Disclosing recipient information to potential living donors: preferences of donors and recipients, before and after surgery

Anonymity in Kidney Paired Donation: A Systematic Review of Reasons

The objective of this study was to investigate reasons for or against anonymity that are pertinent to kidney paired donations (KPD). We conducted a systematic review of reasons using PubMed and Google Scholar until May 2022 and through snowballing. Inclusion criteria were publications that: 1) discussed organ donation anonymity; 2) was peer-reviewed; 3) presented at least one reason on anonymity. Exclusion criteria: 1) not published in a scientific journal; 2) grey literature and dissertations. Four researchers independently reviewed and selected papers based on the criteria, extracted text passages and coded them into narrow and broad reason types, selected reasons that were valid for kidney paired donations. 50 articles were included, 62 narrow reasons (n = 24 for; n = 38 against) and 13 broad reasons were coded. Broad reasons were: protection against harm, general benefits, gratitude, curiosity, unrealistic to implement, fundamental rights, respect people's wishes, professional neutrality, timing is important, information disclosure, altruism, reciprocity and donation pool. We did not find reasons that justify legal prohibition of donor-recipient interactions for KPD, if they consented to meet. Professional counselling, follow-up and careful evaluations to prevent potential harm.

Experience of ethical dilemmas among professionals working in pediatric transplantation: An international survey

BACKGROUND

Professionals working in pediatric transplantation commonly encounter complex ethical dilemmas. Most ethical research in transplantation is related to adult practice. We aimed to gain insight into ethical issues faced by transplant professionals when dealing with pediatric transplant recipients.

METHODS

A two-stage study was designed; the first part was a questionnaire completed by 190 (80%) members of the International Pediatric Transplant Association (IPTA) from over 30 different countries. This was followed by a multidisciplinary focus group that explored the preliminary data of the survey.

RESULTS

A total of 38% (56 of 149) respondents of the questionnaire had experienced an ethical issue between 2016 and 2018. Surgeons were more likely to have encountered an ethical issue as compared with physicians (60% vs. 35.7%, p = .035). Clinicians from Europe were more likely to have experienced an ethical issue in living organ donation compared with those from North America (78.9% vs. 52.5%, p = .005), with common ethical concerns being psychosocial evaluation and follow-up care of donors. The focus group highlighted the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to ethical issues.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study can direct future research into pediatric transplantation ethics with the aim of producing educational resources, policies, and ethical guidelines.

Non-simultaneous kidney exchange cycles in resource-restricted countries without non-directed donation - a prospective single-center cohort study

Recent reports suggest that bridge-donor reneging is rare (1.5%) in non-simultaneous kidney exchange chains. However, in developing countries, the non-directed donors who would be needed to initiate chains are unavailable, and furthermore, limited surgical space and resources restrain the feasibility of simultaneous kidney exchange cycles. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the bridge-donor reneging rate during non-simultaneous kidney exchange cycles (NSKEC) in a prospective single-center cohort study (n = 67). We describe the protocol used to prepare co-registered donor-recipient pairs for non-simultaneous surgeries, in an effort to minimize the reneging rate. In addition, in order to protect any recipients who might be left vulnerable by this arrangement, we proposed the use of standard criteria deceased-donor kidneys to rectify the injustice in the event of any bridge-donor reneging. We report 17 successful NSKEC resulting in 67 living-donor kidney transplants (LDKT) using 23 bridge-donors without donor renege and no intervening pairs became unavailable. We propose that NSKEC could increase LDKT, especially for difficult-to-match sensitized pairs (25 of our 67 pairs) in countries with limited transplantation resources. Our study confirms that NSKEC can be safely performed with careful patient-donor selection and non-anonymous kidney exchanges.

Psychosocial risk factors for impaired health-related quality of life in living kidney donors: results from the ELIPSY prospective study

Living kidney donors' follow-up is usually focused on the assessment of the surgical and medical outcomes. Whilst the psychosocial follow-up is advocated in literature. It is still not entirely clear which exact psychosocial factors are related to a poor psychosocial outcome of donors. The aim of our study is to prospectively assess the donors' psychosocial risks factors to impaired health-related quality of life at 1-year post-donation and link their psychosocial profile before donation with their respective outcomes. The influence of the recipient's medical outcomes on their donor's psychosocial outcome was also examined. Sixty donors completed a battery of standardized psychometric instruments (quality of life, mental health, coping strategies, personality, socio-economic status), and ad hoc items regarding the donation process (e.g., motivations for donation, decision-making, risk assessment, and donor-recipient relationship). Donors' 1-year psychosocial follow-up was favorable and comparable with the general population. So far, cluster-analysis identified a subgroup of donors (28%) with a post-donation reduction of their health-related quality of life. This subgroup expressed comparatively to the rest, the need for more pre-donation information regarding surgery risks, and elevated fear of losing the recipient and commitment to stop their suffering.

KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

The 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors is intended to assist medical professionals who evaluate living kidney donor candidates and provide care before, during and after donation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies that included critical appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations. However, many recommendations, for which there was no evidence or no systematic search for evidence was undertaken by the Evidence Review Team, were issued as ungraded expert opinion recommendations. The guideline work group concluded that a comprehensive approach to risk assessment should replace decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation. Original data analyses were undertaken to produce a "proof-in-concept" risk-prediction model for kidney failure to support a framework for quantitative risk assessment in the donor candidate evaluation and defensible shared decision making. This framework is grounded in the simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics. The processes and framework for the donor candidate evaluation are presented, along with recommendations for optimal care before, during, and after donation. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, especially regarding the lack of definitive prospective studies and clinical outcome trials. Suggestions for future research, including the need for continued refinement of long-term risk prediction and novel approaches to estimating donation-attributable risks, are also provided.In citing this document, the following format should be used: Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Living Kidney Donor Work Group. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors. Transplantation. 2017;101(Suppl 8S):S1-S109.

Long-Term Non-End-Stage Renal Disease Risks After Living Kidney Donation

Despite generally positive outcomes and high rates of satisfaction, living kidney donors are at risk for both medical and psychosocial problems. In this review, the authors summarize non-end-stage renal disease (ESRD) risks for donors and describe limitations to the data. We review the evidence of medical risks (e.g. increased cardiovascular disease and mortality, preeclampsia) and psychosocial risks (e.g. mood disturbance, financial burden). We then discuss the evidence of differential risks among subsets and the impact of postdonation events (e.g. development of diabetes). Collectively, available evidence indicates the following. (1) Recognizing the importance of non-ESRD risks has been overshadowed by analyses of the reported risk of ESRD. This imbalance should be remedied. (2) There is little quantification of the true contribution of donation to medical and psychosocial outcomes. (3) Most studies, to date, have been retrospective, with limited sample sizes and diversity and with less-than-ideal controls for comparison of outcomes. (4) Many postdonation events (diabetes and hypertension) can now be reasonably predicted, and their association with adverse outcomes can be quantified. (5) Mechanisms and systems need to be implemented to evaluate and care for donors who develop medical and/or psychosocial problems. (6) Costs to donors are a significant burden, and making donation financially neutral should be a priority.

Return to normal activities and work after living donor laparoscopic nephrectomy

Transplant programs inform potential donors that they should be able to return to normal activities within ~2 weeks and to work by 6 weeks after laparoscopic nephrectomy. We studied actual time. Between 10/2004 and 9/2014, 911 donors having laparoscopic nephrectomy were surveyed 6 months post-donation. Surveys asked questions specific to their recovery experience, including time to return to normal activities and work and a description of their recovery time relative to pre-donation expectations. Of the 911, 646 (71%) responded: mean age at donation was 43.5±10.6 years; 65% were female, 95% were white, 51% were biologically related to their recipient, and 83% reported education beyond high school. Of the 646 respondents, a total of 35% returned to normal activities by 2 weeks post-donation; 79% by 4 weeks post-donation; 94% by 5-6 weeks; however, 6% took >6 weeks. Of the 646, 551 (85%) were working for pay; of these, mean time to return to work was 5.3±2.8 weeks; median, 5 weeks. Of the 551, a total of 14% returned to work in 1-2 weeks, 46% by 3-4 weeks, and 76% by 5-6 weeks. Importantly, 24% required >6 weeks before returning to work with the highest rates for donors in manual labor or a skilled trade. Significantly longer return to work was reported by females (vs males; P=.01), those without (vs those with) post-high school education (P=.010, those with longer hospital stay (P=.01), and those with a postoperative complication (P=.02). Of respondents, 37% described their recovery time as longer than expected. During the donor informed consent process, additional emphasis on realistic expectations around recovery to baseline activities and return to work is warranted.

Attitudes of Lay Stakeholders and Transplant Professionals About Disclosure to Living Kidney Donors in Exchanges and Chains

Background:

Current policies require very limited informational disclosure between living kidney donors and recipients regardless of the relationship type. No specific policies exist to suggest that exchange/chain donors and their recipients should be treated differently. We surveyed transplant professionals (surgeons and nephrologists) and members of the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) to determine their support for disclosing to donors the health, health behavior, and social information of their exchange/chain donors and exchange/chain recipients.

Methods:

Twenty questions regarding disclosing to donors information about both their exchange/chain donors and exchange/chain recipients were included in 2 larger surveys on disclosure about kidney transplantation. Survey A was sent electronically to NKF list-servs, and survey B was sent to transplant professionals both electronically and by postal mail.

Results:

Survey A yielded 236 valid surveys from NKF donors and recipients (lay stakeholders). Survey B yielded 111 valid surveys from transplant professionals. Both sets of stakeholders support disclosing to donors some health and health behavior information of their exchange/chain donor and exchange/chain recipient, and mostly oppose disclosure of social information. Lay stakeholders favored disclosing significantly more information than transplant professionals. Among lay stakeholders, donor respondents were more supportive than recipient respondents in disclosing to donors health information about the exchange/chain recipient. Among transplant professionals, surgeons were more supportive than nephrologists in disclosing to donors information about the exchange/chain recipient that may impact graft survival.

Conclusions:

There is broad stakeholder support for disclosing some health and health behavior information to donors about their exchange/chain donors and recipients.

Disclosing Health and Health Behavior Information between Living Donors and Their Recipients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Living donor guidelines-both national and international-either do not address or are vague about what information can be shared between prospective living donors and transplant candidates, as well as when to make such disclosures and who should make them. This study explored the attitudes of donors and recipients regarding how much information they believe should be shared.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Two Email invitations were sent by the National Kidney Foundation (national headquarters) to its Email listservs, inviting members to participate in an online survey to assess the attitudes of kidney transplant stakeholders regarding the disclosure of health and health risk behavior information.

RESULTS

From approximately 4200 unique Email addresses, 392 (9.3%) respondents completed part or all of the survey. The analyses were limited to the 236 respondents who self-identified as either donors (potential and actual, n=160) or recipients (candidates and actual, n=76). Overall, 79% (186 of 234) of respondents supported disclosure of general recipient health information that would affect post-transplant outcome to donors, and 88% (207 of 235) supported disclosure of general donor health information to recipients. Recipients and donors were also supportive of sharing donor and recipient information, particularly information relevant to graft and patient survival. There is some reticence, however, about sharing social information. The closer the relationship, the more information they are willing to share. Both donors and recipients wanted the transplant team involved in the information disclosure. Over three quarters of donors (79%) and recipients (78%) did not think the recipient had a right to know why a donor was excluded from donating.

CONCLUSIONS

Both donors and recipients want a significant amount of health information to be disclosed. The opinions of other stakeholders need to be surveyed to determine whether a revision of current policies and practices is warranted.

Living-Donor Kidney Transplantation: Reducing Financial Barriers to Live Kidney Donation--Recommendations from a Consensus Conference

Live-donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the best treatment for eligible people with late-stage kidney disease. Despite this, living kidney donation rates have declined in the United States in recent years. A potential source of this decline is the financial impact on potential and actual living kidney donors (LKDs). Recent evidence indicates that the economic climate may be associated with the decline in LDKT and that there are nontrivial financial ramifications for some LKDs. In June 2014, the American Society of Transplantation's Live Donor Community of Practice convened a Consensus Conference on Best Practices in Live Kidney Donation. The conference included transplant professionals, patients, and other key stakeholders (with the financial support of 10 other organizations) and sought to identify best practices, knowledge gaps, and opportunities pertaining to living kidney donation. This workgroup was tasked with exploring systemic and financial barriers to living kidney donation. The workgroup reviewed literature that assessed the financial effect of living kidney donation, analyzed employment and insurance factors, discussed international models for addressing direct and indirect costs faced by LKDs, and summarized current available resources. The workgroup developed the following series of recommendations to reduce financial and systemic barriers and achieve financial neutrality for LKDs: (1) allocate resources for standardized reimbursement of LKDs' lost wages and incidental costs; (2) pass legislation to offer employment and insurability protections to LKDs; (3) create an LKD financial toolkit to provide standardized, vetted education to donors and providers about options to maximize donor coverage and minimize financial effect within the current climate; and (4) promote further research to identify systemic barriers to living donation and LDKT to ensure the creation of mitigation strategies.

The decline in living kidney donation in the United States: random variation or cause for concern?

The annual number of living kidney donors in the United States peaked at 6647 in 2004. The preceding decade saw a 120% increase in living kidney donation. However, since 2004, living kidney donation has declined in all but 1 year, resulting in a 13% decline in the annual number of living kidney donors from 2004 to 2011. The proportional decline in living kidney donation has been more pronounced among men, blacks, younger adults, siblings, and parents. In this article, we explore several possible explanations for the decline in living kidney donation, including an increase in medical unsuitability, an aging transplant patient population, financial disincentives, public policies, and shifting practice patterns, among others. We conclude that the decline in living donation is not merely reflective of random variation but one that warrants action by the transplant centers, the broader transplant community, and the state and national governments.

Written informed consent for living kidney donors: practices and compliance with CMS and OPTN requirements

We sought to assess how written informed consent practices for candidate living kidney donors have changed over the last 5 years and to assess compliance with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) and Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) regulations that took effect in 2007. We requested evaluation consent forms from US centers that performed >5 living kidney transplants during the prior year (n = 184). We received 148 consent forms; each was reviewed for information provided and inclusion of CMS- and OPTN-required elements. We found that nearly all transplant centers now obtain written consent for living kidney donor evaluation. However, most centers' evaluation consent forms do not include all CMS and OPTN requirements. Multiple items balancing donor and recipient interests and confidentiality were omitted. In addition, information about payment for routine follow-up care, complications related to surgery and other health problems following surgery were highly variable and frequently ambiguous. As centers revise their consent forms to address the 2013 OPTN policies, our findings may help them identify areas of potential deficiency. We propose that UNOS develop a uniform donor evaluation consent form to improve the clarity, consistency and efficiency of living donor consent.

Willingness to pursue live-donor kidney transplantation among waitlisted patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV): a preliminary investigation

We show that HIV-infected waitlisted patients (n=33) had significantly lower knowledge (P<0.001), more concerns (P=0.01), and lower willingness to pursue live-donor kidney transplantation (LDKT; P=0.02) than matched noninfected patients. The majority (78%) of patients felt that their HIV status reduced their chance of LDKT. Although limited to a single center and a small sample, our data suggest that HIV-infected patients who are waitlisted for kidney transplantation may need more education about the potential benefits of LDKT and may benefit from patient-centered decision support to facilitate a risk-benefit assessment consistent with their preferences and values.

Ethical considerations in live donor transplantation: should complications be tolerated?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although living donor transplantation is considered an ethically acceptable undertaking for the purpose of saving another's life, its safety remains under investigation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although living donors undertake considerable medical risks for no direct medical benefit, the question remains whether the risks are acceptable and should be tolerated by providers and patients or whether additional interventions and safeguards are needed to reduce and/or prevent complications. By reviewing complication risk statistics and synthesizing empirical research regarding risk-taking thresholds and attitudes, this paper examines the possibilities for determining an acceptable level of complication risk for living donors. This paper also delineates the ethical tensions surrounding protecting donors from unnecessary risk versus respecting donor autonomy to accept risks, and concludes by discussing the importance of donor follow-up and the value of donor registries.

SUMMARY

In the absence of information on long-term donor outcomes, transplant centers should take special precautions to protect prospective donors given increasing pressures to reduce the organ shortage and concerns that donors often disregard risks to themselves to save the lives of others.

Anonymity and live-donor transplantation: an ELPAT view

Anonymity of donors or recipients in living-donor transplantation is a complex issue and practice varies widely. There are compelling arguments for maintaining anonymity of both parties before unspecified donor transplantation and specified indirect transplantation. After transplantation, there are still good reasons to avoid disclosure of identities. Although anonymity could be lifted if both parties explicitly request it, there are significant, potentially negative consequences of such an approach. Both donor and recipient should be counseled regarding these, and transplant teams should consider the considerable financial and psychosocial costs if problems are encountered as a result of contact. Given the recent rise in the number of unspecified living-donor transplants and through paired exchange schemes, it is vital that data are collected regarding the effects of maintaining or revoking anonymity after transplantation.

Transparent vessels?: What organ donors should be allowed to know about their recipients

A live organ donor needs to be informed carefully about the risks and benefits of her donation for both herself and her recipient, but a key ethical question is how much the donor is allowed to know about the recipient. To decide this question, we must first decide whether, out of respect for autonomy, the donor should decide how much she wants to know, or whether the transplant team, as the professionals, should decide what information is relevant to the donor's decision. I argue that the transplant team should control the process. While the donor has the right to know enough about her recipient to assess the risk to herself and the prospects for a successful donation, she is not entitled to any further information, no matter how much she wants it. In particular, I argue that donors are not entitled to information that has not been shown to affect outcomes, but that they should be told if a recipient is HIV or that he has rejected a previous organ due to non-compliance. Donors have a right to make decisions with all the information they need, but recipients need not make their lives completely transparent.