Living kidney transplantation in Brazil: unwanted procedure of choice in view of cadaver organ shortage

Perceptions in living kidney donation: what protagonists think and feel

BACKGROUND

Although donor perceptions of donation have been evaluated in several programs, evaluation of associated recipients has not been as frequent.

PURPOSE

Our aim was to evaluate and compare after transplantation, donor and recipient perceptions of donation.

METHODS

After transplantation 35 recipients and 45 donors completed a sociodemographic and a donation perception questionnaire. We applied the Fisher test to descriptive (absolute and relative frequency) data.

RESULTS

57.8% of donors were female and 62.9% of recipients male. 53.3% of donors were siblings, 44.5% parents, and 2.2% a daughter. Most recipients (71.9%) thought that the donation was the donors' initiative and 21.9% that it was suggested by medical team. 96.4% responded that it was the donor's wish that determined their decision; 51.4% had serious or some doubts about accepting the option, but for 48.6% it was an easy decision. Among the donors, 88.9% decided by themselves and 8.9% were asked for donation. For 91.1%, their wish was the main reason of the decision, but 8.9% felt a moral obligation; 77.8% thought it was an easy decision, and 17.8% hesitated a little 84.4% were not worried about their future health.

CONCLUSIONS

Altruistic motivations were predominant in both groups. Most recipients thought that the motivation for donation was self-determined, a finding that agreed with donor perceptions. Perceptions about the quality of and changes in emotional relationship were the same in both groups. Donors and recipients referred to the donation process as positive, but there were some negative emotions and perceptions.

Depression and anxiety in living kidney donation: evaluation of donors and recipients

BACKGROUND

Psychosocial status of donors before and after living kidney donor transplantation has been an important concern. Investigations of psychosocial issues in related recipients are not frequent.

AIM

The aims of this study were to evaluate and compare psychopathologic dimensions in donors and recipients before and after transplantation.

METHODS

Thirty-five recipients and 45 donors completed a psychosocial evaluation before and after transplantation. We applied Pearson chi-square, McNemar, Fisher, Wilcoxon, and Mann-Whitney tests as well as linear and logistic regression statistical methods.

RESULTS

Before transplantation 100% of the recipients presented total anxiety, compared with 64.4% of donors, with higher anxiety levels in all dimensions (P < .001). Also, 38.7% of recipients and 16.3% of donors had moderate/serious depression (P = .029). Men showed higher levels of cognitive anxiety before transplantation (odds ratio [OR] = 4.3; P = .008). After versus before transplantation central nervous system and cognitive anxiety had diminished in recipients (P = .031; P = .035, respectively); there were higher levels of cognitive anxiety than among the donors (P = .007). Depression showed no significant changes in recipients or donors; the differences were no longer significant. There were less severely depressed recipients but an increase among severely depressed donors. Male recipients and donors showed greater cognitive anxiety (P = .02; P = .04, respectively) at both times. Female recipients presented with more severe depression (P = .036).

CONCLUSIONS

Anxiety is an important symptom. Surgery had a positive impact to lower anxiety in recipients. Most protagonists displayed little or no depression; it was more prevalent among recipients. Donors and recipients maintained some psychopathologic symptoms after surgery. We defined vulnerable groups among these cohorts.

Impact assessment in living kidney donation: psychosocial aspects in the donor

BACKGROUND

Living donor kidney transplantation has a positive influence on graft survival and recipient quality of life (QoL). We assessed the psychosocial impact of donation to the donor.

METHODS

Before and after the procedure 32 living kidney donors (mean age 41 years) completed the Zung Self-Rating Anxiety and Depression Scales; a Sociodemographic, Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), and a Donation Perceptions Questionnaire.

RESULTS

Living kidney donors were siblings (62.5%), parents (34.4%), or a daughter (3.1%). Transplantation was not successful in two cases: one recipient death and one graft failure. No significant changes were observed in donor QoL except for the SF-36 social functioning subscale that showed significant improvement after donation (P = .038). A reduction in depression symptom frequency was verified after donation (from 65.6% to 46.9%). There was an almost significant decrease in depression scores (P = .077), which was in fact was significant when one considered only successful transplants (P = .021). There was no significant variation in anxiety scores among donors. Time since transplantation was inversely correlated with overall anxiety (r = .443, P = .011), and with somatic anxiety subscales (r = .357, P = .045). For most donors, the decision to donate was easy and spontaneous. Nearly all donors would donate again and strongly encourage others to donate.

CONCLUSIONS

Except for the social functioning scale that improved, no significant changes were observed in QoL of living kidney donors after the procedure. Depression scores significantly decreased after donation, but anxiety scores remained stable. Donors, who were mostly siblings, showed positive perceptions about donation, did not regret their decision, and strongly recommend it to others.

Expanding criteria for the use of living donors: what are the limits?

The cadaver organ shortage has pushed the transplant community to extend the boundaries beyond the traditional criteria used for living donor transplantation. This new liberal policy involves: (1) the type of donor, such as emotionally related individuals, the direct or indirect interchange of donors, anonymous as well as rewarded donation; (2) challenging immunological criteria, using incompatible ABO blood types and or transplantation across a positive cross-match; (3) relaxing clinical criteria related to elderly, hypertensive, or obese donors, or patients with nephrolithiasis, fibromuscular renal artery disease, hematuria, or renal cell carcinomas. However, these practices may be dangerous. They must be clearly validated to promote a liberal policy of donor acceptance since it may carry a risk for both the donor and the recipient as well as for society. It is crucial to ensure the physical integrity of the donor as well as to provide guarantees, for instance a 1-year policy of life insurance, an indefinite long-term medical follow-up and the assurance of going to the top of the waiting list if the donor becomes uremic in the future.