Considering Tangible Benefit for Interdependent Donors: Extending a Risk-Benefit Framework in Donor Selection

Near-infrared fluorescence imaging with indocyanine green for assessment of donor livers in a rat model of ischemia-reperfusion

BACKGROUND

Although marginal donor livers expand the donor pool, an ideal method for quantitatively evaluating the quality of donor livers has not been developed. This study aimed to explore the feasibility of indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging for estimating liver function in an ischemia-reperfusion model.

METHODS

Forty-eight rats were randomly and evenly divided into 8 groups: the control group and the experimental groups (I-VII). The portal vein blocking period was 0 min, 10 min, 20 min, 30 min, 40 min, 50 min and 60 min. After blood flow was reestablished and the hemodynamics stabilized, ICG was injected through the dorsal penile vein as a bolus, and the fluorescence signal was recorded for 30 min in real time. The fluorescence intensity (FI) curve of the liver was fitted with an asymptotic regression model. Fresh liver tissues and serum were obtained from the middle lobe of the liver on postoperative day (POD) 1 and POD 7 for histopathological evaluation and liver function tests.

RESULTS

The growth rate of the FI curve, parameter b3, decreased from groups I to VII. According to the two sudden changes in b3 (20 min, 50 min), the experimental groups could be classified into 3 groups (A, B and C). Hepatocytes in groups I-II showed slight edema, group III began to show obvious hepatocyte edema and vacuolar degeneration, and in groups VI-VII, severe hepatocyte degeneration, necrosis and large inflammatory cell infiltration were observed. Suzuki's scores in the 3 groups were also significantly different (P < 0.01). At the same time, the serum liver function in the experimental groups showed a significant increase on POD 1 and a decrease on POD 7. The alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and total bilirubin (TB) levels of groups A, B, and C were significantly different on POD 1 (P < 0.05), and the ALT and direct bilirubin (DB) levels were significantly different on POD 7 (P < 0.05); the lactic dehydrogenase (LDH) level of the group C was significantly higher than that of the groups A and B on POD 1 and POD 7. Meanwhile, the 7-day survival rate of the rats in group C was poor compared to that of the rats in groups A and B (58.3% vs. 100% vs. 100%).

CONCLUSION

ICG fluorescence imaging is effective for estimating the degree of liver damage and grading in an ischemia-reperfusion model. It probably has the potential for use in assessing the quality of the donor liver in liver transplantation.

The Living Donor Navigator Program Provides Support Tools for Caregivers

INTRODUCTION

The Living Donor Navigator (LDN) program is one of several initiatives designed to help transplant candidates identify living donors with the help of a friend or family member advocate to speak on their behalf. More than half of advocates in the LDN program were the spouse or parent of the candidate and served in a caregiving role. Caregivers for patients awaiting transplantation have reported poorer quality of life than the general population, suggesting more support is needed for this vulnerable group. The purpose of this study was to understand whether the LDN program met the needs of advocates who were also caregivers for the transplant candidate.

METHODS

We performed a supplementary secondary qualitative analysis of a parent study conducted December 2017-January 2018 with 9 advocates who participated in the LDN program. Transcripts were reanalyzed from focus group discussions, concentrating on comments about caregiving or made by caregivers. Using manual coding and reflexive thematic analysis, we identified broad codes and major themes.

FINDINGS

Our re-analysis revealed one theme overlapping with our previous analysis (Support) and 2 new themes specific to caregiver advocates: Quality of Life and Fear. Caregivers agreed that the LDN program equipped them with tools to address these areas and best serve their simultaneous caregiver/advocate roles.

DISCUSSION

These analyses demonstrated that those who served as advocate and caregiver derived a benefit from the LDN program but had distinct needs from other advocates. These findings can inform continued refinement of the program and expansion to support needs of caregiver.

The Tangible Benefits of Living Donation: Results of a Qualitative Study of Living Kidney Donors

The framework currently used for living kidney donor selection is based on estimation of acceptable donor risk, under the premise that benefits are only experienced by the recipient. However, some interdependent donors might experience tangible benefits from donation that cannot be considered in the current framework (ie, benefits experienced directly by the donor that improve their daily life, well-being, or livelihood).

Kidney Dyads: Caregiver Burden and Relationship Strain Among Partners of Dialysis and Transplant Patients

BACKGROUND

Caring for dialysis patients is difficult, and this burden often falls on a spouse or cohabiting partner (henceforth referred to as caregiver-partners). At the same time, these caregiver-partners often come forward as potential living kidney donors for their loved ones who are on dialysis (henceforth referred to as patient-partners). Caregiver-partners may experience tangible benefits to their well-being when their patient-partner undergoes transplantation, yet this is seldom formally considered when evaluating caregiver-partners as potential donors.

METHODS

To quantify these potential benefits, we surveyed caregiver-partners of dialysis patients and kidney transplant (KT) recipients (N = 99) at KT evaluation or post-KT. Using validated tools, we assessed relationship satisfaction and caregiver burden before or after their patient-partner's dialysis initiation and before or after their patient-partner's KT.

RESULTS

Caregiver-partners reported increases in specific measures of caregiver burden (P = 0.03) and stress (P = 0.01) and decreases in social life (P = 0.02) and sexual relations (P < 0.01) after their patient-partner initiated dialysis. However, after their patient-partner underwent KT, caregiver-partners reported improvements in specific measures of caregiver burden (P = 0.03), personal time (P < 0.01), social life (P = 0.01), stress (P = 0.02), sexual relations (P < 0.01), and overall quality of life (P = 0.03). These improvements were of sufficient impact that caregiver-partners reported similar levels of caregiver burden after their patient-partner's KT as before their patient-partner initiated dialysis (P = 0.3).

CONCLUSIONS

These benefits in caregiver burden and relationship quality support special consideration for spouses and partners in risk-assessment of potential kidney donors, particularly those with risk profiles slightly exceeding center thresholds.

The experiences and impact of being deemed ineligible for living kidney donation: Semi-structured interview study

AIM

We aimed to describe the impact and experience of being deemed ineligible as a living kidney donor.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 27 ineligible donor candidates. Transcripts were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Seven themes were identified: deriving health and relationship benefits in the process (strengthening emotional connection, identifying problematic health conditions); devastating loss and disappointment (harbouring guilt over personal failings, shattering confidence and hope, undermining relationships with extended family and friends, disrupting home dynamics); constrained within a rigid system (denied autonomy, resorting to other avenues); acknowledging as matter of fact (accepting the clinical decision, reassured by preventing a poor outcome); reluctant to relinquish the donor identity (unable to fulfil family duty, having the donor role stolen, holding onto other opportunities to donate); uncertainty in unpredictability, inconsistency and ambiguities (frustrated by inefficiencies, questioning clinician motivation, suspended donor status, unfairness in changeable eligibility criteria, unresolved concerns and questions of own health); and abandoned in despair (lacking practical support to meet eligibility criteria, ill prepared for rejection, dismissed and discarded by the system).

CONCLUSION

Being deemed unsuitable for donation took an emotional toll on ineligible donor candidates who felt immense guilt for 'failing' the potential recipient. Ineligible donor candidates were frustrated and angry with the perceived lack of support from clinicians and rigidity of the evaluation process. Informing potential donors of available services, including psychological support, communicating the decision sensitively and with sufficient time, and full disclosure of their health status, may contribute to improved adjustment following the ineligibility decision.

Living kidney donor and recipient perspectives on their relationship: longitudinal semi-structured interviews

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Many donors and recipients report an improved bond posttransplantation; however, unexpected conflicts and tension may also occur. Insights into the lived experiences of the donor-recipient relationship can inform strategies for interventions and support. We aimed to describe donor and recipient expectations and experiences of their relationship before and after living kidney donor transplantation.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 16 donor-recipient pairs before the transplant and 11-14 months post-transplant. Transcripts were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

We identified seven themes (with respective subthemes): donation as enacting familial responsibility for care; analytical decision making to mitigate regret (avoiding anticipated regret and maintaining control, removing emotional impulsivity); strengthened interpersonal ties (gaining a deeper appreciation among family members, stronger empathy for each other, improving social participation); instability of relational impacts (anger and aggression threatening dynamics, unanticipated stress and emotional lability, triggering familial tension); renegotiating social roles (unexpected continuation of caregiving responsibilities, inability to relinquish the caregiving role, disappointment with unfulfilled renewal of intimacy, dissatisfaction over discrepant energy levels); guilt over unmet expectations and inevitability of the gift relationship (vague and transient indebtedness, expectation of reciprocity, transferring kidney ownership).

CONCLUSIONS

Donor-recipient relationships may be improved through increased empathy, appreciation, and ability to participate in life together; however, unfulfilled expectations and behavioural and emotional changes in recipients (a side effect related to immunosuppression) remain unresolved consequences of living kidney donor transplantation. Education and counselling to help donors and recipients adjust to potential changes in relationship dynamics may help protect and foster relational stability postdonation.

Helping More Patients Receive a Living Donor Kidney Transplant

The best treatment option for many patients with kidney failure is a kidney transplant from a living donor. Countries that successfully increase their rate of living kidney donation will decrease their reliance on dialysis, the most expensive and high-risk form of kidney replacement therapy. Outlined here are some barriers that prevent some patients from pursuing living kidney donation and current knowledge on some potential solutions to these barriers. Also described are strategies to promote living kidney donation in a defensible system of practice. Safely increasing the rate of living kidney donation will require better programs and policies to improve the experiences of living donors and their recipients, to safeguard the practice for years to come.

Lifetime risk of end-stage kidney disease in living donors for paediatric kidney transplant recipients in Australia and New Zealand - a retrospective study

Living kidney donors (LKD) for paediatric kidney transplant recipients (KTR) have a heightened motivation to donate for emotional reasons and the clear health benefits to the KTR. We hypothesized that the cohort of LKD for paediatric KTR (LKD-P) includes motivated young parents with a higher lifetime end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) risk compared to adult KTR (LKD-A). Data from the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant LKD Registry (2004-2015) was analysed to compare baseline characteristics and predonation ESKD risk in LKD-P (n = 315) versus LKD-A (n = 3448). LKD-P were younger (median age 42 vs. 50 years; P < 0.001) and had a marginally higher lifetime ESKD risk (median 0.44% vs. 0.40%; P < 0.01), with a similar proportion of LKD exceeding 1% risk threshold (5.4% vs. 5.6%; P = NS). Compared to grandparents as LKD-P, parents (median age 41 vs. 59 years; P < 0.001) had a higher lifetime ESKD (0.44% vs. 0.25%; P < 0.001). Although unique benefits to paediatric KTR justify the minor increase in lifetime ESKD risk in young parents, carefully selected grandparents are an alternative LKD-P option, allowing parents to donate for subsequent transplants.

A liver for a kidney: Ethics of trans-organ paired exchange

Living donation provides important access to organ transplantation, which is the optimal therapy for patients with end-stage liver or kidney failure. Paired exchanges have facilitated thousands of kidney transplants and enable transplantation when the donor and recipient are incompatible. However, frequently willing and otherwise healthy donors have contraindications to the donation of the organ that their recipient needs. Trans-organ paired exchanges would enable a donor associated with a kidney recipient to donate a lobe of liver and a donor associated with a liver recipient to donate a kidney. This article explores some of the ethical concerns that trans-organ exchange might encounter including unbalanced donor risks, the validity of informed consent, and effects on deceased organ donation.