1
|
Hays R, Gordon EJ, Ison MG, LaPointe Rudow D. Impact of the OPTN transmissible diseases policy and US PHS increased risk donor guidelines on living donor candidates. Am J Transplant 2019; 19:3233-3239. [PMID: 31338956 DOI: 10.1111/ajt.15541] [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: 05/23/2019] [Revised: 06/28/2019] [Accepted: 07/19/2019] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
Donor-derived human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and hepatitis B virus (HBV) transmissions in transplantation have led to policies mandating assessment of donor behavioral history, and disclosure of donor increased risk (IR) status to recipients. Organ Procurement Transplantation Network (OPTN) policy safeguards were promulgated in the context of deceased donation, with its narrow time window for organ utilization and uncertainty about donor history. These policies have been applied to living donation without substantive data on risk of disease transmission in living donor transplantation. Unlike for deceased donors, the OPTN does not collect data on living donor IR status. Given the feasibility of thorough living donor evaluation via already-mandated lab tests and clinical assessments, living donor IR assessment and associated disclosures may have limited benefit in improving recipient informed consent. Applying the current IR policy to living donors may also introduce unintended consequences to donors and recipients, causing donors psychological harm, delays in donation to avoid IR status disclosure, and potential withdrawal from donation. We suggest strategies that reduce risk of harm to donor candidates while maintaining policy compliance, and review additional approaches for evaluating risk of disease transmission in living donor candidates. Data on the risk of disease transmission by living donors are needed to inform policy modification.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca Hays
- Department of Coordinated Care, University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - Elisa J Gordon
- Department of Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Michael G Ison
- Department of Coordinated Care, University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - Dianne LaPointe Rudow
- Recanati Miller Transplantation Institute New York, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, New York
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Lentine KL, Lam NN, Segev DL. Risks of Living Kidney Donation: Current State of Knowledge on Outcomes Important to Donors. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2019; 14:597-608. [PMID: 30858158 PMCID: PMC6450354 DOI: 10.2215/cjn.11220918] [Citation(s) in RCA: 80] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
In the past decade, there have been increasing efforts to better define and quantify the short- and long-term risks of living kidney donation. Recent studies have expanded upon the previous literature by focusing on outcomes that are important to potential and previous donors, applying unique databases and/or registries to follow large cohorts of donors for longer periods of time, and comparing outcomes with healthy nondonor controls to estimate attributable risks of donation. Leading outcomes important to living kidney donors include kidney health, surgical risks, and psychosocial effects of donation. Recent data support that living donors may experience a small increased risk of severe CKD and ESKD compared with healthy nondonors. For most donors, the 15-year risk of kidney failure is <1%, but for certain populations, such as young, black men, this risk may be higher. New risk prediction tools that combine the effects of demographic and health factors, and innovations in genetic risk markers are improving kidney risk stratification. Minor perioperative complications occur in 10%-20% of donor nephrectomy cases, but major complications occur in <3%, and the risk of perioperative death is <0.03%. Generally, living kidney donors have similar or improved psychosocial outcomes, such as quality of life, after donation compared with before donation and compared with nondonors. Although the donation process should be financially neutral, living kidney donors may experience out-of-pocket expenses and lost wages that may or may not be completely covered through regional or national reimbursement programs, and may face difficulties arranging subsequent life and health insurance. Living kidney donors should be fully informed of the perioperative and long-term risks before making their decision to donate. Follow-up care allows for preventative care measures to mitigate risk and ongoing surveillance and reporting of donor outcomes to inform prior and future living kidney donors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Krista L Lentine
- Saint Louis University Center for Abdominal Transplantation, St. Louis, Missouri; .,Department of Medicine, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Ngan N Lam
- Division of Nephrology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; and
| | - Dorry L Segev
- Department of Surgery and .,Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Hanson CS, Ralph AF, Manera KE, Gill JS, Kanellis J, Wong G, Craig JC, Chapman JR, Tong A. The Lived Experience of "Being Evaluated" for Organ Donation: Focus Groups with Living Kidney Donors. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2017; 12:1852-1861. [PMID: 28993303 PMCID: PMC5672970 DOI: 10.2215/cjn.03550417] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/02/2017] [Accepted: 07/17/2017] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Comprehensive evaluations are required to safeguard voluntarism and minimize harm to living kidney donors. This process is lengthy, invasive, and emotionally challenging, with up to one fifth of potential donors opting out. We aimed to describe donors' experiences of the evaluation process. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS We conducted 14 focus groups involving 123 kidney donors who completed donation from three transplant centers (Australia and Canada). Transcripts were analyzed thematically. RESULTS We identified six themes reflecting donors' experiences of evaluation. The themes that related to perseverance included emotional investment (prioritizing the recipient's health, desperation for a normal life, protecting eligibility, shame of disappointing others, and overcoming opposition), undeterred by low risks (medical confidence and protection, worthwhile gamble, inherent invincibility, and normalizing risks), and mental preparation (avoiding regret, resolving decisional ambivalence, and managing expectations of recovery). The challenges included underlying fears for health (processing alarming information, unsettling uncertainty, and preoperative panic), system shortfalls (self-advocacy in driving the process, stressful urgency, inconsistent framing of safety, unnerving bodily scrutiny, questioning risk information, and draining finances); and lifestyle interference (living in limbo, onerous lifestyle disruption, and valuing flexibility). CONCLUSIONS Previous donors described an emotional investment in donating and determination to protect their eligibility, despite having concerns for their health, financial and lifestyle disruption, and opposition from their family or community. Our findings suggest the need to prepare donors for surgery and recovery, minimize anxiety and lifestyle burdens, ensure that donors feel comfortable expressing their fears and concerns, reduce unnecessary delays, and make explicit the responsibilities of donors in their assessment process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Camilla S. Hanson
- Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Centre for Kidney Research, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Angelique F. Ralph
- Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Centre for Kidney Research, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Karine E. Manera
- Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Centre for Kidney Research, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia
| | - John S. Gill
- Division of Nephrology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - John Kanellis
- Department of Nephrology, Monash Health and Centre for Inflammatory Diseases, Department of Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia; and
| | - Germaine Wong
- Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Centre for Kidney Research, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia
- Centre for Transplant and Renal Research, The Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Jonathan C. Craig
- Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Centre for Kidney Research, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Jeremy R. Chapman
- Centre for Transplant and Renal Research, The Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Allison Tong
- Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Centre for Kidney Research, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Lentine KL, Kasiske BL, Levey AS, Adams PL, Alberú J, Bakr MA, Gallon L, Garvey CA, Guleria S, Li PKT, Segev DL, Taler SJ, Tanabe K, Wright L, Zeier MG, Cheung M, Garg AX. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors. Transplantation 2017; 101:S1-S109. [PMID: 28742762 PMCID: PMC5540357 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000001769] [Citation(s) in RCA: 194] [Impact Index Per Article: 27.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2017] [Accepted: 03/20/2017] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Josefina Alberú
- Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Dorry L. Segev
- Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Henderson ML, Gross JA. Living Organ Donation and Informed Consent in the United States: Strategies to Improve the Process. THE JOURNAL OF LAW, MEDICINE & ETHICS : A JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LAW, MEDICINE & ETHICS 2017; 45:66-76. [PMID: 28661285 DOI: 10.1177/1073110517703101] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/07/2023]
Abstract
About 6,000 individuals participate in the U.S. transplant system as a living organ donor each year. Organ donation (most commonly a kidney or part of liver) by living individuals is a unique procedure, where healthy patients undergo a major surgical operation without any direct functional benefit to themselves. In this article, the authors explore how the ideal of informed consent guides education and evaluation for living organ donation. The authors posit that informed consent for living organ donation is a process. Though the steps in this process are partially standardized through national health policy, they can be improved through institutional structures at the local, transplant center-level. Effective structures and practices aimed at supporting and promoting comprehensive informed consent provide more opportunities for candidates to ask questions about the risks and benefits of living donation and to opt out voluntarily Additionally, these practices could enable new ways of measuring knowledge and improving the consent process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Macey L Henderson
- Macey L. Henderson, J.D., Ph.D., is an Instructor of Surgery, Division of Transplant Surgery at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland. She received her J.D. from the Indiana University Maurer School of Law-Bloomington, Indiana and Ph.D. in Health Policy and Management from the Indiana University Fairbanks School of Public Health in Indianapolis, Indiana. Jed Adam Gross, J.D., M.Phil., is a Bioethicist at Toronto General Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, a Ph.D. candidate in History at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and a member of the Massachusetts bar. He earned his B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and his postgraduate degrees from Yale University
| | - Jed Adam Gross
- Macey L. Henderson, J.D., Ph.D., is an Instructor of Surgery, Division of Transplant Surgery at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland. She received her J.D. from the Indiana University Maurer School of Law-Bloomington, Indiana and Ph.D. in Health Policy and Management from the Indiana University Fairbanks School of Public Health in Indianapolis, Indiana. Jed Adam Gross, J.D., M.Phil., is a Bioethicist at Toronto General Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, a Ph.D. candidate in History at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and a member of the Massachusetts bar. He earned his B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and his postgraduate degrees from Yale University
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Lentine KL, Segev DL. Understanding and Communicating Medical Risks for Living Kidney Donors: A Matter of Perspective. J Am Soc Nephrol 2017; 28:12-24. [PMID: 27591246 PMCID: PMC5198293 DOI: 10.1681/asn.2016050571] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/26/2023] Open
Abstract
Communicating the current knowledge of medical outcomes after live kidney donation necessary to support donor candidates in well informed decision-making requires grounding in perspectives of comparison. Baseline risk (without donating), risk attributable to donation, and absolute risk (after donating) need to be considered. Severe perioperative complications and death are rare, but vary by demographic, clinical, and procedure factors. Innovative capture of "healthy" controls designed to simulate donor selection processes has identified higher risk of ESRD attributable to donation in two studies; importantly, however, the absolute 15-year ESRD incidence in donors remains very low (0.3%). In the first decade after donation, the risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events is no higher than in healthy nondonors. Pregnancies in donors may incur attributable risk of gestational hypertension or preeclampsia (11% versus 5% incidence in one study). A modest rise in uric acid levels beginning early after donation, and a small (1.4%) increase in the 8-year incidence of gout, have also been reported in comparisons to healthy nondonors. As in the general population, postdonation outcomes vary by race, sex, and age. Efforts to improve the counseling and selection of living donors should focus on developing tools for tailored risk prediction according to donor characteristics, and ideally, compared with similar healthy nondonors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Krista L. Lentine
- Saint Louis University Center for Abdominal Transplantation, Transplant Nephrology, St. Louis, Missouri;,Department of Medicine, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Dorry L. Segev
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; and,Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Sontrop JM, Garg AX. Considerations for Living Kidney Donation Among Women of Childbearing Age: Evidence from Recent Studies. CURRENT TRANSPLANTATION REPORTS 2016. [DOI: 10.1007/s40472-016-0082-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|