Shared decision making in deceased-donor transplantation

The 3-T Model of Informed Consent for Nonstandard Risk Donors: A Proposal for Transplant Clinical Practice

Background

The risk of disease transmission from nonstandard risk donors (NSRDs) is low, and outcomes are similar or better relative to transplants performed with standard criteria donors. However, NSRDs have posed new ethical challenges to the informed consent (IC) process. Based on the shared decision-making model, coinciding with the 3 main timings of the IC process ([1] pretransplant assessments and waiting list registration, [2] time on the waiting list, and [3] time of the organ offer), we put forward a model (3-T Model) to summarize the knowledge on IC for NSRDs and to deliver conceptual and practical support to transplant providers on this emergent issue.

Methods

We searched PubMed and analyzed data from our area to provide evidence and ethical arguments to promote standardization of the timing of patient information, degree of patient participation, and disclosure of donor risk factors throughout the 3 stages of the time continuum leading to the potential acceptance of NSRDs.

Results

Each of the 3 timings carries special ethical significance and entails well-defined duties for transplant providers relative to patient involvement and information of the benefits and risks associated with NSRDs. Based on our framework, experience, and interpretation of the literature, we put forward a list of recommendations to combine standardization (ie, timing, content, and degree of patient participation) and individualization of IC.

Conclusions

The 3-T Model may enable the prevention of physicians' arbitrariness and the promotion of patient-centered care. Future studies will assess the effectiveness of the 3-T Model in transplant clinical practice.

Patients and their family members prioritize post-transplant survival over waitlist survival when considering donor hearts for transplantation

Heart transplant providers often focus on post-transplant outcomes when making donor decisions, potentially at the expense of higher waitlist mortality. This study aimed to assess public opinion regarding the selection of donor hearts and the balance between pre- and post-transplant risk. The authors generated a survey to investigate public opinion regarding donor acceptance. The survey was shared freely online across social media platforms in April-May 2019. A total of 718 individuals responded to the survey, with an equal distribution between patients and family members. Respondents consistently favored post-transplant outcomes over waitlist outcomes. About 83.9% of respondents favored a hospital with longer waitlist times, worse waitlist outcomes, but excellent post-transplant survival over a hospital with short waitlist times, a high waitlist survival, and inferior post-transplant survival. This preference was no different between pediatric and adult populations (P = .7), patient and family members (P = .935), or those with a pre- vs post-transplant perspective (P = .985). Patients and their family members consistently favor improved post-transplant survival over waitlist survival when considering the risks of accepting a donor organ. These findings suggest that current practice patterns of donor selection align with the opinions of patients and family members with heart failure or who have undergone heart transplantation.

Shared Decision-Making in Kidney Patients: Involvement in Decisions Regarding the Quality of Deceased Donor Kidneys

OBJECTIVES

This study examined whether kidney patients want to participate in decisions regarding the minimal acceptable quality of deceased donor kidneys. We also explored patients' opinions about the trade-off between a higher-quality organ with a longer waiting time vs a lower-quality organ with a shorter waiting time.

METHODS

A questionnaire was distributed among kidney patients. Additionally, a sub-sample of these patients participated in in-depth interviews, which were analyzed using the grounded theory approach.

RESULTS

Sixty-three percent of the patients wished to participate in decisions concerning the quality of a deceased donor kidney. The majority of the respondents indicated that they prefer a kidney of good quality and would therefore accept a longer waiting time. Responses to the qualitative interviews illustrated a more balanced choice regarding this trade-off.

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients wish to be involved in deciding on the quality of the kidney, but it may evoke the experience of decisional conflicts when they have to make rational trade-offs between the desire for the best kidney at the expense of a longer waiting time.

Shared decision making in transplantation: how patients see their role in the decision process of accepting a donor liver

At the time of the organ offer for transplantation, donor-related risks such as disease transmission and graft failure are weighed against the patient's risk of remaining on the waiting list. The patient's commonly inactive role in decision making and the timing and extent of donor-specific risk information have been discussed in the medical literature. This is the first study revealing the opinions of liver patients on these issues. Forty patients listed for liver transplantation and 179 liver transplant patients participated in an anonymous questionnaire-based survey. The majority of the patients wanted to be informed about donor-related risks (59.8%-74.8%). The preferred timing for being informed about donor-related risks was the time of the organ offer for 53.3% of the patients. Among these patients, 79.8% wished to be involved in making the decision to accept or not accept a liver for transplantation, 10.6% wished to make the final decision alone, and only 9.6% did not want to be involved in the decision-making process. Implementing this knowledge through the standardization of the content, the manner of transfer, and the amount of information that we provide to our patients will improve opportunities for shared decision making at different time points during the transplant allocation process. This will enable us to provide the same opportunities and care to every patient on the waiting list.

Opportunities for shared decision making in kidney transplantation

Health researchers and policy-makers increasingly urge both patient and clinician engagement in shared decision making (SDM) to promote patient-centered care. Although SDM has been examined in numerous clinical settings, it has received little attention in solid organ transplantation. This paper describes the application of SDM to the kidney transplantation context. Several distinctive features of kidney transplantation present challenges to SDM including fragmented patient-provider relationships, the time-sensitive and unpredictable nature of deceased organ offers, decision-making processes by transplant providers serving as both organ guardians (given the organ scarcity) versus advocates for specific patients seeking transplantation, variable clinical practices and policies among transplant centers, and patients' potentially compromised cognitive status and literacy levels. We describe potential barriers to and opportunities for SDM, and posit that SDM is feasible, warranting encouragement in kidney transplantation. We propose strategies to promote and overcome obstacles to SDM in kidney transplantation. We contend that engagement in SDM can be facilitated by re-organization of clinical care, communication and education of providers and patients.

Prediction of three-year outcome of renal transplantation from optimal donors versus expanded criteria donors

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The shortage in organ supply has required the use of expanded criteria donors (ECD) for kidney transplantation. Current pre-transplant evaluations of ECD organs are based on histological, clinical or mixed criteria. This monocentric study investigates the predictivity of Karpinski's histological score on 3-year graft function in renal transplant. Ex-post classification using Nyberg's score was carried out to assess the reliability of a purely clinical score and its applicability for organ allocation.

METHODS

We evaluated 407 deceased donors (251 optimal and 156 ECD) for renal transplants performed between 2001 and 2006. The differences in creatinine levels and MDRD-GFR at transplant and 1, 2 and 3 years post-transplant between optimal donors and ECD were recorded. Amongst ECD organs, the effect of different Karpinski score classes (0-1, 2, 3, 4, double transplants) on 3-year graft outcomes was analyzed. We then compared renal function over time across the Nyberg grades (A, B, C, and D).

RESULTS

Karpinski scores 0-1 and 2 and double transplants were associated with improved graft function compared to scores 3 and 4. Nyberg's clinical score shows a good fit with medium-term outcome and Karpinski's score, but among the donors with a high Nyberg grade (C and D), it fails to differentiate between allocable or non-allocable organs (due to Karpinski's score ≥7).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data demonstrate a correlation of histological damage at the time of transplant with 3-year graft function, but at present we are unable to provide any supposition on the possible outcome of the discarded kidneys.

Equal Opportunity Supplemented by Fair Innings: equity and efficiency in allocating deceased donor kidneys

For 7 years, the Kidney Transplantation Committee of the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement Transplantation Network has attempted to revise the kidney allocation algorithm for adults (≥18 years) in end-stage renal disease awaiting deceased donor kidney transplants. Changes to the kidney allocation system must conform to the 1984 National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) which clearly states that allocation must take into account both efficiency (graft and person survival) and equity (fair distribution). In this article, we evaluate three allocation models: the current system, age-matching and a two-step model that we call "Equal Opportunity Supplemented by Fair Innings (EOFI)". We discuss the different conceptions of efficiency and equity employed by each model and evaluate whether EOFI could actually achieve the NOTA criteria of balancing equity and efficiency given current conditions of growing scarcity and donor-candidate age mismatch.

Patient decision making about organ quality in liver transplantation

It is challenging to discuss the use of high-risk organs with patients, in part because of the lack of information about how patients view this topic. This study was designed to determine how patients think about organ quality and to test formats for risk communication. Semistructured interviews of 10 patients on the waiting list revealed limited understanding about the spectrum of organ quality and a reluctance to consider anything but the best organs. A computerized quantitative survey was then conducted with an interactive graph to elicit the risk of graft failure that patients would accept. Fifty-eight percent of the 95 wait-listed patients who completed the survey would accept only organs with a risk of graft failure of 25% or less at 3 years, whereas 18% would accept only organs with the lowest risk possible (19% at 3 years). Risk tolerance was increased when the organ quality was presented relative to average organs rather than the best organs and when feedback was provided about the implications for organ availability. More than three-quarters of the patients reported that they wanted an equal or dominant role in organ acceptance decisions. Men tended to prefer lower risk organs (mean acceptable risk = 29%) in comparison with women (mean acceptable risk = 35%, P = 0.04), but risk tolerance was not associated with other demographic or clinical characteristics (eg, the severity of liver disease). In summary, patients want to be involved in decisions about organ quality. Patients' risk tolerance varies widely, and their acceptance of high-risk organs can be facilitated if we present the risks of graft failure with respect to average organs and provide feedback about the implications for organ availability.

The use of a decision board to elicit Brazilian patients' and physicians' preferences for treatment: the case of lupus nephritis

OBJECTIVES

To find preferences for treatment expressed by lupus patients and physicians (who were asked to assume they have lupus) and to explore if certain variables explain these preferences.

METHODS

One hundred seventy-two patients and 202 physicians were interviewed using a lupus nephritis decision board that describes the treatment options and their potential benefits and risks. Clinical and sociodemographic variables were collected. Participants were asked to indicate their preferred treatment and provide justification for their choice. Descriptive statistics, t tests, and Pearson's chi-square tests were used to determine the significance of differences in the decisions made by the two groups. A logistic regression model determined which factors contributed to treatment decisions.

RESULTS

The average age of study participants was 34 ± 8 years for patients and 31 ± 7 years for physicians. Sixty-eight percent of patients and 96% of physicians (P < 0.001) selected the oral option. Patients and physicians justified their choice of treatment using different arguments (P < 0.001 in each case). Logistic regression showed that risk potential (P < 0.001) and a history of joint involvement (P = 0.011) were the arguments used most often to explain a patient's decision and the risk of side effects was most relevant among physicians (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Using a decision board, patients and physicians were found to have different preferences for treatment when faced with the same treatment options. Further, the variables that influence their preferences are different.

Organ donation and the ethics of muddling through

Organ donation offers opportunities for people in critical care units to help save the lives of other patients. It is not always easy, however, to handle the transition from treating a patient to preserving a potential donor, and organ donation consistently provokes ethical questions in critical care units. What do we expect ethics to deliver? In light of a recent ethics conference in Denmark, we suggest that by acknowledging that decisions made in the clinic rarely abide to rational decision trees with clear ethical priorities, we can better learn from each other's experiences. We suggest embracing an 'ethics of muddling through' to enhance relevant reflections and stimulate a productive dialogue among health professionals.

Impact of the model for end-stage liver disease allocation policy on the use of high-risk organs for liver transplantation

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Although priority for liver transplantation is determined by the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, the quality of organs used is subject to physician discretion. We aimed to determine whether implementation of MELD affected the quality of organs transplanted, the type of patients who receive the higher-risk organs, and the impact of these changes on their posttransplant survival.

METHODS

Data were analyzed from the United Network for Organ Sharing of adults who underwent deceased-donor liver transplantation between January 1, 2007, and August 1, 2007 (n = 47,985). Dependent variables included the donor risk index (a continuous variable that measures the risk of graft failure associated with a particular organ) and patient survival after transplantation.

RESULTS

The overall organ quality of transplanted livers has worsened since MELD implementation, with an increase in the donor risk index equivalent to a 4% increased risk of graft failure after adjusting for temporal trends (P < .001). This was accompanied by a shift from using the higher-risk organs in the more urgent patients (in the pre-MELD era) to using the higher-risk organs in the less urgent patients (in the post-MELD era). Posttransplant survival has worsened over time (hazard ratio, 1.017/y; P = .005) among the less urgent patients (MELD scores, <20); mediation analysis suggests this change in survival was caused primarily by changes in organ quality.

CONCLUSIONS

As an unintended consequence of the MELD allocation policy, patients that are least in need of a liver transplant now receive the highest-risk organs. This has reduced posttransplant survival in recent years among patients with low MELD scores.