallels from nondirected kidney donation, and examine relevant considerations in nondirected living liver donation. We aim to provide a consensus guidance to ensure safe evaluation and selection of nondirected living liver donors and a schema for just allocation of nondirected grafts.

Understanding family dynamics in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation decision-making in Taiwan: Motivation, communication, and ambivalence

This study investigated how multiple family members co-construct the ethical significance of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and how the family structure and dynamics of donor-recipient-caregiver relationships shape the communication and decision-making process within the sociocultural context of Taiwan. We conducted in-depth interviews with 36 participants from 13 families at the Chang Gung Memorial Hospital from February to December 2019. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and translated from Mandarin to English and analyzed utilizing grounded theory and thematic analysis. Our findings revealed that LDLT in Taiwan is not merely a personal choice of either donor or recipient but essentially a collaborative process of family-centered medical decision-making, intertwined with socioeconomic conditions, cultural and social norms, gender roles, and the division of labor in the household. The notion of reciprocity and indebtedness for family members is a central theme underlying the entire process of motivation, deliberation, and decision-making, thereby reinforcing the naturalness of LDLT. However, our study highlighted that donors from families with traditional gender hierarchy and power imbalance may experience psychological and social vulnerabilities. Conclusively, we suggest that healthcare professionals should be sensitive to the contextual and relational factors involved in family dynamics and provide appropriate support to the ambivalent donors.

Eligible blood donors' decisions about donating stool for fecal microbiota transplantation: Does ambivalence play a role?

Blood collection agencies (BCAs) are expanding core business by inviting blood donors to donate stool for fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT). However, whether blood donors also want to donate stool is unclear since, despite its benefits, stool donation is viewed by many as unpleasant. This study examined the prevalence, contributors to, and role of these mixed feelings (ambivalence) in stool donation intentions.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This cross-sectional study surveyed Australian residents aged 18 years or more who believed themselves eligible to donate blood and met broad criteria for prescreening as a stool donor (eg, healthy, not taking medication). Survey questions assessed attitude, norms, self-efficacy, motives, disgust, ambivalence, and intentions to donate stool.

RESULTS

A total of 382 eligible blood donors aged not more than 50 years (mean, 28.71 years; 48% female, 62% "healthy" body mass index) participated. Six percent indicated no ambivalence about donating stool. In regression, significant determinants of ambivalence were less awareness of FMT, lower self-efficacy, motivated by ensuring that stool is available for loved ones, and more disgust about stool donation. Higher ambivalence contributed to decreased donation intention. Self-efficacy and disgust differentiated participants with moderate ambivalence, a group likely responsive to intervention, from those with low or high ambivalence.

CONCLUSION

Ambivalence about donating stool was common among eligible blood donors. BCAs should raise awareness about stool donation and FMT before requesting donation. BCAs may increase cost savings and donor retention by giving clear guidance about donation requirements and implementing processes that build confidence. Early screening of potential donors for ambivalence and disgust will enable BCAs to provide decision support.

Health-related quality of life of living liver donors 1 year after donation

Background

Improving the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of living liver donors post-donation is an important aspect of care quality. Analyzing the HRQOL of living liver donors prospectively could help improve our understanding of the recovery of HRQOL and help improve the quality of donor care. In this study, we examined the HRQOL of living liver donors at pre-donation and at 1-year post-donation and analyzed the effect of pre- and post-donation factors on the donors' physical and mental HRQOL.

Methods

This was a prospective study. During the enrollment period (August 2013 to December 2015), 68 living liver donors completed the study questionnaires 5 times: at pre-donation and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-donation. The Medical Outcomes Study Questionnaire Short Form-36, which yields both physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) component summary scores, was used to measure the HRQOL. The pre- and post-donation factors included donation ambivalence, recipients' physical condition, post-donation complications, and recipients' survival status.

Results

Participants' mean PCS scores were 43.59 and 56.50 at 1 and 12 months after donation, respectively, whereas their mean MCS scores were 46.89 and 46.28, respectively. The mean PCS score was worse at 1 month after donation but improved significantly over time (P<0.05); conversely, the MCS was quite stable over time (P>0.05). A good PCS score was associated with no surgical complications of donation (coefficient =2.87, P=0.02), whereas a poor MCS score was associated with an education of less than a bachelor's degree (coefficient =-3.60, P=0.004), a higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score in the recipient (coefficient =-0.13, P=0.03), and recipient death (coefficient =-3.48, P=0.03). Pre-donation ambivalence and sense of coherence were not significant predictors of the PCS or MCS scores.

Conclusions

The impact of living liver donation on HRQOL was strongest in the early stages of the post-surgery period for the physical domain. Health-care professionals should carefully manage and monitor the progress of surgical outcomes, particularly in high-risk groups such as donors with a low education level or donors whose recipients have severe illness or end up dying after the surgery. Doing so may allow for suitable intervention opportunities to improve the HRQOL of living liver donors.

Psychological profiles of excluded living liver donor candidates: An observational study

Living donor liver transplantation has advantages over deceased organ liver transplantation. However, the living liver donor candidates must be carefully assessed before surgery. Candidates may be excluded for various reasons. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the psychological profiles of excluded living liver donor candidates according to the reason for exclusion.A descriptive and cross-sectional study was conducted. Donor candidates were invited to participate if they were at least 20 years of age, related biologically or by marriage to the recipient (within 5 degrees), and had undergone living donor evaluation. Among the 338 participants recruited from August 2013 to December 2015, 116 were excluded for the following reasons: a medical condition (n = 35), failure to be chosen (n = 63), or withdrawal from the selection process (n = 18). The psychological profiles of these 3 exclusion groups were evaluated.There were no significant group differences in age, sex, education level, religion, marital status, and consanguinity (P > .05). The withdrawal group had fewer recipients with an hepatitis B virus infection than did the other groups (χ = 9.28, P = .01). Additionally, compared with the unchosen group, the withdrawal group had lower intimacy with the recipient (F = 5.32, P = .006) and higher ambivalence (F = 5.53, P = .005). In terms of family relationship parameters, the withdrawal group had lower family cohesion than the medical condition and unchosen groups (F = 4.44, P = .01), lower family expressiveness than the medical condition group (F = 3.76, P = .03), and higher family conflict than the medical condition and unchosen groups (F = 7.05, P = .001). The withdrawal group also had lower emotional social support than the medical condition group (F = 3.55, P = .03). There were no significant group difference in motivation, expectations, donation-related concerns, informational social support, value social support, instrumental social support, and health-related quality of life.The living donor candidates who withdrew from the selection process had obvious ambivalence, poorer family relationships, and insufficient emotional social support. The transplantation team should respect the autonomy of the candidate's decision and mitigate the impact of the donation decision on living liver donor candidates.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Graft inflow modulation in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) has an incidence between 0 and 43% in small-for-size graft (SFSG) adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Portal hypertension following reperfusion and the hyperdynamic splanchnic state are reported as the major triggering factors of SFSS. Intra- and postoperative strategies to prevent or to reduce its onset are still under debate. We analyzed graft inflow modulation (GIM) during adult LDLT considering the indications, efficacy of the available techniques, changes in hemodynamics and outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library Central. Treatment outcomes including in-hospital mortality and morbidity, re-transplantation rate, 1-, 3-, and 5-year patient overall survival and 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft survival rates, hepatic artery and portal vein flows and pressures before and after inflow modulation were analyzed.

RESULTS

From 563 articles, 12 studies dated between 2003 and 2014 fulfilled the selection criteria and were therefore included in the study. These comprised a total of 449 adult patients who underwent inflow modulation during adult-to-adult LDLT. Types of GIM described were splenic artery ligation, splenectomy, meso-caval shunt, spleno-renal shunt, portocaval shunt, and splenic artery embolization. Mortality and morbidity ranged between 0 and 33% and 17% and 70%, respectively. Re-transplantation rates ranged between 0% and 25%. GIM was associated with good survival for both graft and recipients, reaching an 84% actuarial rate at 5 years. Through the use of GIM, irrespective of the technique, a statistically significant reduction of PVF and PVP was obtained.

CONCLUSIONS

GIM is a safe and efficient technique to avoid or limit portal hyperperfusion, especially in cases of SFSG, decreasing overall morbidity and improving outcomes.

The role of adult living donor liver transplantation and recent advances

Twenty years since the first cases were described, adult living donor liver transplantation (ALDLT) is now considered a valid option to expand the donor pool in view of the ongoing shortage of organs and the high waiting list mortality rate. Despite the rapid evolution and acceptance of this complex process of donation and transplantation in clinical practice, the indications, outcome, ethical considerations and quality and safety aspects continue to evolve based on new data from large cohort studies. This article reviews the surgical and clinical advances in the field of liver transplantation, focusing on technical refinements and discussing the issues that may lead to a further expansion of this complex surgical procedure and the role of ALDLT.

Donors' quality of life evaluated by short form-36 analysis after living donor liver transplantation in a single-center experience

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the quality of life of donors using the Short Form 36 (SF-36) analysis between the left and right graft periods of living donor liver transplantation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In the left graft period (July 1991 to July 2003), 68 donors were eligible for analysis and 76 were eligible in the right graft period (August 2003 to October 2010). Nine right lobe grafts were included in the left graft period, and 52 right lobe grafts were included in the right graft period. We investigated the risks of donation and evaluated the following: blood loss, operation time, postoperative liver function, and duration of hospitalization. We also assessed quality of life in donors, who were mailed a structured questionnaire and the SF-36.

RESULTS

Ten of the 68 donors in the left graft period and 12 of the 76 in the right graft period had postoperative complications. Most postoperative complications were treated without surgical procedures. There was no donor death in our series. Forty-eight donors in the left graft period and 36 in the right graft period responded to our investigation. Compared with published Japanese norms in SF-36, our donors scored similar or higher than the general population in both groups. Two donors in the left graft period and one in the right graft period regretted their decisions to donate. All donors returned to normalcy.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggested that the donors' quality of life was guaranteed in terms of the SF-36 investigation regardless of the donation period in our series.

Personal decision-making processes for living related liver transplantation in children

Living related liver transplantation (LRLT) is a valuable transplant option for children with end-stage liver disease who face long waiting times on regular waiting lists. The subjection of a healthy adult to a potentially life-threatening operation can raise issues of freedom of choice, fear, and family conflict for the potential donors. We examined attitudes, fears, and influencing factors in the decision-making process for living liver donation for children in order to identify factors to improve support for living liver donors in the future. In a retrospective, questionnaire-based survey of 93 adults evaluated for living liver donation between 1997 and 2010, 47 of whom actually proceeded to donation, we asked about attitudes, motivation, fears, influencing factors, and well-being during the LRLT evaluation process and during the donation period. Answers were recorded on Likert scales and compared with Pearson's rho correlation and the Mann-Whitney U test as appropriate. Although there was a strong sense of a lack of alternatives among the donors, the majority of the donors felt free in their decision to donate. Donors who were asked to donate for a relative who was not their own child appeared at higher risk of lacking support and of feeling coerced. Family and social support and good and empathic information about the donation process were identified as key factors for donor well-being. In conclusion, potential living liver donors need to have adequate, sufficient, and empathic information, and they need to be provided a supportive framework, including family support, in order to promote their well-being. Care needs to be taken in identifying and counseling potential donors at risk of feeling coerced into donation.

Effect of social support and donation-related concerns on ambivalence of living liver donor candidates

Ambivalence in the decision-making process for living liver donors has the potential to result in their experiencing a negative mental status. To promote donor candidates' well-being, it is important to study the factors related to ambivalence. Thus, the aim of this study was to explore the ambivalence of living liver donor candidates and to investigate the effect of social support and donation-related concerns on their ambivalence. A cross-sectional design was used. In total, 100 living liver donor candidates who underwent a preoperative evaluation between April and October 2009 were recruited for the study. Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire that contained items related to ambivalence, donation-related concerns, and social support. The mean score for ambivalence was 3.14 (standard deviation = 1.8), and the median was 3. Only 7% of the study sample reported no ambivalence during the assessment stage. Ambivalence was positively correlated with donation-related concerns (physical concerns, r = 0.39; psychosocial concerns, r = 0.43; financial concerns, r = 0.29) and negatively correlated with social support (r = -0.16 to -0.33). Those with psychosocial concerns had significantly worse ambivalence (β = 0.29, P = 0.03), but social support mitigated ambivalence (β = -0.34, P = 0.01). When intimacy and social support were included in the model, the effect of psychosocial concerns on ambivalence became nonsignificant (β = 0.24, P = 0.08). Ambivalence is common among living liver donor candidates, but instrumental social support can mediate the negative effect of donation-related concerns. Recommendations include providing appropriate social support to minimize donation-related concerns and, thus, to reduce the ambivalence of living liver candidates.

Donor quality of life up to two years after living donor liver transplantation: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of longer-term prospective data on living liver donors' quality of life (QOL). This is the first prospective study examining QOL up to 2 years after donation.

METHODS

A consecutive sample of living donors (n=40) was compared with a sample of potential donors (n=27) with respect to QOL, anxiety, and depression. Performing mixed-effects model analysis, both groups were assessed before transplantation, with and without simultaneous donation (T0), and at three postoperative data points: 3 months (T1), 1 year (T2), and 2 years (T3). Subsequently, both groups were compared with reference data of the general population and healthy individuals.

RESULTS

At T1, living donors' physical QOL was impaired. At T2 and T3, physical QOL was slightly lower than the preoperative level but within the range of healthy individuals in both living donors and potential donors. Neither mental QOL nor depression showed significant changes across time, while anxiety decreased in both groups. Subgroup analysis of adult-to-adult (AA) donors and adult-to-pediatric (AP) donors revealed different trajectories of mental QOL, anxiety, and depression. AP donors experienced more preoperative psychological strain, which improved after donation, whereas AA donors showed unchanged anxiety and depression, and a slight decrease in mental QOL 2 years after surgery. Two AA donors, whose recipients had died, reported persisting depressive symptoms after donation.

CONCLUSIONS

One and two years after donation, QOL is not substantially impaired in the majority of donors. Future research needs to provide an even longer prospective follow-up and should more rigorously explore risk factors for a negative donor outcome.

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.

Donor selection for adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation: well begun is half done

BACKGROUND

Donor selection criteria for adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation vary with the medical center of evaluation. Living donor evaluation uses considerable resources, and the nonmaturation of potential into actual donors may sometimes prove fatal for patients with end-stage liver disease. On the contrary, a thorough donor evaluation process is mandatory to ensure safe outcomes in otherwise healthy donors. We aimed to study the reasons for nonmaturation of potential right lobe liver donors at our transplant center.

METHODS

A retrospective data analysis of all potential living liver donors evaluated at our center from 1998 to 2010 was done.

RESULTS

Overall, 324 donors were evaluated for 219 potential recipients, and 171 (52.7%) donors were disqualified. Common reasons for donor nonmaturation included the following: (1) donor reluctance, 21%; (2) greater than 10% macro-vesicular steatosis, 16%; (3) assisted donor withdrawal, 14%; (4) inadequate remnant liver volume, 13%; and (5) psychosocial issues, 7%, and thrombophilia, 7%. Ten donors (6%) were turned down because of anatomic variations (8 biliary and 2 arterial anomalies). Donors older than 50 years and those with body mass index of more than 25 were less likely to be accepted for donation.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that donor reluctance, hepatic steatosis, and assisted donor withdrawal are major reasons for nonmaturation of potential into actual donors. Anatomic variations and underlying medical conditions were not a major cause of donor rejection. A system in practice to recognize these factors early in the course of donor evaluation to improve the efficiency of the selection process and ensure donor safety is proposed.

Checking the harness: safety for living liver donors

1. Expertise in hepatobiliary surgery. 2. Donor selection criteria. 3. Selective liver biopsy in donors. 4. Accurate determination of hepatic volumes and anatomy. 5. Extent of donor hepatectomy. 6. Donor psychosocial evaluation. 7. Catastrophic events. 8. Long-term follow up.

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.

Importance of awareness of perioperative social and physical situations of living donors for liver transplantation

INTRODUCTION

Transplantation in Japan still depends on living donors even after the new revised law. We must pay attention to protect living donors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Perioperative qualities of life after living donation for liver transplantation were assessed with questionnaires including the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey version 2 (SF36-v2). Nonparametric Mann-Whitney tests were used to determine statistical significance. P values<.05 were considered significant.

RESULTS

Thirty-one among 33 donors answered questionnaires (93.9%). The 15 men and 16 women of average age of 39.7 years had a median hospital stay of 16 days and median duration after surgery of 78 months. Ten of 33 (35.7%) donors considered themselves to be the only possibility. The decision to a donor was established prior to informed consent in 23 donors (74.1%). Six months were required for them to experience a full recovery after donor surgery. Hamilton depression/anxiety score was significantly increased among donors who considered themselves to be the only possibility or those who had decided prior to informed consent. SF36-v2 revealed a significant decrease in social functioning among donors who did not have sufficient time to decide before surgery. General health was significantly decreased among donors who required more than 6 months for full recovery. Perioperative management of pain influenced general health, physical role, bodily pain, and physical functioning.

CONCLUSION

We must pay attention to depression and anxiety among living donors. More care should be focused on pain control and sharing of information of postoperative courses.

Living donor liver transplantation in children: a single North American center experience over two decades

Little data concerning hospital charges and long-term outcomes of LDLT in North American children according to transplant indications have been published. To compare outcomes of patient and graft survival and healthcare charges for LDLT for those with BA vs. other diagnoses (non-BA). A retrospective review of 52 children receiving 53 LDLT (38 BA and 14 non-BA) from 1992 to 2010 at our institution was performed. One-, five-, and 10-yr patient and graft survival data were comparable to national figures reported to UNOS. Average one-yr charges for recipients and donors were $242 849 for BA patients and $183 614 for non-BA (p = 0.074). BA patients were 1.23 ± 1.20 yr of age vs. 4.25 ± 5.02 for non-BA, p = 0.045. Examination of the total population of patients who were alive in 2010 in five chronological groupings showed that the crude five-yr survival rates were 1992-1995: 9/11 (82%); 1995-1997: 6/10 (60%); 1997-1999: 8/10 (80%); 1999-2001: 9/10 (90%); and 2001-2003: 7/7 (100%). Thus, examination of the clinical and financial data together over the entire period of the transplant program suggests that the dramatic improvement in patient survival was accomplished without a dramatic increase in indexed charges. All 53 donors survived, and only 10% had complications requiring hospitalization. LDLT in children results in excellent outcomes for patients and donors. Ways to lower costs and maximize graft outcome should be investigated.