Experience with an organ procurement organization-based non-directed living kidney donation programme

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.

Socioeconomic Status in Non-directed and Voucher-based Living Kidney Donation

BACKGROUND

Little has been reported about the socioeconomic status (SES) and demographics of non-directed (altruistic) and voucher-based donation.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze common characteristics amongst altruistic donors in order to promote non-directed and voucher-based donation.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Information regarding altruistic donations from 2008 to 2015 and voucher-based donors was obtained from the National Kidney Registry.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

An SES index, created and validated by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), was created by geocoding the donor's zip code and linking it to seven publicly available SES variables found in the 2010 United States Census data.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

In total, 267 non-directed and 3 voucher-based donations were identified. Non-directed donors were predominantly female (58%), with an average age of 45.6 yr (range, 21-72). The mean SES index score was 55.6 (SD=3.2), which corresponds to the 77th percentile of 1.5 million MediCare beneficiaries as reported by the AHRQ in 2008. Voucher-based donors were Caucasian males of high SES. The study was limited by the number of voucher-based donations.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-directed and voucher-based donors are in the upper end of the economic spectrum. The voucher-based program has built within it the inherent capacity to remove disincentives to donation, which currently limit altruistic donation.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We wanted to determine what types of people donated their kidneys altruistically, so that we could understand how to motivate more people to donate their kidneys. The voucher-based program was recently started and is a promising tool to motivate many people to donate kidneys by removing major disincentives to donation.

Practices for Supporting and Confirming Decision-Making Involved in Kidney and Liver Donation by Related Living Donors in Japan: A Nationwide Survey

This nationwide survey investigated the actual practices for supporting and confirming the decision-making involved in related living-organ donations in Japan, focusing on organ type and program size differences. Answers to a questionnaire survey were collected from 89 of the 126 (71%) kidney and 30 of the 35 (86%) liver transplantation programs in Japan that were involved in living-donor transplantations in 2013. In 70% of the kidney and 90% of the liver transplantation programs, all donors underwent "third-party" interviews to confirm their voluntariness. The most common third parties were psychiatrists (90% and 83%, respectively). Many programs engaged in practices to support decision-making by donor candidates, including guaranteeing the right to withdraw consent to donate (70% and 100%, respectively) and prescribing a set "cooling-off period" (88% and 100%, respectively). Most donors were offered care by mental health specialists (86% and 93%, respectively). Third parties were designated by more of the larger kidney transplant programs compared with the smaller programs. In conclusion, the actual practices supporting and confirming the decision to donate a living organ varied depending on the organ concerned and the number of patients in the program.

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.

New classification of ELPAT for living organ donation

In the literature, varying terminology for living organ donation can be found. However, there seems to be a need for a new classification to avoid confusion. Therefore, we assessed existing terminology in the light of current living organ donation practices and suggest a more straightforward classification. We propose to concentrate on the degree of specificity with which donors identify intended recipients and to subsequently verify whether the donation to these recipients occurs directly or indirectly. According to this approach, one could distinguish between "specified" and "unspecified" donation. Within specified donation, a distinction can be made between "direct" and "indirect" donation.

Encouraging psychological outcomes after altruistic donation to a stranger

In a growing number of transplant centers worldwide, altruistic donors are accepted to anonymously donate a kidney to a stranger. An important hesitation to expand these transplantation programs is the fear of evoking psychological distress in the altruistic donor after donation. To what extent this fear is justified has not yet been systematically investigated. In this study, 24 altruistic donors were interviewed on average 2 years after donation. Lifetime mental health history, current psychological complaints, satisfaction with and impact of the donation on well-being, motives for donation, communication with recipient and donation experience were assessed. Altruistic donors report a considerable positive impact of donation on psychological well-being, whereas negative impact was limited. Satisfaction with donation was very high. Although a history of a psychiatric diagnosis was ascertained in almost half of the donors, psychological complaints before and after donation were comparable to national average norm scores. Motives for donation were genuine and the experience of donation generally conformed to their expectations. In conclusion, living kidney donation to a stranger does not appear to exacerbate psychological complaints. Moreover, altruistic donors report considerable satisfaction and personal benefit. The exceptional gift of altruistic donors can contribute toward solving the current organ shortage issue.

Altruistic donor triggered domino-paired kidney donation for unsuccessful couples from the kidney-exchange program

Between January 2000 and July 2009, 132 individuals inquired about altruistic kidney donation to strangers. These donors were willing to donate to genetically and emotionally unrelated patients. Some altruistic donors wished to donate to a specific person, but most wished to donate anonymously. In domino-paired donation, the altruistic donor donates to the recipient of an incompatible couple; the donor of that couple (domino-donor) donates to another couple or to the waiting list. In contrast to kidney-exchange donation where bilateral matching of couples is required, recipient and donor matching are unlinked in domino-paired donation. This facilitates matching for unsuccessful couples from the kidney-exchange program where blood type O prevails in recipients and is under-represented in donors. Fifty-one altruistic donors (39%) donated their kidney and 35 domino-donors were involved. There were 29 domino procedures, 24 with 1 altruistic donor and 1 domino-donor, 5 with more domino-donors. Eighty-six transplantations were performed. Donor and recipient blood type distribution in the couples limited allocation to blood type non-O waiting list patients. The success rate of domino-paired donation is dependent on the composition of the pool of incompatible pairs, but it offers opportunities for difficult to match pairs that were unsuccessful in the kidney-exchange program.

Elective surgical patients as living organ donors: a clinical and ethical innovation

We propose a new model for living organ donation that would invite elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients to become volunteer, unrelated living kidney donors. Such donors would be surgical patients first and living donors second, in contrast to the current system, which 'creates' a surgical patient by operating on a healthy individual. Elective surgery patients have accepted the risks of anesthesia and surgery for their own surgical needs but would face additional surgical risks when a donor nephrectomy is combined with their cholecystectomy procedure. Because these two procedures have never been performed together, the precise level of additional risk entailed in such a combined approach is unknown and will require further study. However, considering the large number of elective cholecystectomies performed each year in the United States, if as few as 5% of elective cholecystectomy patients agreed to also serve as living kidney donors, the number of living kidney donors would increase substantially. If this proposal is accepted by a minority of patients and surgeons, and proves safe and effective in a protocol study, it could be applied to other elective abdominal surgery procedures and used to obtain other abdominal donor organs (e.g. liver and intestinal segments) for transplantation.

The psychological evaluation of Samaritan kidney donors: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Living kidney donation to a loved one has become common practice. Another type of living donation that is becoming more acceptable to the transplant community is 'Samaritan donation'. Samaritan kidney donors are willing to donate to patients they do not know. Until recently there has been great reluctance to accept the offers of Samaritan donors because it was feared that these donors might be mentally unstable.

METHOD

The purpose of this article is to review the literature about the psychological evaluation of potential Samaritan kidney donors for donor suitability. We have performed a systematic literature search in Pubmed, ISI Web of Science and PsycINFO. We compare and discuss how each study approaches the question about Samaritan donor selection. In addition, we have also screened the studies for reports of rejections of Samaritan donors on psychological grounds.

RESULTS

We have found five articles that at least in some detail describe the evaluation of potential Samaritan donors. For all five articles found, a consultation with either a psychiatrist or a psychologist formed a standard part of the donor evaluation procedure. This evaluation consisted of an interview, and in most instances, additional psychometric testing. According to the articles found, the two major criteria for donor rejection were psychopathology/psychological instability and motivational issues. Three studies reported on the rejection of potential donors on psychological grounds.

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluation of Samaritan kidney donors is a developing field in clinical medicine. Given the relatively low incidence of these types of donations, we recommend the exchange of experience between centres that run a Samaritan donor programme, in order to improve donor evaluation criteria.