(Uncontrolled) donation after cardiac determination of death: a note of caution

Organ donation protocols

Organ transplantation improves survival and quality of life in patients with end-organ failure. Waiting lists continue to grow across the world despite remarkable advances in the transplantation process, from the creation of public engagement campaigns to the development of critical pathways for the timely identification, referral, approach, and treatment of the potential organ donor. The pathophysiology of dying triggers systemic changes that are intimately related to organ viability. The intensive care management of the potential organ donor optimizes organ function and improves the donation yield, representing a significant step in reducing the mismatch between organ supply and demand. Different beliefs and cultures reflect diverse legislations and donation practices amongst different countries, creating a challenge to standardized practices. Maintaining public trust is necessary for continued progress in organ donation and transplantation, hence the urge for a joint effort in creating uniform protocols that ensure transparent practices within the medical community.

Uncontrolled Donation After Circulatory Determination of Death: A Systematic Ethical Analysis

Uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death (uDCDD) refers to organ donation after a refractory cardiac arrest. We analyzed ethical issues raised by the uDCDD protocols of France, Madrid, and New York City. We recommend: (1) Termination of resuscitation (TOR) guidelines need refinement, particularly the minimal duration of resuscitation efforts before considering TOR; (2) Before enrolling in an uDCDD protocol, physicians must ascertain that additional resuscitation efforts would be ineffective; (3) Inclusion in an uDCDD protocol should not be made in the outpatient setting to avoid error and conflicts of interest; (4) The patient's condition should be reassessed at the hospital and reversible causes treated; (5) A no-touch period of at least 10 minutes should be respected to avoid the risk of autoresuscitation; (6) Once death has been determined, no procedure that may resume brain circulation should be used, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation, artificial ventilation, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; (7) Specific consent is required prior to entry into an uDCDD protocol; (8) Family members should be informed about the goals, risks, and benefits of planned uDCDD procedures; and (9) Public information on uDCDD is desirable because it promotes public trust and confidence in the organ donation system.

Protocols for uncontrolled donation after circulatory death: a systematic review of international guidelines, practices and transplant outcomes

INTRODUCTION

A chronic shortage of organs remains the main factor limiting organ transplantation. Many countries have explored the option of uncontrolled donation after circulatory death (uDCD) in order to expand the donor pool. Little is known regarding the variability of practices and outcomes between existing protocols. This systematic review addresses this knowledge gap informing policy makers, researchers, and clinicians for future protocol implementation.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google Scholar electronic databases from 2005 to March 2015 as well as the reference lists of selected studies, abstracts, unpublished reports, personal libraries, professional organization reports, and government agency statements on uDCD. We contacted leading authors and organizations to request their protocols and guidelines. Two reviewers extracted main variables. In studies reporting transplant outcomes, we added type, quantity, quality of organs procured, and complications reported. Internal validity and the quality of the studies reporting outcomes were assessed, as were the methodological rigour and transparency in which a guideline was developed. The review was included in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (Prospero, CRD42014015258).

RESULTS

Six guidelines and 18 outcome studies were analysed. The six guidelines are based on limited evidence and major differences exist between them at each step of the uDCD process. The outcome studies report good results for kidney, liver, and lung transplantation with high discard rates for livers.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite procedural, medical, economic, legal, and ethical challenges, the uDCD strategy is a viable option for increasing the organ donation pool. Variations in practice and heterogeneity of outcomes preclude a meta-analysis and prevented the linking of outcomes to specific uDCD protocols. Further standardization of protocols and outcomes is required, as is further research into the role of extracorporeal resuscitation and other novel therapies for treatment of some refractory cardiac arrest. It is essential to ensure the maintenance of trust in uDCD programs by health professionals and the public.

Donation after cardiac death and the emergency department: ethical issues

Organ donation after cardiac death (DCD) is increasingly considered as an option to address the shortage of organs available for transplantation, both in the United States and worldwide. The procedures for DCD differ from procedures for donation after brain death and are likely less familiar to emergency physicians (EPs), even as this process is increasingly involving emergency departments (EDs). This article explores the ED operational and ethical issues surrounding this procedure.

One or two types of death? Attitudes of health professionals towards brain death and donation after circulatory death in three countries

This study examined health professionals' (HPs) experience, beliefs and attitudes towards brain death (BD) and two types of donation after circulatory death (DCD)--controlled and uncontrolled DCD. Five hundred and eighty-seven HPs likely to be involved in the process of organ procurement were interviewed in 14 hospitals with transplant programs in France, Spain and the US. Three potential donation scenarios--BD, uncontrolled DCD and controlled DCD--were presented to study subjects during individual face-to-face interviews. Our study has two main findings: (1) In the context of organ procurement, HPs believe that BD is a more reliable standard for determining death than circulatory death, and (2) While the vast majority of HPs consider it morally acceptable to retrieve organs from brain-dead donors, retrieving organs from DCD patients is much more controversial. We offer the following possible explanations. DCD introduces new conditions that deviate from standard medical practice, allow procurement of organs when donors' loss of circulatory function could be reversed, and raises questions about "death" as a unified concept. Our results suggest that, for many HPs, these concerns seem related in part to the fact that a rigorous brain examination is neither clinically performed nor legally required in DCD. Their discomfort could also come from a belief that irreversible loss of circulatory function has not been adequately demonstrated. If DCD protocols are to achieve their full potential for increasing organ supply, the sources of HPs' discomfort must be further identified and addressed.

Donation after cardiocirculatory death: a call for a moratorium pending full public disclosure and fully informed consent

Many believe that the ethical problems of donation after cardiocirculatory death (DCD) have been "worked out" and that it is unclear why DCD should be resisted. In this paper we will argue that DCD donors may not yet be dead, and therefore that organ donation during DCD may violate the dead donor rule. We first present a description of the process of DCD and the standard ethical rationale for the practice. We then present our concerns with DCD, including the following: irreversibility of absent circulation has not occurred and the many attempts to claim it has have all failed; conflicts of interest at all steps in the DCD process, including the decision to withdraw life support before DCD, are simply unavoidable; potentially harmful premortem interventions to preserve organ utility are not justifiable, even with the help of the principle of double effect; claims that DCD conforms with the intent of the law and current accepted medical standards are misleading and inaccurate; and consensus statements by respected medical groups do not change these arguments due to their low quality including being plagued by conflict of interest. Moreover, some arguments in favor of DCD, while likely true, are "straw-man arguments," such as the great benefit of organ donation. The truth is that honesty and trustworthiness require that we face these problems instead of avoiding them. We believe that DCD is not ethically allowable because it abandons the dead donor rule, has unavoidable conflicts of interests, and implements premortem interventions which can hasten death. These important points have not been, but need to be fully disclosed to the public and incorporated into fully informed consent. These are tall orders, and require open public debate. Until this debate occurs, we call for a moratorium on the practice of DCD.

[Ethical issues raised by 2 kinds of protocols for organ donation after cardiac death: aspects particular to France, Spain and the United States]

France, Spain and US are three leader countries in activity of organ procurement and transplantation. Donation after cardiac death is one of the strategies they have been implemented in order to face organ shortage. Donation after cardiac death is internationally considered to be an encouraging source of organs for transplantation both because of its capacity to significantly increase the donor pool and because of the quality of the organs obtained from non-heart-beating organ donors. These protocols give rise to important ethical issues that have been widely discussed in the international literature. The aim of this paper is to identify and discuss the ethical issues that these protocols raise in these three countries.

Is rapid organ recovery a good idea? An exploratory study of the public's knowledge and attitudes

In 2006, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommended demonstration projects on uncontrolled donation after cardiac death or rapid organ recovery (ROR). To investigate what the public thinks about key ethical and policy questions associated with ROR, 70 African-American, Caucasian and Latino community members in St. Louis, MO, participated in focus groups and completed surveys, before and after being educated about ROR. Before the focus group, most participants believed mistakenly that they could donate organs following an unexpected cardiac arrest (76%). After the focus group, 84% would want to donate organs after unexpected cardiac arrest; 81% would support organ cooling to enable this. The public generally supported organ cooling without family consent if the individual had joined the donor registry, but were mixed in their opinions about what should be done if they were not on the registry. African-American and Latino participants expressed greater fears than Caucasians that if they consented to organ donation, physicians might do less to save their life; however, support for ROR was not significantly lower in these subgroups. Although this study is exploratory, public support for ROR was present. We recommend that adequate consent processes and safeguards be established to foster trust and support for ROR.

Presumed consent for organ preservation in uncontrolled donation after cardiac death in the United States: a public policy with serious consequences

Organ donation after cessation of circulation and respiration, both controlled and uncontrolled, has been proposed by the Institute of Medicine as a way to increase opportunities for organ procurement. Despite claims to the contrary, both forms of controlled and uncontrolled donation after cardiac death raise significant ethical and legal issues. Identified causes for concern include absence of agreement on criteria for the declaration of death, nonexistence of universal guidelines for duration before stopping resuscitation efforts and techniques, and assumption of presumed intent to donate for the purpose of initiating temporary organ-preservation interventions when no expressed consent to donate is present. From a legal point of view, not having scientifically valid criteria of cessation of circulation and respiration for declaring death could lead to a conclusion that organ procurement itself is the proximate cause of death. Although the revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act of 2006 provides broad immunity to those involved in organ-procurement activities, courts have yet to provide an opinion on whether persons can be held liable for injuries arising from the determination of death itself. Preserving organs in uncontrolled donation after cardiac death requires the administration of life-support systems such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. These life-support systems can lead to return of signs of life that, in turn, have to be deliberately suppressed by the administration of pharmacological agents. Finally, allowing temporary organ-preservation interventions without expressed consent is inherently a violation of the principle of respect for a person's autonomy. Proponents of organ donation from uncontrolled donation after cardiac death, on the other hand, claim that these nonconsensual interventions enhance respect for autonomy by allowing people, through surrogate decision making, to execute their right to donate organs. However, the lack of transparency and the absence of protection of individual autonomy, for the sake of maximizing procurement opportunities, have placed the current organ-donation system of opting-in in great jeopardy. Equally as important, current policies enabling and enhancing organ procurement practices, pose challenges to the constitutional rights of individuals in a pluralistic society as these policies are founded on flawed medical standards for declaring death.

Organ donation after circulatory determination of death: lessons and unresolved controversies

This article responds to the four pieces in this special symposium of the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics on uncontrolled organ donation following circulatory death (uDCD). The response will focus on lessons and debates about the kinds of consent necessary and sufficient for temporary organ preservation in the context of DCD and for organ donation itself; on conflicts of obligation, loyalty, and interest in DCD and ways to address those conflicts; and on benefit, cost, risk assessments of uDCD programs, including measures to achieve a more favorable balance of benefits, costs, and risks.