The donor advocacy team: a risk management program for living organ, tissue, and cell transplant donors

Risk Assessment and Management for Potential Living Kidney Donors: The Role of “Third-Party” Commission

Living kidney donation is the most common type of living-donor transplant. Italian guidelines allow the living donations from emotionally related donors only after clear and voluntary consent expressed by both the donor and the recipient involved. Living donation raises ethical and legal issues because donors voluntarily undergo a surgical procedure to remove a healthy kidney in order to help another person. According to the Italian standards, the assessment of living donor-recipient pair has to be conducted by a medical “third party”, completely independent from both the patients involved and the medical team treating the recipient. Starting from the Hospital “Città della Salute e della Scienza” of Turin (Italy) experience, including 116 living kidney donations, the Authors divided the evaluation process performed by the “Third-Party” Commission into four stages, with a particular attention to the potential donor. Living donation procedures should reflect fiduciary duties that healthcare providers have toward their patients, originating from the relationship of trust between physician and patient. In addition to that, the social implications are enormous if one considers the worldwide campaigns to promote public awareness about organ donation and transplantation, and to encourage people to register their organ donation decisions. The systematic process proposed here can be a tool that proactively reduces and controls the risks of coercion, organ trafficking, vitiated consent, insufficient weighting of donative choice, that could arise especially in donors involved in living kidney donation.

Ethical Analysis and Policy Recommendations Regarding Domino Liver Transplantation

Due to the widening gap between supply and demand, patients who need a liver transplant due to metabolic disease may be asked to serve as domino liver donors-to have their native liver transplanted into another candidate. We here analyze the ethical problems surrounding informed consent for the implant and explant procedures in transplant candidates who will serve as domino donors, using the case of a child with maple syrup urine disease. We discuss the need for 2 distinct consent processes separated in time to ensure that potential domino donors (or their surrogates) give a truly voluntary consent. We propose a Domino Donor Advocate-based on the concept of the independent living donor advocate to help the patient and/or his or her surrogates consider the risks, benefits and alternatives. Finally, we evaluate the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network policy regarding "therapeutic organ donation" and propose several modifications to ensure that the decision by the potential domino donor (and/or his or her surrogate) is voluntary and informed.

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.

Arterial and biliary complications after living donor liver transplantation: a single-center retrospective study and literature review

AIM

The mortality of patients on the waiting list for deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) is high, especially in countries where donation rates are low. Thus, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is an attractive option. However, compared with DDLT, LDLT is associated with increased rates of arterial and biliary complications. We examined the rates of complications and risk factors following LDLT.

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated and compared the rates of complications of DDLT and LDLT in our institute. We also performed univariate and multivariate analyses to identify the independent risk factors for these complications. The complications and specific disadvantages of LDLT were reviewed and discussed.

RESULTS

The incidence rate of arterial complications in LDLT was 6.0%, compared with 3.2% (13/441) in DDLT. A multivariate analysis identified low body weight (P = 0.032) as the only independent risk factor for hepatic artery thrombosis. The rate of all biliary complications in LDLT was 17.3%, compared with 18.7% in DDLT. The risk factors for biliary stricture identified by the multivariate analysis were recurrent cholangitis and the number of bile ducts. The durations of hospital stay and overall survival rates were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Given the shortage of deceased donor organs, we believe that LDLT is acceptable in an attempt to meet demand.

The outcomes of pediatric liver retransplantation from a living donor: a 17-year single-center experience

PURPOSE

Liver retransplantation is the only therapeutic option for patients with graft failure after liver transplantation. The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of pediatric retransplantation from living donor at a single center.

METHODS

Between December 1998 to August 2015, retransplantation from a living donor was performed for 14 children (<18 years of age) at Kumamoto University Hospital. The characteristics of the retransplantation recipient and the clinicopathological factors between primary transplantation and retransplantation were analyzed to detect the prognostic factors.

RESULTS

In retransplantation, the operative time was longer and the amount of blood loss was greater in comparison to primary transplantation. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates from the date of retransplantation were 85.7, 85.7, and 78.6%, respectively. The rates of re-laparotomy after primary transplantation, bile leakage and postoperative bleeding after retransplantation were higher than after primary transplantation. Among the three patients who died after retransplantation, the operative time, the rate of re-laparotomy after primary transplantation and the incidence of gastrointestinal complications were higher in comparison to the surviving patients.

CONCLUSION

Pediatric retransplantation from a living donor is an acceptable procedure that could save the lives of recipients with failing allografts when organs from deceased donors are scarce. To ensure good results, it is essential to make an appropriate assessment of the cardiopulmonary function and the infectious state of the patients before Re-LDLT.