New classification of ELPAT for living organ donation

Outcomes and motivations in unspecified (nondirected altruistic) kidney donation: Results from a United Kingdom prospective cohort study

Unspecified kidney donors (UKDs) increase the number of high-quality kidneys available for transplantation. This study aimed to determine whether the practice was acceptable, based on the noninferiority of donor physical and psychosocial outcomes when compared to specified kidney donors (SKDs). This longitudinal, prospective cohort study investigated potential living kidney donors from across all 23 UK adult kidney transplant centers. Participants completed validated questionnaires at 4 time points (recruitment, 2-4 weeks predonation, 3- and 12-months postdonation). Clinical outcome data were collected from National Health Service Blood and Transplant. Three hundred seventy-three (of 837 recruited; 45.7%) went on to donate (November 2016 to January 2021). There were no differences in donation rates (204 SKDs [54.7%] vs 169 UKDs [45.3%]; P = .944). Both groups reported being motivated by the desire to help someone (P = .157). Tests for noninferiority indicated that UKDs do no worse than SKDs on psychosocial or clinical outcomes over 12 months, and costs are similar (P > .05). This is the world's largest prospective observational study comparing SKDs and UKDs. It demonstrates no differences in primary motivation, donation rates, regret, cost, or psychosocial and physical outcomes. These data should reassure transplant professionals and potential donors and can bolster confidence in the practice around the world.

Do ethical views of end-of-life patients' family members impact organ donation decisions?

Background: The relatives of patients who decide to donate their loved one's organs experience dilemmas about organ donation and are affected by culture, religion, and individual views.Aim: The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between the ethical position and personal characteristics of the family members of the patients receiving end-of-life care and their thoughts about organ donation in Turkey.Research design and participants: The study was completed with 158 family members. For data collection, a personal information form and the Ethics Position Questionnaire were used.Ethical considerations: This study was obtained from the ethics committee of the faculty of medicine in Turkey. It was based on voluntary participation, informed consent, confidentiality, and anonymity.Results: All participants in the study shared the same faith and were Muslims. The idealism and relativism tendencies of the participants tended to be high. The number of children, the participants have, participants' status of waiting for an organ transplant, the view that the clergy and health personnel will increase interest in organ donation were identified as factors associated with idealism tendencies. Participants' status of having children, the number of children participants have, participants' status of organ transplant waiting, the view that the health personnel will increase interest in organ donation were identified as factors associated with relativism tendencies (p < 0.0.5).Conclusion: The results of this study demonstrated a relationship between participants' idealism and relativism tendencies, among those with a large number of children, waiting for organ donation, advocating for clergy guidance to increase organ donations, and believing healthcare professionals need not guide to increase organ donations. In light of this finding, it may be recommended to establish a multidisciplinary team, including healthcare professionals and clergy, and to inform the society with accurate information to increase the number of organ donations.

Health-related quality of life in living kidney donors participating in kidney exchange programmes

Background

Kidney exchange programmes (KEPs) have revolutionized living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) by enabling transplants for patients with HLA- or ABO-incompatible donors. However, the implications for donors participating in KEPs, particularly regarding postoperative health-related quality of life (HRQoL), are not well elucidated. This study compares the HRQoL of donors participating in KEPs with donors donating directly (non-KEPs).

Methods

The study included 724 donors, with 121 in the KEP group and 603 in the non-KEP group. Outcomes were assessed using the mental component summary (MCS), physical component summary (PCS), EQ-5D-3L, MVI-20 score, and self-rated pain level. We used a mixed-effects regression model to assess differences between KEP and non-KEP over time, accounting for repeated measures within subjects.

Results

There was a significant temporary decline in both the MCS and PCS post-donation; however, these outcomes returned to pre-donation levels after an interval of 2 months. Donors participating in the KEP had higher PCS and MCS 1-year post-donation. Comparable results were observed in the self-assessed HRQoL using the EQ-5D-3L instrument, as well as in the fatigue scores measured by the MVI-20.

Conclusions

We found that participation in KEPs does not adversely affect donors' short- or long-term mental and physical HRQoL outcomes and that LDKT donors have HRQoL of pre-donation levels soon after donation. These insights are reassuring, indicating that donors participating in KEPs can expect HRQoL comparable to those who do not. This reinforces the viability of KEPs as a safe option for expanding LDKT and findings can inform patient and donor education.

Living Kidney Donation: A Narrative Review of Mid- and Long-term Psychosocial Outcomes

Living kidney donors make a significant contribution to alleviating the organ shortage. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of mid- and long-term (≥12 mo) living donor psychosocial outcomes and highlight areas that have been understudied and should be immediately addressed in both research and clinical practice. We conducted a narrative review by searching 3 databases. A total of 206 articles were included. Living donors can be divided into those who donate to an emotionally or genetically related person, the so-called directed donors, or to an emotionally or genetically unrelated recipient, the so-called nondirected donors. The most commonly investigated (bio)psychosocial outcome after living donation was health-related quality of life. Other generic (bio)psychological outcomes include specific aspects of mental health such as depression, and fatigue and pain. Social outcomes include financial and employment burdens and problems with insurance. Donation-specific psychosocial outcomes include regret, satisfaction, feelings of abandonment and unmet needs, and benefits of living kidney donation. The experience of living donation is complex and multifaceted, reflected in the co-occurrence of both benefits and burden after donation. Noticeably, no interventions have been developed to improve mid- or long-term psychosocial outcomes among living donors. We highlight areas for methodological improvement and identified 3 areas requiring immediate attention from the transplant community in both research and clinical care: (1) recognizing and providing care for the minority of donors who have poorer long-term psychosocial outcomes after donation, (2) minimizing donation-related financial burden, and (3) studying interventions to minimize long-term psychosocial problems.

How Do Financial Obstacles Affect Decision-Making Among Potential Living Organ Donors?

Introduction: Living donation increases the organ supply, but associated non-medical expenses can disincentivize donation. Programs aimed at increasing living donation need to better understand how financial obstacles, including lost wages, impact the decision to pursue donation. Methods/Approach: Forty-eight interviews were conducted and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Findings: Three key themes were identified that influenced decision-making: emotional attachment, temporal flexibility, and job security. These themes emerged when dividing interview participants into 3 groups: close relationship donors, broader network donors, and non-directed donors, representing donation to a family member or friend, a specific person they do not know well or at all, or a non-specified individual, respectively. Most close relationship donors wanted to donate regardless of personal financial cost, based on emotional attachment to the recipient. Wage reimbursement did not typically affect their decision-making but could reduce stress. Since non-directed donors did not donate to a specific individual, they could wait to achieve financial stability before donating, if needed. While wage reimbursement might create more proximate stability, non-directed donors had the flexibility to postpone donations until they could independently achieve financial stability. Lacking emotional attachment and temporal flexibility, broader network donors were particularly active decision-makers and most influenced by wage reimbursement. Across all groups, donors with job security were more resolute about donating. Conclusion: The findings underscore the importance of lost wage reimbursement to facilitate donation and reduce stress, and policies to protect donor job security.

Living Organ Donation for Transplantation in Bangladesh: Reality and Problems

The stipulation of living organ transplantation policy and practice in Bangladesh is family-oriented, with relatives being the only people legally eligible to donate organs. There have been very few transplantations of bone marrows, liver lobes, and kidneys from related-living donors in Bangladesh. The major question addressed in this study is why Bangladesh is not getting adequate organs for transplantation. In this study, I examin the stipulations of the policy and practice of living organ donation through the lens of 32 key stakeholders including physicians and nurses, a health administrator, organ donors and recipients, and their family members, as they can shed light on the realities and problems of organ donation for transplantation in Bangladesh. My ethnography reveals that the family members are always encouraged to donate organs for transplantation, and saving the lives of relatives through organ donation is seen as a moral obligation. Many view saving the life of a relative by donating one's organs as equivalent to saving one's own life. An assessment of the dynamics of biomedicine, religion, and culture leads to the conclusion that the family-oriented organ donation policy and practice have been widely endorsed and accepted in Bangladesh, and Islamic ethical principles and collective family ethos undergird that policy and practice. However, the unavailability of medical resources, lack of post-operative coverage for organ donors, religious misconceptions and unawareness of the general public, and the absence of posthumously donated vital organs for transplantation are perceived to be the most common barriers to a successful living donor-recipient pair organ transplantation. By overcoming these obstacles, Bangladesh can develop a successful living donor-recipient pair organ transplantation program that will ensure improved healthcare outcomes, promote altruism and solidarity among Bangladeshi families, and protect the poor from having their organs sold to wealthy patients.

Semidirected living donors in Israel: Sociodemographic profile, religiosity, and social tolerance

Living kidney donations in Israel come from 2 sources: family members and individuals who volunteer to donate their kidney to patients with whom they do not have personal acquaintance. We refer to the first group as directed living donors (DLDs) and the second as semidirected living donors (SDLDs). The incidence of SDLD in Israel is ∼60%, the highest in the world. We introduce results of a survey among 749 living donors (349 SDLDs and 400 DLDs). Our data illustrate the sociodemographic profile of the 2 groups and their answers to a series of questions regarding spirituality and social tolerance. We find SDLDs to be sectorial: they are mainly married middle-class religious men who reside in small communities. However, we found no significant difference between SDLDs and DLDs in their social tolerance. Both groups ranked high and expressed tolerance toward different social groups. Semidirected living donation enables donors to express general preferences as to the sociodemographic features of their respected recipients. This stirs a heated debate on the ethics of semidirected living donation. Our study discloses a comprehensive picture of the profile and attitudes of SDLDs in Israel, which adds valuable data to the ongoing debate on the legitimacy of semidirected living donation.

The Altruism Requirement as Moral Fiction

It is widely agreed that living kidney donation is permitted but living kidney sales are not. Call this the Received View. One way to support the Received View is to appeal to a particular understanding of the conditions under which living kidney transplantation is permissible. It is often claimed that donors must act altruistically, without the expectation of payment and for the sake of another. Call this the Altruism Requirement. On the conventional interpretation, the Altruism Requirement is a moral fact. It states a legitimate constraint on permissible transplantation and is accepted on the basis of cogent argument. The present paper offers an alternative interpretation. I suggest the Altruism Requirement is a moral fiction-a kind of motivated falsehood. It is false that transplantation requires altruism. But the Requirement serves a purpose. Accepting it allows kidney donation but not kidney sale. It, in short, rationalizes the Received View.

Psychological Impact of Living Kidney Donation: A Systematic Review by the EAU-YAU Kidney Transplant Working Group

We performed a systematic literature review of the psychological impact on donors of living kidney donation. We conducted a literature review in PubMed/Medline according to PRISMA guidelines which included both qualitative (based on interviews) and quantitative studies (based on standardized questionnaire). There were 15 quantitative studies and 8 qualitative studies with 2,732 donors. Given that the methodologies of qualitative and quantitative studies are fundamentally different, we narratively synthetized results of studies according to four axes: quality of life, anxiety/depression, consequences of donation on the donor/recipient relationship, overall satisfaction and regret. The quantitative studies reported that donor quality of life remained unchanged or improved. Donor regret rates were very low and donor-recipient relationships also remained unchanged or improved. Qualitative studies reported more complex donation experiences: one can regret donation and still decide to recommend it as in a social desirability bias. In both study types, donor-recipient relationships were closer but qualitative studies reported that post-donation rebonding was required. The qualitative studies therefore highlighted the psychological complexity of donation for donors, showing that living donation impacts the donor's life whether it is successful or not. A better understanding of the impact of donation on donors could provide better care for donors.

Exploring Staff Attitudes Towards Unspecified Kidney Donors in the United Kingdom: Results From the BOUnD Study

Unspecified kidney donation (UKD) has made substantial contributions to the UK living donor programme. Nevertheless, some transplant professionals are uncomfortable with these individuals undergoing surgery. This study aimed to qualitatively explore the attitudes of UK healthcare professionals towards UKD. An opportunistic sample was recruited through the Barriers and Outcomes in Unspecified Donation (BOUnD) study covering six UK transplant centres: three high volume and three low volume centres. Interview transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. The study provided comprehensive coverage of the UK transplant community, involving 59 transplant professionals. We identified five themes: staff's conception of the ethics of UKD; presence of the known recipient in the donor-recipient dyad; need for better management of patient expectations; managing visceral reactions about the "typical" unspecified kidney donor; complex attitudes toward a promising new practice. This is the first in-depth qualitative study of attitudes of transplant professionals towards UKD. The data uncovered findings with strong clinical implications for the UKD programme, including the need for a uniform approach towards younger candidates that is adhered to by all transplant centres, the need to equally extend the rigorous assessment to both specified and unspecified donors, and a new approach to managing donor expectations.

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.

Twenty Years of Unspecified Kidney Donation: Unspecified Donors Looking Back on Their Donation Experiences

The Netherlands was the first European country to implement unspecified kidney donation in 2000. This qualitative study aimed to evaluate the experiences of unspecified kidney donors (UKDs) in our transplant institute to improve the care for this valuable group of donors. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 106 UKDs who donated between 2000-2016 (response rate 84%). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and independently coded by 2 researchers in NVivo using thematic analysis. The following 14 themes reflecting donor experiences were found: Satisfaction with donation; Support from social network; Interpersonal stress; Complaints about hospital care; Uncertainty about donor approval; Life on hold between approval and actual donation; Donation requires perseverance and commitment; Recovery took longer than expected; Normalization of the donation; Becoming an advocate for living kidney donation; Satisfaction with anonymity; Ongoing curiosity about outcome or recipient; Importance of anonymous communication; Anonymity is not watertight. The data reinforced that unspecified kidney donation is a positive experience for donors and that they were generally satisfied with the procedures. Most important complaints about the procedure concerned the length of the assessment procedure and the lack of acknowledgment for UKDs from both their recipients and health professionals. Suggestions are made to address the needs of UKDs.

Assessment of Community Knowledge of and Attitude Toward Organ Donation in Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

The demand for organ donation has increased because of the sharp rise in the number of transplant candidates worldwide. The main influences on the organ donation rate in Saudi Arabia were religious considerations and a lack of knowledge. The aim of this study was to explore community knowledge of and attitude toward organ donation in Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

An online cross-sectional survey study was conducted to assess community knowledge of and attitude toward organ donation in Saudi Arabia in January 2022. The study population consisted of everyone who is currently residing in Saudi Arabia and is aged ≥18 years. The participants were questioned regarding the types of organs that might be donated, the potential health risks associated with organ donation, and the Saudi Arabian system for organ donation. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of better knowledge of and attitude toward organ donation.

RESULTS

The study involved 1208 participants, of which 63% reported that they would be willing to donate their organs for a family member. The most reported organs for which the participants reported they are willing to donate were the kidneys (48%), liver (25%), and heart (21%). Most reported that they would donate their organs to save someone's life (93%). The study participants showed mild to moderate level of knowledge about organ donation with a mean score of 5.4 (standard deviation [SD] 1.6), which is equal to 68% of the maximum obtainable score (which is 8). The study participants showed a mild positive attitude toward organ donation with a mean score of 3.3 (SD 1.3), which is equal to 47% of the maximum obtainable score (which is 7). Younger participants (aged 19-30 years) and those who work in the health care sector were more likely than others to be knowledgeable about organ donation (P ≤ .01). At the same time, participants aged 31 to 40 years were more likely than others to have positive attitudes toward organ donation (P ≤ .01).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study participants showed mild to moderate level of knowledge of and mild positive attitude toward organs donation. Awareness campaigns should be directed toward the elderly population to enhance their awareness and attitude toward this important lifesaving practice.

A qualitative systematic review of anonymous/unspecified living kidney and liver donors' perspectives

OBJECTIVES & BACKGROUND

Anonymous live organ donors or unspecified donors are individuals willing to be organ donors for any transplant recipient with whom they have no biological or antecedent emotional relationship. Despite excellent recipient outcomes and the potential to help address organ scarcity, controversy surrounds the unconditional act of gifting one's organs to an unrelated recipient. This qualitative systematic review provides insights into the first-hand experiences, motivations, and challenges that unspecified donors face.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science database for qualitative literature regarding unspecified living donors' motivations and experiences in liver and kidney transplantation. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted to generate themes and supportive subthemes.

RESULTS

12 studies were included. The four major themes were (i) motivations, (ii) perception of risks, (iii) donor support, and (iv) benefits of donation. Unspecified donors demonstrated a deep sense of social responsibility but tended to underestimate health risks in favour of benefits for recipients. Despite the lack of emotional support from family and friends, the decision to donate was a resolute personal decision for donors. Majority benefitted emotionally and did not express regret.

CONCLUSION

This qualitative review bridges the gap in literature on unspecified living donor psychology and provides a comprehensive understanding of the decision-making matrix and experiences of donors.

Challenges and Opportunities in the Supply of Living Kidney Donation in the UK National Health Service: An Economic Perspective

End-stage kidney disease is a significant burden on the healthcare systems of many countries, and this is likely to continue because of an increasingly aging and comorbid population. Multiple studies have demonstrated a significant clinical benefit in transplantation when compared with dialysis, however, there continues to be a shortage of donor kidneys available. This article provides an economic perspective on issues pertinent to living kidney donation and transplantation. Although ethics, equity, and cultural considerations often seem at odds with economic concepts around resource allocation, this article explains the situation around supply and demand for living kidneys and illustrates how this has been addressed in the economic literature. The article discusses different policy recommendations for resolving the imbalance between supply and demand in kidney donation, through policies under 3 main approaches: increasing supply, decreasing demand, and improving the allocation of kidney supply.

The altruistic elderly, a valuable but unrecognised kidney donor group. A case report of an 85-year-old unspecified kidney donor

Background

Kidney transplantation is the definitive treatment for end stage renal disease (ESRD), offering improved quality of life and survival benefit over remaining on dialysis. There is, however, a prevailing significant mismatch between patients awaiting transplantation and available donor kidneys. Over time, initial stringent donor criteria have broadened and organs from extended criteria donors (ECDs) and older donors are now being accepted for transplantation. The spectrum of living donors has also undergone a change from close family members to an increasingly non-related, non-directed altruistic donors, newly classified as ‘unspecified’ donors. Unspecified elderly donors could be a potential untapped resource to expanding the kidney donor pool globally.

Case Presentation

We present a case of an 85 year and 8 months old individual, who donated to an unrelated non-directed matched recipient in the national deceased donor transplant waiting list with excellent donor and recipient outcomes at 7 years.

Conclusion

To our knowledge she is one of the oldest reported unspecified living kidney donors in the world to date. This case illustrates that elderly donors in good health can come forward to donate, knowing that it is safe and valuable. Once the immediate perioperative challenges after kidney donation are managed, elderly donors rarely encounter long term sequelae. We therefore report this case to increase awareness and refocus attention of transplant teams on elderly donors as a potential untapped group to help address the organ shortage problem in renal transplantation.

Nondirected Living Kidney Donation and Recipient Outcomes in the United States: A 20-Year Review

Introduction

Nondirected donation (NDD) of the kidneys is a growing practice where donors who do not have any genetic or emotional relationship are selected to donate to a wide variety of recipients with a range of selection criteria and decisions which are left up to individual transplant centers.

Methods

We review all adult living kidney donor-recipient (DR) pairs and outcomes from NDDs who were recorded in United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database as code 10 (anonymous) from October 1997 to September 2017 for demographics and outcomes.

Results

A total of 2174 DR pairs were identified. The number of NDDs increased from 18 in 2000 to 256 in 2016. Survival analysis showed higher death-censored-graft survival (DC-GS) when recipient was 20 years or more older than donor followed by recipient-donor within 20 years of age and lowest when donor was 20 years or more older than recipient (P = 0.0114).

Conclusion

Overall, the number of NDDs has increased significantly in the 20-year review period. Transplants from NDDs have excellent long-term outcomes. Better matching of controllable DR factors, such as age and body mass index (BMI), could further improve GS. Further research is needed to incorporate these DR factors into paired kidney donation programs potentially enhancing the utility and beneficence of this invaluable donation.

Relinquishing Anonymity in Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: Lessons Learned From the UK Policy for Anonymous Donors

Anonymous living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is performed in many countries and policies on anonymity differ. The UK is the only European country with a conditional policy, allowing pairs to break anonymity post-transplant. There is little evidence on how contact after anonymous LDKT is experienced. In this cross-sectional study participants who donated or received a kidney through non-directed altruistic kidney donation or within the UK living kidney sharing scheme completed a questionnaire on their experiences with and attitudes towards anonymity. Non-parametric statistics were used to analyse the data. 207 recipients and 354 donors participated. Anonymity was relinquished among 11% of recipients and 8% of donors. Non-anonymous participants were generally content with non-anonymity. They reported positive experiences with contact/meeting the other party. Participants who remained anonymous were content with anonymity, however, 38% would have liked to meet post-transplant. If the other party would like to meet, this number increased to 64%. Although participants agreed with anonymity before surgery, they believe that, if desired, a meeting should be allowed after surgery. UK donors and recipients were satisfied with conditional anonymity and experiences with breaking anonymity were positive. These results support the expansion of conditional anonymity to other countries that allow anonymous LDKT.

Living Kidney Donor Knowledge of Provided Information and Informed Consent: The PRINCE Study

BACKGROUND

Informed consent for living kidney donation is paramount, as donors are healthy individuals undergoing surgery for the benefit of others. The informed consent process for living kidney donors is heterogenous, and the question concerns how well they are actually informed. Knowledge assessments, before and after donor education, can form the basis for a standardized informed consent procedure for live kidney donation.

METHODS

In this prospective, a multicenter national cohort study conducted in all eight kidney transplant centers in The Netherlands, we assessed the current status of the informed consent practice for live donor nephrectomy. All of the potential living kidney donors in the participating centers were invited to participate. They completed a pop quiz during their first outpatient appointment (Cohort A). Living kidney donors completed the same pop quiz upon admission for donor nephrectomy (Cohort B).

RESULTS

In total, 656 pop quizzes were completed (417 in Cohort A, and 239 in Cohort B). The average donor knowledge score was 7.0/25.0 (±3.9, range 0-18) in Cohort A, and 10.5/25.0 (±2.8, range 0-17.5) in Cohort B. Cohort B scored significantly higher on overall knowledge, preparedness, and the individual item scores (p < 0.0001), except for the long-term complications (p = 0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

Donor knowledge generally improves during the live donor workup, but it is still quite disappointing. Long-term complications, especially, deserve more attention during living kidney donor education.

Positive and negative aspects of mental health after unspecified living kidney donation: A cohort study

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.

Have we reached the limits in altruistic kidney donation?

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.

Organ donation in the US and Europe: The supply vs demand imbalance

Organ donation and transplantation remain the best and most cost-effective clinical solution for end-stage organ failure. Several agencies across the US and Europe provide legislative, regulatory, and humanitarian services to generate smoother applications in all transplantation processes and donor-recipient relationships. US and European statistics present nine types of grafts, with kidneys being the most transplanted organ worldwide. However, organ shortage, religion, underrepresented minority groups, difficulties in obtaining consent, lack of understanding, and general ethical concerns present challenging barriers to organ donation, reflecting the complexity of graft procurement and allocation. Breaking down these barriers to reduce the organ-supply imbalance requires an appropriate multifaceted approach. Some of the key areas include increasing the potential donor pool and consent rates, apt organ allocation, and improving organ health. Additionally, suitable policies and standardized guidelines for both donors and recipients, alongside educational initiatives, are needed to ensure patient safety and global awareness. Looking forward, novel and effective research plans and initiatives are needed if we are to avoid a colossal supply-demand gap.

Psychological characteristics and associations between living kidney transplantation recipients and biologically related or unrelated donors

BACKGROUND

Although recipients and donors in living kidney transplantation experience psychological distress-including depression and anxiety-during the pre-operative period, very few studies have evaluated the related psychological reactions. This study aimed to determine the characteristics and correlations of the mood states and personality of recipients and donors (genetically related and unrelated) of living kidney transplantations.

METHODS

A total of 66 pairs of living donors and recipients were enrolled from April 2008 to June 2019 in this study, of whom 53 eligible pairs of living donors and recipients were included in the retrospective analysis of their psychological assessments in the pre-transplantation states. While participants' personality patterns were assessed using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2), mood states were evaluated via both the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). Statistical analysis was performed using paired t-tests and Spearman's correlation analyses.

RESULTS

The recipient group showed significantly higher scores for Hypochondriasis (t = - 4.49, p = .0001), Depression (t = - 3.36, p = .0015), and Hysteria (t = - 3.30, p = .0018) of MMPI-2 and CES-D (t = - 3.93, p = .0003) than the donor group. The biologically unrelated recipient group reported higher scores of Hypochondriasis (t = - 3.37, p = .003) and Depression (t = - 2.86, p = 0.0098) than the unrelated donor group. Higher scores for Hypochondriasis (t = - 3.00, p = 0.0054) and CES-D (t = - 3.53, p = .0014) were found in the related recipient group. A positive association was found for Hypomania (r = .40, p = .003) of MMPI-2, STAI-S (r = .36, p = .009), and CES-D (r = .36, p = .008) between the recipient and donor groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Recipients suffered from a higher level of depression and somatic concerns than donors before living kidney transplantation. Psychological problems like depression and anxiety can occur in both living kidney transplantation donors and recipients. This study suggests that clinicians must pay attention to mood states not only in recipients but also in donors because of emotional contagion.

Unspecified live kidney donation by urological patients

BACKGROUND

Individuals with benign kidney disorders undergoing nephrectomy have three possibilities: Autotransplantation, with a certain risk of complications, but without a clear benefit; discarding the kidney; or living kidney donation.

AIM

To investigate whether patients with benign kidney disorders and a medical indication for nephrectomy are suitable as unspecified live kidney donors.

METHODS

We searched all clinical data from 1994-2019 for unspecified donors and their transplant recipients (n = 160). Nine of these 160 donors had pre-existing kidney disorders necessitating nephrectomy and had decided to donate their kidney anonymously after discussing the possibility of kidney donation. We studied the clinical course of these nine donating patients and their transplant recipients.

RESULTS

Seven of nine donating patients indicated unbearable loin pain as the main complaint, one donating patient refused ureterocutaneostomy and one had two aneurysms of the renal artery. Postoperatively, seven donating patients described absence of pain and one a significant reduction after the nephrectomy. The average 1-year creatinine level in the donating patients was 88 µmol/L and after a median of 6.9 years the average creatinine level was 86.6 µmol/L. In the transplant recipients, one major complication occurred which led to death and in one transplant recipient graft function failed to normalize at first but has been stable for nine years now. Currently, all transplant recipients are off dialysis.

CONCLUSION

Our data show that patients undergoing nephrectomy as part of treatment in selected kidney disorders can function as live kidney donors.

Factors Influencing Decision Making About Living Donation Among Medical Students

AIM

This study aimed to assess the factors influencing decision making about living donation among medical students.

METHOD

Three standardized survey questionnaires (the Altruism Questionnaire A-N, the Individual Questionnaire for studying approaches to transplantology, the Interpersonal Reactivity Index) were used among 316 students of nursing and paramedics.

RESULTS

Nearly all the respondents (98%) approve cell transplantation, tissue transplantation, and organ transplantation if obtained from living donors. Of the respondents, 66% would consent to donate bone marrow, and 26% would give their consent only in specific situations. Most respondents reported to be encouraged to donate organs by the ability to help other people (56%), while their refusal would be because of the fear of undergoing medical procedures (13%). Older age and a higher score in the personal distress subscale are correlated with a lack of consent to donate bone marrow for transplantation. In the case of living organ donation, the increase in the scores in the fantasy scale caused a higher chance for consent to living donation, whereas older age was the predictor of lack of consent. Higher scores in the perspective taking subscale were found to be significantly correlated with fear of surgical treatment as the reason for refusing to give one's consent to living donation. The belief that willingness to become a donor shows a person who has a sense of prosocial behavior was influenced by the fantasy and the empathic concern subscales.

CONCLUSIONS

The study group approves cell transplantation, tissue transplantation, and organ transplantation from living donors. These attitudes are determined by empathic behavior.

Donating a Kidney to a Stranger: A Review of the Benefits and Controversies of Unspecified Kidney Donation

OF BACKGROUND DATA

Unspecified kidney donation (UKD) describes living donation of a kidney to a stranger. The practice is playing an increasingly important role within the transplant programme in the United Kingdom, where these donors are commonly used to trigger a chain of transplants; thereby amplifying the benefit derived from their donation. The initial reluctance to accept UKD was in part due to uncertainty about donor motivations and whether the practice was morally and ethically acceptable.

OBJECTIVES

This article provides an overview of UKD and answers common questions regarding the ethical considerations, clinical assessment, and how UKD kidneys are used to maximize utility. Existing literature on outcomes after UKD is also discussed, along with current controversies.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe UKD is an ethically acceptable practice which should continue to grow, despite its controversies. In our experience, these donors are primarily motivated by a desire to help others and utilization of their kidney as part of a sharing scheme means that many more people seek to benefit from their very generous donation.

Raising awareness of unspecified living kidney donation: an ELPAT view

BACKGROUND

Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the preferred treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease and unspecified living kidney donation is morally justified. Despite the excellent outcomes of LDKT, unspecified kidney donation (UKD) is limited to a minority of European countries due to legal constraints and moral objections. Consequently, there are significant variations in practice and approach between countries and the contribution of UKD is undervalued. Where UKD is accepted as routine, an increasing number of patients in the kidney exchange programme are successfully transplanted when a 'chain' of transplants is triggered by a single unspecified donor. By expanding the shared living donor pool, the benefit of LDKT is extended to patients who do not have their own living donor because a recipient on the national transplant list always completes the chain. Is there a moral imperative to increase the scope of UKD and how could this be achieved?

METHODS

An examination of the literature and individual country practices was performed to identify the limitations on UKD in Europe and recommend strategies to increase transplant opportunities.

RESULTS

Primary limitations to UKD, key players and their roles and responsibilities were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Raising awareness to encourage the public to volunteer to donate is appropriate and desirable to increase UKD. Recommendations are made to provide a framework for increasing awareness and engagement in UKD. The public, healthcare professionals, policy makers and society and religious leaders have a role to play in creating an environment for change.

Living Anonymous Renal Donors Do Not Regret: Intermediate and Long-Term Follow-Up with a Focus on Motives and Psychosocial Outcomes

BACKGROUND Living anonymous donation (LAD) of kidneys was introduced in Sweden in 2004. This study reports on outcomes of Swedish LAD experiences from 2004 to 2016, focusing on donors' motives, the care they received, psychosocial aspects, and medical status at follow-up. MATERIAL AND METHODS Donor data were collected through a physician interview, medical check-up, review of medical charts, the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS), and a routine national questionnaire. Of the 26 LADs during the study period, 1 donor died and 1 declined to participate, leaving a study population of 24. RESULTS Half of the donors were male, which is a higher proportion than for directed living donors. The major motive detected was altruism. Of the 24 LADs, 96% were very satisfied and would donate again if possible, 46% noted increased self-esteem, and a third were happier after the donation. Sixty-two percent received anonymous information about the recipient and 40% would have liked to meet the recipient. HADS scores were normal. Two donors had antidepressant treatment, 1 of whom had received treatment before donation. Half mentioned that the pre-donation assessment took too long. At follow-up, mean eGFR was 62±12 mL/min/1.73 m², of which 16 were in CKD II and 8 were in CKD III. Four donors had developed hypertension, 1 of whom also developed type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS Swedish LADs are very satisfied and medical outcomes are acceptable. We propose that the transplant community and the National Board of Health and Welfare take a more active approach to informing the general public about LAD.

The Meaning of Being a Living Kidney, Liver, or Stem Cell Donor-A Meta-Ethnography

BACKGROUND

Studies on living donors from the donors' perspective show that the donation process involves both positive and negative feelings involving vulnerability. Qualitative studies of living kidney, liver, and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell donors have not previously been merged in the same analysis. Therefore, our aim was to synthesize current knowledge of these donors' experiences to deepen understanding of the meaning of being a living donor for the purpose of saving or extending someone's life.

METHODS

The meta-ethnography steps presented by Noblit and Hare in 1988 were used.

RESULTS

Forty-one qualitative studies from 1968 to 2016 that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were analyzed. The studies comprised experiences of over 670 donors. The time since donation varied from 2 days to 29 years. A majority of the studies, 25 of 41, were on living kidney donors. The synthesis revealed that the essential meaning of being a donor is doing what one feels one has to do, involving 6 themes; A sense of responsibility, loneliness and abandonment, suffering, pride and gratitude, a sense of togetherness, and a life changing event.

CONCLUSIONS

The main issue is that one donates irrespective of what one donates. The relationship to the recipient determines the motives for donation. The deeper insight into the donors' experiences provides implications for their psychological care.

Recipient Outcomes From Nondirected Live Kidney Donors: A UK-based Cohort Study

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.

Donor and Recipient Perspectives on Anonymity in Kidney Donation From Live Donors: A Multicenter Survey Study

BACKGROUND

Maintaining anonymity is a requirement in the Netherlands and Sweden for kidney donation from live donors in the context of nondirected (or unspecified) and paired exchange (or specified indirect) donation. Despite this policy, some donors and recipients express the desire to know one another. Little empirical evidence informs the debate on anonymity. This study explored the experiences, preferences, and attitudes of donors and recipients toward anonymity.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective observational multicenter study using both qualitative and quantitative methods.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

414 participants from Dutch and Swedish transplantation centers who received or donated a kidney anonymously (nondirected or paired exchange) completed a questionnaire about anonymity. Participation was a median of 31 months after surgery.

FACTORS

Country of residence, donor/recipient status, transplant type, time since surgery.

OUTCOMES

Experiences, preferences, and attitudes toward anonymity.

RESULTS

Most participants were satisfied with their experience of anonymity before and after surgery. A minority would have liked to have met the other party before (donors, 7%; recipients, 15%) or after (donors, 22%; recipients, 31%) surgery. Significantly more recipients than donors wanted to meet the other party. Most study participants were open to meeting the other party if the desire was mutual (donors, 58%; recipients, 60%). Donors agree significantly more with the principle of anonymity before and after surgery than recipients. Donors and recipients thought that if both parties agreed, it should be permissible to meet before or after surgery. There were few associations between country or time since surgery and experiences or attitudes. The pros and cons of anonymity reported by participants were clustered into relational and emotional, ethical, and practical and logistical domains.

LIMITATIONS

The relatively low response rate of recipients may have reduced generalizability. Recall bias was possible given the time lag between transplantation and data collection.

CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory study illustrated that although donors and recipients were usually satisfied with anonymity, the majority viewed a strict policy on anonymity as unnecessary. These results may inform policy and education on anonymity.

The ELPAT living organ donor Psychosocial Assessment Tool (EPAT): from 'what' to 'how' of psychosocial screening - a pilot study

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.

Toward a conditional approach to anonymity? An explorative multicenter longitudinal study among anonymous living kidney donors and recipients

Anonymity between living donors and recipients is a topic of discussion among transplant professionals. This longitudinal study explored living kidney donors' and patients' perspectives on anonymity. Prior to surgery (T0) and 3 months afterward (T1), participants in unspecified or specified indirect donation programs completed a questionnaire on their experiences with and attitudes toward anonymity as well as demographic and medical characteristics. Nonparametric tests were used to assess group differences and associations. Participants were content with anonymity at T0 and T1. Fourteen and 23% wanted to meet at T0 and T1, respectively. If the other party expressed the wish to meet, 50% (T0) and 55% (T1) would be willing to meet. Most participants agreed that meeting should be allowed if both parties agree. Attitude toward anonymity did not differ between donors/recipients, nor between T0/T1 and unspecified/specified indirect donation programs. This study showed that most donors and recipients who participated in anonymous donation schemes are in favor of a conditional approach to anonymity. Guidelines on how to revoke anonymity if both parties agree are needed and should include education about pros and cons of (non-) anonymity and a logistical plan on how, when, where, and by whom anonymity should be revoked.

What's Mine is Yours: Long-Term Experiences of Good Samaritan Organ Donors

This study is a long-term follow-up on the health and quality of life of Good Samaritan living organ donors who donated an average of 10 years ago. Thirteen donors (kidney, liver, and lung) completed 2 surveys. Data from the RAND 36-Item Health Survey showed that for all domains, as well as the physical and mental component summary scales, the Good Samaritan donor outcomes were superior to the general population (P < .0001). Data from the European Living Donor Satisfaction Survey (EULID) showed that in all 8 theme areas, the donors reported statistically significant positive reactions as compared to negative reactions. With regard to self-reported health status, there was a strong, positive correlation between the RAND 36-Item Health Survey and the EULID (n = 13, Pearson correlation coefficient: 0.874). All but 1 donor reported good, very good, or excellent health status. Although donors overwhelmingly reported positivity about the donation experience, narrative comments about adverse events and recipient death must keep transplant teams alert to these critical areas. Good Samaritan organ donors come to the hospital healthy, give a gift to a stranger, and sometimes leave and linger disabled. Donor teams should be observing, questioning, and responding in an effort to maximize their welfare. This research is unique because investigation of the long-term health and psychosocial outcomes of Good Samaritan organ donors is rare. Existing studies that report long-term outcomes of kidney donors do not separately analyze Good Samaritan donor data from related living donors.

Dealing With Public Solicitation of Organs From Living Donors--An ELPAT View

Although transplant professionals have initially been reluctant to perform transplants after public solicitation of organs from living donors, nowadays these transplants are increasingly being performed and reported. After clarifying the existing terminology, we elaborate an operational definition of public solicitation that is consistent with the Ethical, Legal, and Psychosocial Aspects of Transplantation classification for living organ donation. Our aim is to critically assess this phenomenon, from a legal, moral, and practical perspective, and to offer some recommendations. From a legal point of view, we analyze the current situation in the Europe and the United States. From a moral perspective, we evaluate the various arguments used in the literature, both in favor and against. Finally, we offer a set of recommendations aimed at maximizing the organ donor pool while safeguarding the interests of potential living donors.

Better the donor you know? A qualitative study of renal patients' views on 'altruistic' live-donor kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

In the UK there is a short-fall between individuals requiring a renal transplant and kidneys available for transplantation. Non-directed 'altruistic' living kidney donation has emerged as a strategy for bridging this gap between supply and demand, with the number increasing each year.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the views of potential recipients towards non-directed 'altruistic' live-donor kidney transplantation.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with 32 UK deceased-donor kidney transplant recipients were performed. Interviews explored willingness to consider directed and non-directed live-donor kidney transplants (LDKTs). Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and transcripts were analysed using the constant comparison method described in Grounded Theory.

RESULTS

For those not willing to accept a non-directed 'altruistic' LDKT, the following themes were identified: i) Prioritising other recipients above self; ii) Fear of acquiring an unknown donor's characteristics, and iii) Concern for the donor - unnecessary risk. For those willing to accept a non-directed 'altruistic' LDKT the following themes were identified: iv) Prioritising known above unknown persons, v) Belief that they are as deserving as other potential recipients, and vi) Advantages of a LDKT.

CONCLUSIONS

Drawing on 'gift exchange theory', this study contributes to our understanding of the experience of the intended recipient of a gift. The anonymity of the donor-recipient appears to be seen as a benefit of non-directed 'altruistic' live-donor transplants, freeing recipients from the obligations of the gift. However, those who feel unworthy of the 'gifted transplant' are concerned about the donor and by the lack of opportunity for direct reciprocity. Highlighting the 'reciprocal benefits' reported by donors may allow individuals whose preference is a live-donor transplant to accept one if offered. These insights provide the transplant community with targets for intervention, through which the concerns of potential recipients might be addressed.

Exploring the success of Good Samaritan organ donation in New Zealand

The rate of living kidney donation from 2006 to 2012 was roughly the same in Australia and New Zealand, but the rate of Good Samaritan donation was significantly higher in New Zealand (1.49 donors/million) than in Australia (0.23 donors/million). Three possible reasons for New Zealand's high rate of Good Samaritan donation are explored: (1) since 2005, New Zealand has offered a tax-free financial safety net for living donors; (2) unlike Australia, New Zealand is not carved into jurisdictional segments with multiple policies on Good Samaritan donation, lending to a streamlined approach; (3) New Zealand embraces e-technology to communicate the concept of Good Samaritan donation to the public. Additionally, New Zealand's recent initiatives to increase the rate of living donation are described.

Seriously ill patients as living unspecified kidney donors: rationale and justification

BACKGROUND

Between 2000 and December 2013, 106 live donor nephrectomies from anonymous living-donors were performed at the Erasmus MC Rotterdam; five of the donors (5.4%) had a life-threatening disease. The aim of the present report is to give the rational and justification for this procedure.

METHODS

All five donors underwent the national standard living-donor screening procedure. Additionally, motivation to donate and psychologic stability were assessed by a psychologist using in-depth interview techniques and a psychologic complaints questionnaire. Post-donor nephrectomy follow-up consisted of standard questionnaires and clinical check-ups.

RESULTS

One patient had cerebral and caudal ependymomas, one had severe and progressive emphysema, two had Huntington's disease and one had a grade 2 oligodendroglioma. The psychologic screening revealed genuine motivation, adequate risk perception, and normal sense of reality. No contraindications for donation were found. The five donor nephrectomies made nine kidney transplantations possible. All donors were satisfied with the donation procedure. Three donors died during follow-up (0.6-4.9 years) as a result of their disease.

CONCLUSION

In the absence of apparent additional health risks, medical, and psychologic contraindications, we consider it ethically justified to accept an offer from a cognitively competent patient with a life-threatening disease in view of their self-reported satisfaction during follow-up. Although based on a limited number of patients, we conclude that a stricter psychologic screening for seriously ill donors compared to healthy unspecified anonymous donors to unspecified patients is not necessary.

Motivations, outcomes, and characteristics of unspecified (nondirected altruistic) kidney donors in the United Kingdom

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.

Rotterdam: main port for organ transplantation research in the Netherlands

This overview describes the full spectrum of current pre-clinical and clinical kidney-, liver-, heart- and lung transplantation research performed in Erasmus MC - University Medical Centre in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. An update is provided on the development of a large living donor kidney transplantation program and on optimization of kidney allocation, including the implementation of a domino kidney-donation program. Our current research efforts to optimize immunosuppressive regimens and find novel targets for immunosuppressive therapy, our recent studies on prevention of ischemia-reperfusion-induced graft injury, our newest findings on stimulation of tissue regeneration, our novel approaches to prevent rejection and viral infection, and our latest insights in the regulation of allograft rejection, are summarized.

Liver, pancreas and small bowel transplantation: current ethical issues

We describe the medical state of the art in liver, pancreas and small bowel transplantation, and portray the ethical issues. Although most ethical questions related to these transplantations are not specific for liver, pancreas and small bowel, they do challenge ethical analysis as well as new policies and clinical procedures. Firstly, outcomes continue to be of utmost concern, as information is only limited available, is developing over time and is surrounded by many uncertainties. Secondly, characteristics of donors and recipients should be carefully evaluated. The question of what qualifies a donor and a recipient should be considered against the background of a quest for extended criteria, embracing marginal cases, and a judgment with regard to what counts as a good enough outcome. Thirdly, ethical principles of autonomy and fairness are pushed, given the circumstance of severe scarcity, towards limits that can easily be crossed.