Donation after cardiac death and the emergency department: ethical issues

Ethical Issues in Normothermic Regional Perfusion in Controlled Organ Donation After Determination of Death by Circulatory Criteria: A Scoping Review

Normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) is a surgical technique that can improve the quality and number of organs recovered for donation after the determination of death by circulatory criteria. Despite its promise, adoption of NRP has been hindered because of unresolved ethical issues. To inform stakeholders, this scoping review provides an impartial overview of the major ethical controversies surrounding NRP. We undertook this review according to a modified 5-step methodology proposed by Arksey and O'Malley. Publications were retrieved through MEDLINE and Embase. Gray literature was sourced from Canadian organ donation organizations, English-language organ donation organization websites, and through our research networks. Three reviewers independently screened all documents for inclusion, extracted data, and participated in content analysis. Disagreements were resolved through consensus meetings. Seventy-one documents substantively engaging with ethical issues in NRP were included for full-text analysis. We identified 6 major themes encompassing a range of overlapping ethical debates: (1) the compatibility of NRP with the dead donor rule, the injunction that organ recovery cannot cause death, (2) the risk of donor harm posed by NRP, (3) uncertainties regarding consent requirements for NRP, (4) risks to stakeholder trust posed by NRP, (5) the implications of NRP for justice, and (6) NRP's potential to benefits of NRP for stakeholders. We found no agreement on the ethical permissibility of NRP. However, some debates may be resolved through additional empirical study. As decision-makers contemplate the adoption of NRP, it is critical to address the ethical issues facing the technique to ensure stakeholder trust in deceased donation and transplantation systems is preserved.

Ethical Issues in Uncontrolled Donation After Circulatory Determination of Death: A Scoping Review to Reveal Areas of Broad Consensus, and Those for Future Research

Uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death (uDCD) protocols are established in several countries with good outcomes. We reviewed the literature between 1997 and 2024 to identify ethical issues. 33 papers were identified. Several areas of continued ethical debate were delineated: the role of advanced life support techniques; the ethical acceptability of aortic occlusion balloons; the nature and timing of consent to organ preserving techniques; whether best interests can/should extend beyond individual bodily integrity in this context. Further empirical research and ethical analyses are needed in these domains. Broad consensus was identified on several issues including: decisions about termination of resuscitation and entry into a uDCD protocol should be made by different teams; at least 20-30 min of cardio-pulmonary resuscitation is required; a hands-off period of 5-7 min is required alongside continuous monitoring; organ preserving techniques should be as minimally invasive as possible; families should be approached early to discuss organ donation by trained staff; public knowledge and engagement about uDCD is poor and must be improved; transparency and informed consent are essential for potential uDCD organ recipients. To maintain transparency and encourage positive public engagement we propose a name change from uDCD to Organ Donation after Sudden Irreversible Cardiac Arrest (ODASICA).

Controlled Donation After Circulatory Determination of Death: A Scoping Review of Ethical Issues, Key Concepts, and Arguments

Controlled donation after circulatory determination of death (cDCDD) is an important strategy for increasing the pool of eligible organ donors.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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