|
1
|
Marcus K, Berner D, Hadaya K, Hurst S. Anonymity in Kidney Paired Donation: A Systematic Review of Reasons. Transpl Int 2023; 36:10913. [PMID: 36819123 PMCID: PMC9931741 DOI: 10.3389/ti.2023.10913] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/19/2022] [Accepted: 01/11/2023] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kailing Marcus
- Institute for Ethics, History, and the Humanities, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Delphine Berner
- Institute for Ethics, History, and the Humanities, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Karine Hadaya
- Service of Nephrology and Hypertension, Geneva University Hospitals and Clinique des Grangettes-Hirslanden, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Samia Hurst
- Institute for Ethics, History, and the Humanities, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
[Perspectives for future development of the kidney paired donation programme in France]. Nephrol Ther 2022; 18:270-277. [PMID: 35773141 DOI: 10.1016/j.nephro.2022.02.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/09/2022] [Accepted: 02/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Abstract
Almost one third of kidney donation candidates are incompatible (HLA and/or ABO) with their directed recipient. Kidney paired donation allows potential donors to be exchanged and gives access to a compatible kidney transplant. The Bioethics Law of 2011 authorised kidney paired donation in France with reciprocity between 2 incompatible "donor-recipient" pairs. A limited number of transplants have been performed due to a too restricted authorization compared to other European practices. This study presents the perspectives of the new Bioethics Law, enacted in 2021, which increases the authorised practices for kidney paired donation in France. The two simulated evolutions are the increase of the number of pairs involved in a kidney paired donation to 6 (against 2 currently) and the use of a deceased donor as a substitution to one of living donor. Different scenarios are simulated using data from the Agence de la Biomedecine; incompatible pairs registered in the kidney paired donation programme in France between December 2013 and February 2018 (78 incompatible pairs), incompatible transplants performed during the same period (476 incompatible pairs) and characteristics of deceased donors as well as proposals made over this period. Increasing the number of pairs has a limited effect on the number of transplants, which increases from 18 (23% of recipients) in the current system to 25 (32% of recipients) when 6 pairs can be involved. The use of a deceased donor significantly increases the number of transplants to 41 (52% of recipients). This study makes it possible to evaluate the increase in possibilities of kidney transplants by kidney paired donation following the new bioethics law. A working group and an information campaign for professionals and patients will be necessary for its implementation.
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Massey EK, Pronk MC, Zuidema WC, Weimar W, van de Wetering J, Ismail SY. Positive and negative aspects of mental health after unspecified living kidney donation: A cohort study. Br J Health Psychol 2021; 27:374-389. [PMID: 34296497 PMCID: PMC9291094 DOI: 10.1111/bjhp.12549] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/23/2020] [Revised: 06/16/2021] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
Objectives Unspecified donors give a kidney to a stranger with end‐stage kidney failure. There has been little research on the long‐term impact of unspecified donation on mental health outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the positive and negative aspects of mental health among unspecified donors. Design We invited all unspecified donors who donated a kidney between 2000 and 2016 at our centre to participate in an interview and to complete validated questionnaires. Methods We measured positive mental health using the Dutch Mental Health Continuum‐Short Form (MHC‐SF), psychological complaints using the Symptoms Checklist‐90 (SCL‐90) and psychiatric diagnoses using the Mini‐International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.) Screen for all donors and the M.I.N.I. Plus on indication. Results Of the 134 eligible donors, 114 participated (54% female; median age 66 years), a median of 6 years post‐donation. Scores on emotional and social well‐being subscales of the MHC‐SF were significantly higher than in the general population. Psychological symptoms were comparable to the general population. Thirty‐two per cent of donors had a current or lifetime psychiatric diagnosis. Psychological symptoms did not significantly change between the pre‐donation screening and the post‐donation study. Conclusions We concluded that, with the appropriate screening, unspecified donation is a safe procedure from a psychological perspective.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma K Massey
- Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC Transplant Institute, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Mathilde C Pronk
- Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC Transplant Institute, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Willij C Zuidema
- Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC Transplant Institute, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Willem Weimar
- Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC Transplant Institute, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jacqueline van de Wetering
- Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC Transplant Institute, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Sohal Y Ismail
- Department of Psychiatry, Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Thomas R, Consolo H, Oniscu GC. Have we reached the limits in altruistic kidney donation? Transpl Int 2021; 34:1187-1197. [PMID: 34008872 DOI: 10.1111/tri.13921] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/18/2021] [Revised: 05/11/2021] [Accepted: 05/12/2021] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
Altruistic donation (unspecified donation) is an important aspect of living donor kidney transplantation. Although donation to a stranger is lawful and supported in many countries, it remains uncommon and not actively promoted. Herein, we ask the question if we have reached the limit in altruistic donation. In doing so, we examine important ethical questions that define the limits of unspecified donation, such as the appropriate balance between autonomous decision-making and paternalistic protection of the donor, the extent of outcome uncertainty and risk-benefit analyses that donors should be allowed to accept. We also consider the scrutiny and acceptance of donor motives, the potential for commercialization, donation to particular categories of recipients (including those encountered through social media) and the ethical boundaries of active promotion of unspecified kidney donation. We conclude that there is scope to increase the number of living donation kidney transplants further by optimizing existing practices to support and promote unspecified donation. A number of strategies including optimization of the assessment process, innovative approaches to reach potential donors together with reimbursement of expenses and a more specific recognition of unspecified donation are likely to lead to a meaningful increase in this type of donation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel Thomas
- Edinburgh Transplant Centre, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, UK
| | | | - Gabriel C Oniscu
- Edinburgh Transplant Centre, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, UK.,Department of Clinical Surgery, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| |
Collapse
|
|
5
|
Ghent E, Robertson T, Young K, DeAngelis M, Fecteau A, Grant D, Ng V, Anthony SJ. The experiences of parents and caregiver(s) whose child received an organ from a living anonymous liver donor. Clin Transplant 2019; 33:e13667. [PMID: 31310681 DOI: 10.1111/ctr.13667] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2019] [Revised: 06/19/2019] [Accepted: 07/06/2019] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Anonymous living donor transplantation is a potential strategy to address the shortage of available organs for transplant. A living anonymous donor (LAD) is a donor with no biological connection and whose identity is unknown to the recipient. This study captured the lived experiences of pediatric liver transplant recipient families whose child received an organ from a LAD. METHODS Qualitative data collection and analysis were guided by a theoretical framework of phenomenology. Data analysis highlighted themes through an inductive process of reviewing transcript paragraphs to code for significant statements that represented key concepts and captured depth of experience. RESULTS A total of nine interviews were conducted with 10 participants. Data analysis yielded themes of emotional turbulence through their transplant journey. Pre-transplant experiences were characterized by feelings of helplessness and desperation. Receiving a LAD transplant prompted shock, relief, and acceptance of the donation. Post-transplant experiences were characterized by altered life-perspectives and varied levels of connectedness to the donor, marked by gratitude and concern for donor well-being. CONCLUSION Anonymous donation in liver transplantation is perceived by recipient families as a remarkable gift and a viable donor option. Our preliminary findings can be used to inform strategy development regarding future delivery of care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emily Ghent
- Transplant and Regenerative Medicine Centre, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Taylor Robertson
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Katarina Young
- Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Maria DeAngelis
- Transplant and Regenerative Medicine Centre, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Annie Fecteau
- Transplant and Regenerative Medicine Centre, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - David Grant
- Transplant and Regenerative Medicine Centre, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.,Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Vicky Ng
- Transplant and Regenerative Medicine Centre, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Samantha J Anthony
- Transplant and Regenerative Medicine Centre, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.,Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.,Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
|
6
|
Recipient Outcomes From Nondirected Live Kidney Donors: A UK-based Cohort Study. Transplant Direct 2018; 4:e406. [PMID: 30584587 PMCID: PMC6283085 DOI: 10.1097/txd.0000000000000847] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/28/2018] [Accepted: 10/07/2018] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Increasing numbers of patients with end-stage renal failure are receiving kidneys from nondirected kidney donors (NKDs), also known as altruistic donors. Transplant outcomes for recipients of such kidneys are largely inferred from studies on specified kidney donors (SKDs), which may be inaccurate due to differences in donor, recipient and transplant specific factors. We report the outcomes for recipients of NKD in the United Kingdom. Methods Outcomes for 6861 patients receiving a living donor kidney transplant between January 2007 and December 2014 were analyzed using both the National Health Service Blood and Transplant and the UK Renal Registry datasets. Graft and patient outcomes were compared for patients receiving NKD and SKD organs using univariable and multivariable analyses. Results There was significant discordance between the NKD and SKD donors and recipients. These included increased donor age (median, 58 years vs 47 years; P < 0.001) and higher rates of hemodialysis and previous transplants in the NKD group (both P < 0.001). Despite such markers of increased risk among both donors and recipients of NKD kidneys, there was no difference in graft survival on univariable (hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.86; P = 0.419) or multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.95; P = 0.665). Conclusions Despite some markers of transplant complexity, nondirected kidney donor organs are an excellent source of organs for transplantation.
Collapse
|
|
7
|
Massey EK, Timmerman L, Ismail SY, Duerinckx N, Lopes A, Maple H, Mega I, Papachristou C, Dobbels F. The ELPAT living organ donor Psychosocial Assessment Tool (EPAT): from 'what' to 'how' of psychosocial screening - a pilot study. Transpl Int 2017; 31:56-70. [PMID: 28850737 DOI: 10.1111/tri.13041] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2017] [Revised: 03/20/2017] [Accepted: 08/14/2017] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
Thorough psychosocial screening of donor candidates is required in order to minimize potential negative consequences and to strive for optimal safety within living donation programmes. We aimed to develop an evidence-based tool to standardize the psychosocial screening process. Key concepts of psychosocial screening were used to structure our tool: motivation and decision-making, personal resources, psychopathology, social resources, ethical and legal factors and information and risk processing. We (i) discussed how each item per concept could be measured, (ii) reviewed and rated available validated tools, (iii) where necessary developed new items, (iv) assessed content validity and (v) pilot-tested the new items. The resulting ELPAT living organ donor Psychosocial Assessment Tool (EPAT) consists of a selection of validated questionnaires (28 items in total), a semi-structured interview (43 questions) and a Red Flag Checklist. We outline optimal procedures and conditions for implementing this tool. The EPAT and user manual are available from the authors. Use of this tool will standardize the psychosocial screening procedure ensuring that no psychosocial issues are overlooked and ensure that comparable selection criteria are used and facilitate generation of comparable psychosocial data on living donor candidates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma K Massey
- Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Lotte Timmerman
- Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Sohal Y Ismail
- Department of Psychiatry, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Nathalie Duerinckx
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Academic Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.,Heart Transplant Program, Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University Hospitals of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Alice Lopes
- Psychiatry and Health Psychology Unit, Centro Hospitalar do Porto, Porto, Portugal
| | - Hannah Maple
- Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London, London, UK
| | - Inês Mega
- Hepato-Biliar-Pancreatic and Transplantation Center, Hospital Curry Cabral, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Christina Papachristou
- Department for Psychosomatic Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Fabienne Dobbels
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Academic Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, KU Leuven - University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
8
|
Motivations, outcomes, and characteristics of unspecified (nondirected altruistic) kidney donors in the United Kingdom. Transplantation 2015; 98:1182-9. [PMID: 25099701 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000000340] [Citation(s) in RCA: 54] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Unspecified (nondirected altruistic) kidney donation is becoming increasingly common in the United Kingdom. Questions regarding motivation and characteristics of these donors persist, alongside concerns about regret and long-term psychosocial outcomes. The aims of this study were to compare psychosocial and physical outcomes in unspecified kidney donors (UKDs) versus specified kidney donors (SKDs). METHODS We performed a cross-sectional study, in which a detailed assessment of psychosocial outcomes was made using validated questionnaires. Additional questions specific to donation were also asked, including questions regarding motivation, regret, and anonymity. RESULTS One hundred ninety responses were received from 296 participants studied (110 UKDs [74.3%] vs. 80 SKDs [54.1%], P<0.001). Unspecified kidney donors were older (54 years vs. 44 years; P<0.001), predominantly white (99.1% vs. 78.5%; P<0.001), and donated more recently (1.3 years vs. 2.6 years; P<0.001). There was no difference in psychiatric history or personality type, or current depression, anxiety, stress, self-esteem, or well-being between the groups (P>0.05). Unspecified kidney donors were more engaged in other altruistic behaviours (P<0.001). There was no difference in physical outcomes, although UKDs recovered quicker (P<0.001). Regret was low (3.7% UKDs vs. 7.5% SKDs; P=0.078). CONCLUSION This study has demonstrated that UKDs have comparable physical and psychosocial outcomes to SKDs. These favorable outcomes may be, in part, because of the rigorous evaluation process which currently includes a mental health assessment. We conclude that the program can continue to expand safely across the United Kingdom.
Collapse
|
|
9
|
Clarke A, Mitchell A, Abraham C. Understanding donation experiences of unspecified (altruistic) kidney donors. Br J Health Psychol 2013; 19:393-408. [PMID: 23692296 DOI: 10.1111/bjhp.12048] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/23/2012] [Revised: 03/27/2013] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Kidney donation from a living donor to an unknown recipient has been legal in the UK since 2006. Yet there is little research into the experiences of unspecified kidney donors (UKDs) in interaction with the health care systems. DESIGN This article explores the experiences of 14 UKDs recruited through four regional transplant co-ordinating centres in England. At interview, they were invited to share their donation stories and discuss the antecedents, social, and psychological processes involved. Interviews were audio-taped and transcribed. METHODS Transcripts were analysed using a grounded theory approach employing a constant comparison methodology. Themes emerging from the data were named to form categories organized around the central focus of the research, forming an analytical story of UKDs' experiences. RESULTS Two major categories emerged: 'connected to others' and 'uneasy negotiations with others'. 'Connected to others' encompasses the motivations and psychological and social consequences of UKD. 'Uneasy negotiations with others' refer to the concerns and conflicts that arose during the donation process. CONCLUSIONS This study highlights the importance of social relationships on the process and outcomes of UKD. These UKDs report both intra- and interpersonal benefits from donation. The donation process, however, also created interpersonal stress, and conflicting messages about the acceptability of their donation were experienced in UKDs' personal lives and in their interactions with health care services. Findings are discussed with reference to the wider literature on UKD and altruism and in relation to implications for clinical practice. STATEMENT OF CONTRIBUTION What is already known on this subject? Unspecified living kidney donation is an under-researched area with only three research papers published worldwide that report on the motivations and experiences of donors. These studies indicate that donors endorse pro-social values and receive positive interpersonal and intrapersonal benefits from donation. What does this study add? UKDs' experiences are made explicit and provide a framework for future research. Social connections (capital) are an important precursor to and outcome from donation. Assumptions of pathological motivations were encountered by donors in their personal life and within the NHS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexis Clarke
- Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Exeter, UK
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
10
|
Pavlakis M, Kher A. Pre-emptive kidney transplantation to improve survival in patients with type 1 diabetes and imminent risk of ESRD. Semin Nephrol 2013; 32:505-11. [PMID: 23062992 DOI: 10.1016/j.semnephrol.2012.07.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
Despite significant improvements in the treatment of diabetic nephropathy over the past 20 years, patients with type 1 diabetes are at high risk of developing end-stage renal disease and high mortality once end-stage renal disease develops. Type 1 diabetic patients treated with predialysis (pre-emptive) transplantation have a lower death rate than type 1 diabetic patients treated with dialysis. Living donor kidney transplantation is possible before starting dialysis and is associated with better kidney and patient outcomes as compared with transplantation while on dialysis. In addition, a variety of potential donors can be used, not just young, well-matched family members. Through paired kidney donation, blood group ABO-incompatible transplants and transplants across the barrier of anti-human leukocyte antigen antibodies, diabetic patients can receive living donor kidney transplants even if their intended donor is not a good match for them. Despite these expanded options making living donation possible, only a minority of type 1 diabetic patients receive a pre-emptive kidney transplant. Multiple barriers remain that prevent type 1 diabetic patients from enjoying the reduced risk of death afforded by a pre-emptive kidney transplant, including lack of knowledge by primary care physicians, endocrinologists, and nephrologists; late referral for transplantation; patient and family misconceptions about timing of transplantation; and who can be a donor. The vast majority of type 1 diabetic patients are listed for kidney transplantation after the initiation of dialysis. Of these patients, thousands subsequently receive a live donor kidney transplant. We believe that the appropriate agencies and societies should address the barriers to pre-emptive kidney transplantation through nationwide educational initiatives and study the causes of failure to be transplanted before dialysis initiation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Martha Pavlakis
- Renal Division and the Transplant Institute at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
11
|
Abstract
Despite significant improvements in the treatment of diabetic nephropathy over the last 20 years, patients with type 1 diabetes are at high risk of developing end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and high mortality once ESRD develops. The timing of dialysis initiation has occurred earlier over the years, but a recent study has led to a re-evaluation of that approach. People with type 1 diabetes treated with pre-dialysis (pre-emptive) transplantation have a lower death rate than people with type 1 diabetes treated with dialysis. Living donor kidney transplantation is possible before starting dialysis and is associated with better kidney and patient outcomes as compared to transplantation while on dialysis. Multiple barriers remain that prevent people with type 1 diabetes from enjoying the reduced risk of death afforded by a pre-emptive kidney transplant, including lack of knowledge by primary care physicians, endocrinologists and nephrologists, late referral for transplantation, patient and family misconceptions about timing of transplantation and who can be a donor. New data on both the optimal time to initiate dialysis or to pursue transplantation will be reviewed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Pavlakis
- Renal Division, The Transplant Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
|
12
|
Abstract
In the literature, varying terminology for living organ donation can be found. However, there seems to be a need for a new classification to avoid confusion. Therefore, we assessed existing terminology in the light of current living organ donation practices and suggest a more straightforward classification. We propose to concentrate on the degree of specificity with which donors identify intended recipients and to subsequently verify whether the donation to these recipients occurs directly or indirectly. According to this approach, one could distinguish between "specified" and "unspecified" donation. Within specified donation, a distinction can be made between "direct" and "indirect" donation.
Collapse
|
|
13
|
Massey EK, Kranenburg LW, Zuidema WC, Hak G, Erdman RAM, Hilhorst M, Ijzermans JNM, Busschbach JJ, Weimar W. Encouraging psychological outcomes after altruistic donation to a stranger. Am J Transplant 2010; 10:1445-52. [PMID: 20486913 DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2010.03115.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 69] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
In a growing number of transplant centers worldwide, altruistic donors are accepted to anonymously donate a kidney to a stranger. An important hesitation to expand these transplantation programs is the fear of evoking psychological distress in the altruistic donor after donation. To what extent this fear is justified has not yet been systematically investigated. In this study, 24 altruistic donors were interviewed on average 2 years after donation. Lifetime mental health history, current psychological complaints, satisfaction with and impact of the donation on well-being, motives for donation, communication with recipient and donation experience were assessed. Altruistic donors report a considerable positive impact of donation on psychological well-being, whereas negative impact was limited. Satisfaction with donation was very high. Although a history of a psychiatric diagnosis was ascertained in almost half of the donors, psychological complaints before and after donation were comparable to national average norm scores. Motives for donation were genuine and the experience of donation generally conformed to their expectations. In conclusion, living kidney donation to a stranger does not appear to exacerbate psychological complaints. Moreover, altruistic donors report considerable satisfaction and personal benefit. The exceptional gift of altruistic donors can contribute toward solving the current organ shortage issue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E K Massey
- Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC, Postbus 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
14
|
Roodnat JI, Zuidema W, Van De Wetering J, De Klerk M, Erdman RAM, Massey EK, Hilhorst MT, IJzermans JNM, Weimar W. Altruistic donor triggered domino-paired kidney donation for unsuccessful couples from the kidney-exchange program. Am J Transplant 2010; 10:821-827. [PMID: 20199504 DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2010.03034.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 43] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
Between January 2000 and July 2009, 132 individuals inquired about altruistic kidney donation to strangers. These donors were willing to donate to genetically and emotionally unrelated patients. Some altruistic donors wished to donate to a specific person, but most wished to donate anonymously. In domino-paired donation, the altruistic donor donates to the recipient of an incompatible couple; the donor of that couple (domino-donor) donates to another couple or to the waiting list. In contrast to kidney-exchange donation where bilateral matching of couples is required, recipient and donor matching are unlinked in domino-paired donation. This facilitates matching for unsuccessful couples from the kidney-exchange program where blood type O prevails in recipients and is under-represented in donors. Fifty-one altruistic donors (39%) donated their kidney and 35 domino-donors were involved. There were 29 domino procedures, 24 with 1 altruistic donor and 1 domino-donor, 5 with more domino-donors. Eighty-six transplantations were performed. Donor and recipient blood type distribution in the couples limited allocation to blood type non-O waiting list patients. The success rate of domino-paired donation is dependent on the composition of the pool of incompatible pairs, but it offers opportunities for difficult to match pairs that were unsuccessful in the kidney-exchange program.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - R A M Erdman
- Department of Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy
| | | | | | - J N M IJzermans
- Department of General Surgery, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
15
|
Lee YJ, Lee SU, Chung SY, Cho BH, Kwak JY, Kang CM, Park JT, Han DJ, Kim DJ. Clinical outcomes of multicenter domino kidney paired donation. Am J Transplant 2009; 9:2424-8. [PMID: 19624563 DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2009.02747.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
Domino kidney paired donation (KPD) is a method by which an altruistic living nondirected donor (LND) is allocated to a pool of incompatible donor-recipient pairs (DRP) and a series of KPDs is initiated. To evaluate the feasibility and clinical outcomes of multicenter domino KPD, we retrospectively analyzed a cohort of DRPs who underwent domino KPD between February 2001 and July 2007 at one of 16 transplant centers. One hundred seventy-nine kidney transplants were performed, with 70 domino chains initiated by altruistic LND. There were 45 two-pair chains, 15 three-pair chains, 7 four-pair chains, 2 five-pair chains and 1 six-pair chain. A majority of donors were spouses (47.5%) or altruistic LNDs (39.1%). DRPs with a blood type O recipient or an AB donor comprised 45.9% of transplanted DRPs. HLA mismatch improved in transplanted donors compared to intended donors in pairs enrolled to improve HLA mismatch (3.4 +/- 0.7 vs. 4.8 +/- 1.0, p < 0.001). One-year and 5-year graft survival rates were 98.3% and 87.7%, respectively, with a median follow-up of 46 months. One-year and 5-year patient survival rates were 97.2% and 90.8%, respectively. In conclusion, multicenter domino KPD could multiply the benefits of donation from LNDs, with patients and graft survival rates comparable to those seen with conventional KPD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Y J Lee
- Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
16
|
Rodrigue JR, Antonellis T, Mandelbrot DA, Hanto DW. Web-based requests for living organ donors: who are the solicitors? Clin Transplant 2008; 22:749-53. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-0012.2008.00870.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
|
17
|
Fortin MC, Dion-Labrie M, Hébert MJ, Achille M, Doucet H. Are ‘anonymous’ and ‘non-directed’ prerequisites for living altruistic donation? The views of transplant physicians from France and Québec. Soc Sci Med 2008; 67:147-51. [DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.02.026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/16/2007] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
|
18
|
Kranenburg L, Zuidema W, Erdman R, Weimar W, Passchier J, Busschbach J. The psychological evaluation of Samaritan kidney donors: a systematic review. Psychol Med 2008; 38:177-185. [PMID: 17617934 DOI: 10.1017/s0033291707000979] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Living kidney donation to a loved one has become common practice. Another type of living donation that is becoming more acceptable to the transplant community is 'Samaritan donation'. Samaritan kidney donors are willing to donate to patients they do not know. Until recently there has been great reluctance to accept the offers of Samaritan donors because it was feared that these donors might be mentally unstable. METHOD The purpose of this article is to review the literature about the psychological evaluation of potential Samaritan kidney donors for donor suitability. We have performed a systematic literature search in Pubmed, ISI Web of Science and PsycINFO. We compare and discuss how each study approaches the question about Samaritan donor selection. In addition, we have also screened the studies for reports of rejections of Samaritan donors on psychological grounds. RESULTS We have found five articles that at least in some detail describe the evaluation of potential Samaritan donors. For all five articles found, a consultation with either a psychiatrist or a psychologist formed a standard part of the donor evaluation procedure. This evaluation consisted of an interview, and in most instances, additional psychometric testing. According to the articles found, the two major criteria for donor rejection were psychopathology/psychological instability and motivational issues. Three studies reported on the rejection of potential donors on psychological grounds. CONCLUSIONS The evaluation of Samaritan kidney donors is a developing field in clinical medicine. Given the relatively low incidence of these types of donations, we recommend the exchange of experience between centres that run a Samaritan donor programme, in order to improve donor evaluation criteria.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L Kranenburg
- Department of Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
19
|
Rodrigue JR, Pavlakis M, Danovitch GM, Johnson SR, Karp SJ, Khwaja K, Hanto DW, Mandelbrot DA. Evaluating living kidney donors: relationship types, psychosocial criteria, and consent processes at US transplant programs. Am J Transplant 2007; 7:2326-32. [PMID: 17845566 DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2007.01921.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 104] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
We conducted a survey of 132 US kidney transplant programs to examine how they evaluate and select potential living kidney donors, focusing on donor-recipient relationships, psychosocial criteria, and consent processes. There is heterogeneity in donor-recipient relationships that are considered acceptable, although most programs (70%) will not consider publicly solicited donors. Most programs (75%) require a psychosocial evaluation for all potential living donors. Most programs agree that knowledge of financial reward (90%), active substance abuse (86%), and active mental health problems (76%) are absolute contraindications to donation. However, there is greater variability in how other psychosocial issues are considered in the selection process. Consent processes are highly variable across programs: donor and recipient consent for the donor evaluation is presumed in 57% and 76% of programs, respectively. The use of 13 different informed consent elements varied from 65% (alternative donation procedures) to 86% (description of evaluation, surgery and recuperative period) of programs. Forty-three percent use a 'cooling off' period. Findings demonstrate high variability in current practice regarding acceptable donor-recipient relationships, psychosocial criteria, and consent processes. Whether greater consensus should be reached on these donor evaluation practices, especially in the context of more expansive use of living donor kidney transplantation, is discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J R Rodrigue
- Department of Psychiatry, the Transplant Center, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
20
|
Monaco A. Financial rewards for organ donation: are we getting closer? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2007; 7:303-7. [PMID: 20528410 DOI: 10.1586/14737167.7.4.303] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Anthony Monaco
- Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 110 Francis Street, 7th Floor, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
|
21
|
Dew MA, Jacobs CL, Jowsey SG, Hanto R, Miller C, Delmonico FL. Guidelines for the psychosocial evaluation of living unrelated kidney donors in the United States. Am J Transplant 2007; 7:1047-54. [PMID: 17359510 DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2007.01751.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 116] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
Under the auspices of the United Network for Organ Sharing, the American Society of Transplant Surgeons and the American Society of Transplantation, a meeting was convened on May 25, 2006, in Washington, DC, to develop guidelines for the psychosocial evaluation of prospective living kidney donors who have neither a biologic nor longstanding emotional relationship with the transplant candidate. These 'unrelated' donors are increasingly often identified by transplant candidates via the Internet, print media and other public appeals. The expansion of living donor kidney transplantation to include significant numbers of donors with little to no preexisting relationship to the candidate has caused concern in the medical community regarding such psychosocial factors as donor psychological status, motivation, knowledge about donation and the potential for undue pressure to donate under some circumstances. Therefore, experts in mental health; psychosocial, behavioral and transplant medicine; and medical ethics met to specify (a) characteristics of unrelated donors that increase their risk for, or serve as protective factors against, poor donor psychosocial outcomes, (b) basic principles underlying informed consent and evaluation processes pertinent to these donors and (c) the process and content of the donor psychosocial evaluation. The meeting deliberations resulted in the recommendations made in this report.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M A Dew
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
22
|
Kim SJ, Gordon EJ, Powe NR. The economics and ethics of kidney transplantation: perspectives in 2006. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 2007; 15:593-8. [PMID: 17053473 DOI: 10.1097/01.mnh.0000247493.70129.91] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW The field of kidney transplantation has made impressive progress, which has led to marked improvements in both patient and allograft survival. The economic and ethical consequences of these advances have recently garnered increasing attention in the medical literature. This review highlights key articles published in 2005 and 2006. RECENT FINDINGS Major areas of focus in the health economics literature pertaining to kidney transplantation include the most cost-effective strategies for immunosuppressive therapies, the management of posttransplant complications, and the optimal utilization of the current pool of deceased-donor kidneys. Ethical challenges include various aspects of living donation, strategies to expand the donor pool, and the impact of financial policies for immunosuppressive agents on long-term patient and allograft survival. SUMMARY Given the rising demand for kidney transplantation within a setting of scarce resources, the economic and ethical dimensions of transplant medicine are of increasing interest to patients, providers, and payers. Research in these areas will help uncover ways to utilize this important medical technology in the most ethical and cost-effective manner.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Joseph Kim
- Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
23
|
Kranenburg LW, Zuidema W, Weimar W, Passchier J, Hilhorst M, de Klerk M, IJzermans JNM, Busschbach JJV. One donor, two transplants: willingness to participate in altruistically unbalanced exchange donation. Transpl Int 2006; 19:995-9. [PMID: 17081229 DOI: 10.1111/j.1432-2277.2006.00378.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
Kidney exchange donation programs offer a good solution to help patients with a willing, but incompatible living kidney donor. Literature shows that blood type O patients are less likely to be selected for transplantation within a living exchange donation program. 'Altruistically unbalanced donation' could help these blood type O patients: one donor-recipient pair is incompatible (e.g. A-donor > O-recipient) and the other pair is compatible, but not identical (e.g. O-donor > A-recipient). Exchanging these kidneys would result in two compatible living donor kidney transplants. We studied whether compatible pairs would be willing to participate in such procedure. We included 96 living kidney donors and recipients in our study. These donors and recipients could be divided into two groups: (i) donors and their direct recipients (n = 48), and (ii) paired exchange donors and their intended recipients (n = 48). All were asked whether they would be willing to participate in altruistically unbalanced exchange donation, as long as direct donation was also an option. We found no group differences. We found that one third of the donors and recipients are willing to participate in altruistically unbalanced kidney exchanges. Therefore this form of donation may be a feasible addition to already existing living kidney exchange programs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leonieke W Kranenburg
- Department of Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
24
|
Roth AE, Sönmez T, Unver MU, Delmonico FL, Saidman SL. Utilizing list exchange and nondirected donation through 'chain' paired kidney donations. Am J Transplant 2006; 6:2694-705. [PMID: 16981911 DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2006.01515.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 119] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
In a list exchange (LE), the intended recipient in an incompatible pair receives priority on the deceased donor waitlist (DD-waitlist) after the paired incompatible donor donates a kidney to a DD-waitlist candidate. A nondirected donor's (ND-D) kidney is usually transplanted directly to a DD-waitlist candidate. These two established practices would help even more transplant candidates if they were integrated with kidney paired donation (KPD). We consider a scenario in which the donor of an LE intended recipient (LE-IR) donates to a compatible KPD intended recipient (KPD-IR), and the KPD donor (KPD-D) donates to the waitlist (an LE-chain). We consider a similar scenario in which an ND-D donates to a KPD-IR and the KPD-D donates to the DD-waitlist (an ND-chain). Using data derived from the New England Program for Kidney Exchange (NEPKE) and from OPTN/SRTR recipient-donor distributions, simulations are presented to evaluate the potential impact of chain exchanges coordinated with KPD. LE donors (LE-D) and ND-D who are ABO-O result in the highest number of additional transplants, while results for ABO-A and B donors are similar to each other. We recommend that both LE and ND donations be utilized through chain exchanges.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A E Roth
- Harvard University, Department of Economics, Cambridge, Massachusetts and Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
25
|
Abstract
Solid organ transplantation has rapidly developed into the therapy a choice for end-stage organ failure. The expansion of its use has resulted is a large deficiency in organ supply. To address this, the field of organ transplantation has attempted to develop new strategies that would increase the availability of organs for transplant. Some of these strategies include expansion of the donor pool by increasing the number of living donors or using deceased donor organs that may be marginal or “expanded”. The intent is to bring life-saving therapy to individuals in need; however, much of this expansion has been brought forward without clear prospective guidelines. This article focuses on the current disparity between organ supply and demand, and how this has impacted the use of living donors and development of the “expanded donor” concept.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sanjay Kulkarni
- Yale University School of Medicine, Tompkins 202, 333 Cedar Street, New Haven, CT 06520, USA.
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
26
|
Abstract
Strategies to expand the pool of solid organs for transplantation have had only limited success. Waiting times exceeding 5 years and/or waiting mortality are not uncommon. A system of financial rewards for living and deceased organ donation is proposed. The reward program would be administered by the federal government. Donors or beneficiaries would receive a fixed financial reward, similar to the payout of an insurance policy, from a federal agency. Such a system would be consistent with similar financial rewards given in our society to recognize instances of personal self-sacrifice and risk taking performed for the benefit of others.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A P Monaco
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA.
| |
Collapse
|