Psychosocial assessment of adult living liver donors

The incidence of adverse outcome in donors after living donor liver transplantation: A meta-analysis of 60,829 donors

The scarcity of liver grafts has prompted developments in living donor liver transplantations (LDLT), with previous literature illustrating similar outcomes in recipients compared to deceased donor transplants. However, significant concerns regarding living donor morbidity and mortality have yet to be examined comprehensively. This study aims to provide estimates of the incidence of various outcomes in living liver donors. In this meta-analysis, Medline and Embase were searched from inception to July 2022 for articles assessing the incidence of outcomes in LDLT donors. Complications in the included studies were classified into respective organ systems. Analysis of incidence was conducted using a generalized linear mixed model with Clopper-Pearson intervals. Eighty-seven articles involving 60,829 living liver donors were included. The overall pooled incidence of complications in LDLT donors was 24.7% (CI: 21.6%-28.1%). The incidence of minor complications was 17.3% (CI: 14.7%-20.3%), while the incidence of major complications was lower at 5.5% (CI: 4.5%-6.7%). The overall incidence of donor mortality was 0.06% (CI: 0.0%-0.1%) in 49,027 individuals. Psychological complications (7.6%, CI: 4.9%-11.5%) were the most common among LDLT donors, followed by wound-related (5.2%, CI: 4.4%-6.2%) and respiratory complications (4.9%, CI: 3.8%-6.3%). Conversely, cardiovascular complications had the lowest incidence among the subgroups at 0.8% (CI: 0.4%-1.3%). This study presents the incidence of post-LDLT outcomes in living liver donors, illustrating significant psychological, wound-related, and respiratory complications. While significant advancements in recent decades have contributed towards decreased morbidity in living donors, our findings call for targeted measures and continued efforts to ensure the safety and quality of life of liver donors post-LDLT.

Psychosocial evaluation of living liver donors-State of current practices in the United States

We surveyed living donor liver transplant programs in the United States to describe practices in the psychosocial evaluation of living donors focused on (1) composition of psychosocial team; (2) domains, workflow, and tools of the psychosocial assessment; (3) absolute and relative mental health-related contraindications to donation; and (4) postdonation psychosocial follow-up. We received 52 unique responses, representing 33 of 50 (66%) of active living donor liver transplant programs. Thirty-one (93.9%) provider teams included social workers, 22 (66.7%) psychiatrists, and 14 (42.4%) psychologists. Validated tools were rarely used, but domains assessed were consistent. Respondents rated active alcohol (93.8%), cocaine (96.8%), and opioid (96.8%) use disorder, as absolute contraindications to donation. Active suicidality (97%), self-injurious behavior (90.9%), eating disorders (87.9%), psychosis (84.8%), nonadherence (71.9%), and inability to cooperate with the evaluation team (78.1%) were absolute contraindications to donation. There were no statistically significant differences in absolute psychosocial contraindications to liver donation between geographical areas or between large and small programs. Programs conduct postdonation psychosocial follow-up (57.6%) or screening (39.4%), but routine follow-up of declined donors is rarely conducted (15.8%). Psychosocial evaluation of donor candidates is a multidisciplinary process. The structure of the psychosocial evaluation of donors is not uniform among programs though the domains assessed are consistent. Psychosocial contraindications to living liver donation vary among the transplant programs. Mental health follow-up of donor candidates is not standardized.

A Meta-Analysis on the Incidence of Donor Related Depression after Liver Transplant

AIM

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is increasing, yet gaps exist in the understanding of psychological wellbeing of donors after liver transplant. This meta-analysis seeks to evaluate the incidence and risk factors for donor-related depression after liver transplantation.

METHODS

A search was conducted on Medline and Embase database. Articles assessing incidence of depression in LDLT donors were included. Incidence was pooled after Freeman-Tukey double-arcsine transformation. For risk factors, dichotomous variables were analyzed with generalized linear model while a conventional meta regression with logit transformation was conducted for continuous variables.

RESULTS

Of 1,069 abstracts, 40 articles underwent full-text review. 17 articles were included. The pooled incidence of depression among 1,888 LT donors was 7.66% (CI: 4.47% - 12.80%). Depression rates were significantly higher in Asian compared to Western studies (RR: 1.73, CI: 1.19 - 2.52, p=0.0039). Female gender (p<0.001), Caucasian ethnicity (p=0.047), employment status (p<0.001) and lower education levels (p=0.044) were significantly associated with depression. Donor relationship with recipients was not a significant risk factor.

CONCLUSIONS

LDLT remains a core aspect of the treatment of end-stage liver disease. However, the high depression rates after LT suggest that there remains room for improvement in the care of donors' mental health post-transplant.

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.

Social Work Interventions with Living Related Liver Donors: The Implications for Practice

Living related liver donations are increasingly used to address the lack of organs available to patients faced with end-stage liver disease. A significant need exists for enhanced psychosocial intervention for donors. We sought to explore donor reactions by assessing psychosocial issues after donation. A descriptive review of donors was undertaken. The overall incidence of psychosocial issues after donation was examined by using a uniform interview questionnaire and by anecdotal case studies. Responses tend to indicate a general positive reaction to donation; yet, findings suggest a need for more preparation in the predonor stage, 100% social work follow-up after donation to provide needed support services, and inclusion of the donor as a critical partner in organ transplant treatment. A more extensive study drawing on the questionnaire may offer a standardized approach to the treatment of organ donors.

Practices for Supporting and Confirming Decision-Making Involved in Kidney and Liver Donation by Related Living Donors in Japan: A Nationwide Survey

This nationwide survey investigated the actual practices for supporting and confirming the decision-making involved in related living-organ donations in Japan, focusing on organ type and program size differences. Answers to a questionnaire survey were collected from 89 of the 126 (71%) kidney and 30 of the 35 (86%) liver transplantation programs in Japan that were involved in living-donor transplantations in 2013. In 70% of the kidney and 90% of the liver transplantation programs, all donors underwent "third-party" interviews to confirm their voluntariness. The most common third parties were psychiatrists (90% and 83%, respectively). Many programs engaged in practices to support decision-making by donor candidates, including guaranteeing the right to withdraw consent to donate (70% and 100%, respectively) and prescribing a set "cooling-off period" (88% and 100%, respectively). Most donors were offered care by mental health specialists (86% and 93%, respectively). Third parties were designated by more of the larger kidney transplant programs compared with the smaller programs. In conclusion, the actual practices supporting and confirming the decision to donate a living organ varied depending on the organ concerned and the number of patients in the program.

Living donor liver transplantation and its effect on the donor-recipient relationship--a qualitative interview study with donors

An important aspect in the preoperative evaluation and a legal precondition for an living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a family or emotionally close relationship between donor and recipient. We investigated the development of the donor-recipient relationship after LDLT. We conducted semi-structured clinical interviews with 18 donors as part of a regular postoperative follow-up and analyzed them using the method of Grounded Theory. The donation does not lead to any major changes in the donor-recipient relationship, probably due to careful pre-selection. It does however enhance the existing positive or conflicting character of the relationship. Donors sometimes downplay negative aspects in the relationship and emphasize the improvement as a way of dealing with a major life event. A donation cannot fulfill expectations linked to it and it is unfavorable to be used to improve the relationship. Potential misuse or instrumentalization of the donation by the donor are possible. Postoperative feelings of gratitude are an issue after surgery. A good relationship enhances a better management of the postoperative course. The preoperative donor-recipient relationship should be as free of conflict as possible. A thorough preoperative evaluation of the donor-recipient relationship is particularly important to assess the donors' suitability and clarify conflicts and unrealistic expectations.

Consideration of Psychosocial Factors in the Evaluation of Living Donors

Results of donor outcome studies indicate that most living donors report a positive psychosocial response to donation. However, negative psychosocial outcomes have also been reported. Evaluation guidelines have been proposed, although a standardized evaluation specific to living donors is not yet available. In an effort to determine what psychosocial factors should be considered in a comprehensive evaluation of living donors, an extensive literature review was undertaken that was focused on previously proposed guidelines for the psychosocial evaluation of living donors, research on outcomes among living donors, and other relevant psychosocial data.

Qualidade de vida do doador após transplante hepático intervivos

RACIONAL: A qualidade de vida do doador após transplante hepático intervivos ainda não foi avaliada em nosso meio. OBJETIVO: Avaliar a qualidade de vida do doador após transplante hepático intervivos. MÉTODOS: De um total de 300 transplantes hepáticos, 51 foram de doadores vivos. Doadores com seguimento menor do que 6 meses e os que não quiseram participar do estudo foram excluídos. Os doadores responderam a um questionário de 28 perguntas abordando os vários aspectos da doação, sendo também avaliados dados demográficos e clínicos dos mesmos. RESULTADOS: Trinta e sete doadores aceitaram participar do estudo. Destes, 32 eram parentes de primeiro ou de segundo grau do receptor. O esclarecimento sobre o caráter voluntário da doação foi adequado para todos pacientes. Apenas um (2%) não doaria novamente. A dor pós-operatória foi pior do que o esperado para 22 doadores (59%). O retorno às atividades normais ocorreu em menos de 3 meses para 21 doadores (57%). Vinte e um doadores (57%) tiveram perda financeira com a doação devido a gastos com medicamentos, exames, transporte ou perda de rendimentos. Trinta e três (89%) não tiveram modificação ou limitação na sua vida após a doação. Os aspectos mais negativos da doação foram a dor pós-operatória e a presença de cicatriz cirúrgica. A maioria das complicações pós-operatória foi resolvida com o tratamento clínico, mas complicações graves ou potencialmente fatais ocorreram em dois pacientes. CONCLUSÕES: A maioria dos doadores apresentou boa recuperação e retornou completamente as suas atividades normais poucos meses após a doação. O aspecto mais negativo da doação foi a dor pós-operatória.

Decision-Related Factors and Attitudes Toward Donation in Living Related Liver Transplantation: Ten-Year Experience

INTRODUCTION

Living related liver transplantation (LRLT) has been performed since 1994 in Korea; more than 600 donors have contributed to our successful LRLT program for 10 years. Although the decision to donate is difficult and the donors need a formal psychosocial assessment, no system has been available to us for the assessment. This survey was performed as a presurveillance for the development of a psychosocial assessment protocol.

METHODS

A survey questionnaire included 31 questions on general and medical characteristics, factors, and processes related to the decision for donation. Donors of partial livers at least 6 months ago during the period from December 1994 to August 2003 and whose address could be confirmed by telephone were enrolled in the study.

RESULTS

A questionnaire was sent by mail to 441 contactable donors of whom 209 (47.4%) responded. Male-to-female ratio was 2:1 and mean age was 32.8 years (range: 16 to 60 years). The number of spousal donors was 120 (57.4%) and 164 (78.5%) donors were employed at the time of donation. Protestants, Buddhists, and Catholics were 29.2%, 19.1%, and 14.8%, respectively. Parents were the most common recipients (33.0%), followed by siblings (17.2%), extended family members (17.2%), and children (15.8%); one hundred eighty nine (90.4%) donors had decided by themselves, the major reason for donation in 192 (91.9%) donors was "to save the lives of family members and relatives." The first person who suggested donation was the donor (64.1%), followed by family members (23.9%) or the attending physicians (8.6%). Although 70.8% of donors answered that they were not hesitant to donate at the time of decision, 44.5% were uneasy at the possibility of being unable to sustain a normal life after donation, at their lack of knowledge on organ donation, and about the pain and fear of surgery. Family members and relatives (53.3%), medical personnel (46.7%), and previous donors (35.4%) were the preferable counselors compared to transplantation institutions and clergymen. The large majority (80.8%) of donors would encourage others to donate.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the decision to donate was made by the donors themselves in most cases and they appeared firm and determined about their decision, a significant number of donors felt uneasy about possible complications of organ donation and effects on their lives after donation. A precise and formal psychosocial assessment protocol is needed to support and secure their decision before and after donation.