Informed consent for living donation: a review of key empirical studies, ethical challenges and future research

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.

Respecting living kidney donor autonomy: an argument for liberalising living kidney donor acceptance criteria

Doctors routinely refuse donation offers from prospective living kidney donors with certain comorbidities such as diabetes or obesity out of concern for donor wellbeing. This refusal occurs despite the ongoing shortage of kidney transplants and the superior performance of living donor kidney transplants compared to those from deceased donors. In this paper, we argue that this paternalistic refusal by doctors is unjustified and that, within limits, there should be greater acceptance of such donations. We begin by describing possible weak and strong paternalistic justifications of current conservative donor acceptance guidelines and practices. We then justify our position by outlining the frequently under-recognised benefits and the routinely overestimated harms of such donation, before discussing the need to respect the autonomy of willing donors with certain comorbidities. Finally, we respond to a number of possible objections to our proposal for more liberal kidney donor acceptance criteria. We use the situation in Australia as our case study, but our argument is applicable to comparable situations around the world.

The ethics of consent during labour and birth: episiotomies

Unconsented episiotomies and other procedures during labour are commonly reported by women in several countries, and often highlighted in birth activism. Yet, forced caesarean sections aside, the ethics of consent during labour has received little attention. Focusing on episiotomies, this paper addresses whether and how consent in labour should be obtained. We briefly review the rationale for informed consent, distinguishing its intrinsic and instrumental relevance for respecting autonomy. We also emphasise two non-explicit ways of giving consent: implied and opt-out consent. We then discuss challenges and opportunities for obtaining consent in labour and birth, given its unique position in medicine.We argue that consent for procedures in labour is always necessary, but this consent does not always have to be fully informed or explicit. We recommend an individualised approach where the antenatal period is used to exchange information and explore values and preferences with respect to the relevant procedures. Explicit consent should always be sought at the point of intervening, unless women antenatally insist otherwise. We caution against implied consent. However, if a woman does not give a conclusive response during labour and the stakes are high, care providers can move to clearly communicated opt-out consent. Our discussion is focused on episiotomies, but also provides a useful starting point for addressing the ethics of consent for other procedures during labour, as well as general time-critical medical procedures.

Perceptions of Psychosocial and Ethical Issues and the Psychological Characteristics of Donors in the Clinical Setting of Living Kidney Donors: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

There are several psychosocial and ethical issues surrounding the decision to be a living kidney donor. The present study aimed to determine the perceptions of psychosocial and ethical issues that living kidney donors may have, and analyze their psychological characteristics.

METHODS

Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 donors. Thematic analysis was then performed to categorize the thematic elements of the transcripts. All procedures were approved by the relevant review board.

RESULTS

Four main categories were identified: Awareness of family dynamics, barriers to a proper understanding, contrasting psychological effects of recipient presence in clinical practice, insufficient information explained in informed consent.

CONCLUSION

Donors felt that they took on the "role as a care giver" for the recipient and were less aware of themselves as patients. This is a new concept that has not been shown in previous studies. Donors exist within the recipient and family, and the range of their autonomy may go beyond the traditional concept of autonomy and be rooted in relational autonomy. This study suggested that medical treatment in the presence of the recipient promotes the relational autonomy of the donor.

Implementation of a culturally competent APOL1 genetic testing programme into living donor evaluation: A two-site, non-randomised, pre-post trial design

INTRODUCTION

While living donor (LD) kidney transplantation is the optimal treatment for patients with kidney failure, LDs assume a higher risk of future kidney failure themselves. LDs of African ancestry have an even greater risk of kidney failure post-donation than White LDs. Because evidence suggests that Apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) risk variants contribute to this greater risk, transplant nephrologists are increasingly using APOL1 genetic testing to evaluate LD candidates of African ancestry. However, nephrologists do not consistently perform genetic counselling with LD candidates about APOL1 due to a lack of knowledge and skill in counselling. Without proper counselling, APOL1 testing will magnify LD candidates' decisional conflict about donating, jeopardising their informed consent. Given cultural concerns about genetic testing among people of African ancestry, protecting LD candidates' safety is essential to improve informed decisions about donating. Clinical 'chatbots', mobile apps that provide genetic information to patients, can improve informed treatment decisions. No chatbot on APOL1 is available and no nephrologist training programmes are available to provide culturally competent counselling to LDs about APOL1. Given the shortage of genetic counsellors, increasing nephrologists' genetic literacy is critical to integrating genetic testing into practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Using a non-randomised, pre-post trial design in two transplant centres (Chicago, IL, and Washington, DC), we will evaluate the effectiveness of culturally competent APOL1 testing, chatbot and counselling on LD candidates' decisional conflict about donating, preparedness for decision-making, willingness to donate and satisfaction with informed consent and longitudinally evaluate the implementation of this intervention into clinical practice using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study will create a model for APOL1 testing of LDs of African ancestry, which can be implemented nationally via implementation science approaches. APOL1 will serve as a model for integrating culturally competent genetic testing into transplant and other practices to improve informed consent. This study involves human participants and was approved by Northwestern University IRB (STU00214038). Participants gave informed consent to participate in the study before taking part.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04910867. Registered 8 May 2021, https://register.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/prs/app/action/SelectProtocol?sid=S000AWZ6&selectaction=Edit&uid=U0001PPF&ts=7&cx=-8jv7m2 ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04999436. Registered 5 November 2021, https://register.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/prs/app/action/SelectProtocol?sid=S000AYWW&selectaction=Edit&uid=U0001PPF&ts=11&cx=9tny7v.

Inequities in organ and tissue donation and transplantation for sexual orientation and gender identity diverse people: A scoping review

Sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) diverse populations experience discrimination in organ and tissue donation and transplantation (OTDT) systems globally. We assembled a multidisciplinary group of clinical experts as well as SOGI-diverse patient and public partners and conducted a scoping review including citations on the experiences of SOGI-diverse persons in OTDT systems globally to identify and explore the inequities that exist with regards to living and deceased OTDT. Using scoping review methods, we conducted a systematic literature search of relevant electronic databases from 1970-2021 including a grey literature search. We identified and screened 2402 references and included 87 unique publications. Two researchers independently coded data in included publications in duplicate. We conducted a best-fit framework synthesis paired with an inductive thematic analysis to identify synthesized benefits, harms, inequities, justification of inequities, recommendations to mitigate inequities, laws and regulations, as well as knowledge and implementation gaps regarding SOGI-diverse identities in OTDT systems. We identified numerous harms and inequities for SOGI-diverse populations in OTDT systems. There were no published benefits of SOGI-diverse identities in OTDT systems. We summarized recommendations for the promotion of equity for SOGI-diverse populations and identified gaps that can serve as targets for action moving forward.

The psychological examination and evaluation of unrelated kidney donors in Israel: a suggested model

Altruistic organ donors represent a special population when compared to related living donors, requiring appropriate protection and attention regarding informed consent and psychological aspects related to the donation. Following the introduction of the Israeli Transplant Law of 2008, a retrospective study of altruistic donor files revealed that important psycho-diagnostic aspects were not emphasized in the existing guidelines. Thus, a new tool was formulated which incorporated those elements, including assessment of emotional maturity, ego strength, degree of interest in others, reality testing, degree of pressure to donate, anxiety, dysphoric and depressive factors and the ability to function under stress. The study examined 598 cases reviewed by the Central Evaluation Board over the period May 2008 - June 2016. Overall, 23.4% candidates were disqualified of whom 41% were declined on grounds related to mental health. Most of the donors were rejected based on 3-5 elements. Of these, a deficient assessment of reality in ambiguous situations, lack of emotional maturity, and lacking or partial ability to function effectively under stress, were most commonly cited as reasons for rejection. This model allowed the detection of important conditions previously not incorporated into existing guidelines and may serve as a model for other transplantation programs worldwide.

Association of skeletal muscle index with postoperative acute kidney injury in living donor hepatectomy: A retrospective single-centre cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is the standard treatment option for patients with end-stage liver disease, it always entails ethical concerns about the risk of living donors. Recent studies have reported a correlation between sarcopenia and surgical prognosis in recipients. However, there are few studies of donor sarcopenia and the surgical prognosis of donors. This study investigated the association between sarcopenia and postoperative acute kidney injury in liver donors.

METHODS

This retrospective study analysed 2892 donors who underwent donor hepatectomy for LDLT between January 2008 and January 2018. Sarcopenia was classified into pre-sarcopenia and severe sarcopenia, which were determined to be -1 standard deviation (SD), and -2 SD from the mean baseline of the skeletal muscle index, respectively. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to evaluate the association between donor sarcopenia and postoperative AKI. Additionally, we assessed the association between donor sarcopenia and delayed recovery of liver function (DRHF).

RESULTS

In the multivariate analysis, donor sarcopenia was significantly associated a higher incidence of postoperative AKI (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 2.65, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15-6.11, P = .022 in pre-sarcopenia, OR: 5.59, 95% CI: 1.11-28.15, P = .037 in severe sarcopenia, respectively). Additionally, hypertension and synthetic colloid use were significantly associated with postoperative AKI. In the multivariate analysis, risk factors of DRHF were male gender, indocyanine green retention rate at 15 minutes, and graft type, however, donor sarcopenia was not a risk factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Donor sarcopenia is associated with postoperative AKI following donor hepatectomy.

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.

Liver transplantation for non-resectable colorectal liver metastases: the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association consensus guidelines

Colorectal cancer is a prevalent disease worldwide, with more than 50% of patients developing metastases to the liver. Despite advances in improving resectability, most patients present with non-resectable colorectal liver metastases requiring palliative systemic therapy and locoregional disease control strategies. There is a growing interest in the use of liver transplantation to treat non-resectable colorectal liver metastases in well selected patients, leading to a surge in the number of studies and prospective trials worldwide, thereby fuelling the emerging field of transplant oncology. The interdisciplinary nature of this field requires domain-specific evidence and expertise to be drawn from multiple clinical specialities and the basic sciences. Importantly, the wider societal implication of liver transplantation for non-resectable colorectal liver metastases, such as the effect on the allocation of resources and national transplant waitlists, should be considered. To address the urgent need for a consensus approach, the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association commissioned the Liver Transplantation for Colorectal liver Metastases 2021 working group, consisting of international leaders in the areas of hepatobiliary surgery, colorectal oncology, liver transplantation, hepatology, and bioethics. The aim of this study was to standardise nomenclature and define management principles in five key domains: patient selection, evaluation of biological behaviour, graft selection, recipient considerations, and outcomes. An extensive literature review was done within the five domains identified. Between November, 2020, and January, 2021, a three-step modified Delphi consensus process was undertaken by the workgroup, who were further subgrouped into the Scientific Committee, Expert Panel, and Transplant Centre Representatives. A final consensus of 44 statements, standardised nomenclature, and a practical management algorithm is presented. Specific criteria for clinico-patho-radiological assessments with molecular profiling is crucial in this setting. After this, the careful evaluation of biological behaviour with bridging therapy to transplantation with an appropriate assessment of the response is required. The sequencing of treatment in synchronous metastatic disease requires special consideration and is highlighted here. Some ethical dilemmas within organ allocation for malignant indications are discussed and the role for extended criteria grafts, living donor transplantation, and machine perfusion technologies for non-resectable colorectal liver metastases are reviewed. Appropriate immunosuppressive regimens and strategies for the follow-up and treatment of recurrent disease are proposed. This consensus guideline provides a framework by which liver transplantation for non-resectable colorectal liver metastases might be safely instituted and is a meaningful step towards future evidenced-based practice for better patient selection and organ allocation to improve the survival for patients with this disease.

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.

A Long-Term Prospective Study of Quality of Life, Abdominal Symptoms, and Cosmesis of Donors After Hepatectomy for Live-Donor Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive assessment of quality of life of live liver donors is required for adequate donor outcome reporting, but there is a lack of prospective data. Assessment of all aspects of liver donation over a long period is a necessity to have complete understanding of the donation process.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data of liver donors operated between March 2012 to August 2013, examined donors (n = 52) from predonation to five years after the donation. Participants were administered 'World Health Organization quality of life Brief and questionnaires' regarding their attitude predonation, their overall well-being in terms of abdominal symptoms, cosmesis, and satisfaction with donation and consent process at predefined time points till five years after donation. The weight of the donors was recorded at predefined time points.

RESULTS

The donors whose recipients died were less likely to continue with the study (8.9% vs. 71.4%; P < 0.001). After surgery, physical domain took 2 years to reach to predonation level while psychological and social relationship domains took 3 months and 1 month, respectively; environmental domain remained stable throughout. Even after recovery and discharge from hospital, donors experienced abdominal symptoms for a long period of time, but as the time increased from donation the reporting of symptoms decreased. Body image scores (12 ± 2.46 at 3 months vs. 14.9 ± 3.16 at five years, P < 0.001) and cosmesis scores (14.6 ± 3.67 at 3 months vs. 18.75 ± 3 at five years, P < 0.001) significantly improved over time. There was significant weight gain in donors (65.2 ± 6.1 kg predonation vs. 70.69 ± 2.4 kg at 2 years P < 0.001). Donors understood the consent process well, but did not use it for decision making. Overall, they showed a high level of satisfaction in the donation process.

CONCLUSION

Donors have good quality of life and show steady recovery in all aspects. Recipient death affects attitude towards donation process.

Education Priorities and What Matters to Those Considering Living Kidney Donation

INTRODUCTION

Although informed consent content elements are prescribed in detailed regulatory guidance, many live kidney donors describe feeling underprepared and under informed. The goal of this pilot study was to explore the educational components needed to support an informed decision-making process for living kidney donors.

METHODS/APPROACH

A qualitative description design was conducted with thematic analysis of 5 focus groups with 2 cohorts: living kidney donor candidates (n = 11) and living kidney donors (n = 8).

FINDINGS

The educational components needed to engage in an informed decision-making process were: 1) contingent upon, and motivated by, personal circumstances; 2) supported through explanation of risks and benefits; 3) enhanced by understanding the overall donation experience; and 4) personalized by talking to another donor.

DISCUSSION

Tailoring education to meet the needs for fully informed decision-making is essential. Current education requirements, as defined by regulatory bodies, remain challenging to transplant teams attempting to ensure fully informed consent of living kidney donor candidates. Information on the emotional, financial, and overall life impact is needed, along with acknowledgement of relational ties driving donor motivations and the hoped-for recipient outcomes. Discussion of care practices, and access to peer mentoring may further strengthen the informed decision-making process.

Ethical challenges in nephrology: a call for action

The American Society of Nephrology, the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association and the International Society of Nephrology Joint Working Group on Ethical Issues in Nephrology have identified ten broad areas of ethical concern as priority challenges that require collaborative action. Here, we describe these challenges - equity in access to kidney failure care, avoiding futile dialysis, reducing dialysis costs, shared decision-making in kidney failure care, living donor risk evaluation and decision-making, priority setting in kidney disease prevention and care, the ethical implications of genetic kidney diseases, responsible advocacy for kidney health and management of conflicts of interest - with the aim of highlighting the need for ethical analysis of specific issues, as well as for the development of tools and training to support clinicians who treat patients with kidney disease in practising ethically and contributing to ethical policy-making.

Living Donor Liver Transplantation When Deceased Donor Is Not Possible or Timely: Case Examples and Ethical Perspectives

This article analyzes the ethical soundness of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) in situations where the transplant team does not consider deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) a clinical or timely option. Given that patients with end-stage liver disease have a high risk of death without DDLT, the option of LDLT becomes compelling and may save lives. We present 3 representative cases from our center that raise concerns over social behavior, limited time constraints for decision making, and high potential for disease recurrence that render DDLT an unlikely option. Thereafter, we discuss ethical issues for each patient, which predominantly pertain to compromises to the living donor informed consent process and the feasibility of LDLT. We conclude with recommendations regarding whether LDLT is an acceptable ethical option for those patients, which may inform clinical practice in the broader transplant community.

International consensus conference on stool banking for faecal microbiota transplantation in clinical practice

Although faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has a well-established role in the treatment of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), its widespread dissemination is limited by several obstacles, including lack of dedicated centres, difficulties with donor recruitment and complexities related to regulation and safety monitoring. Given the considerable burden of CDI on global healthcare systems, FMT should be widely available to most centres.Stool banks may guarantee reliable, timely and equitable access to FMT for patients and a traceable workflow that ensures safety and quality of procedures. In this consensus project, FMT experts from Europe, North America and Australia gathered and released statements on the following issues related to the stool banking: general principles, objectives and organisation of the stool bank; selection and screening of donors; collection, preparation and storage of faeces; services and clients; registries, monitoring of outcomes and ethical issues; and the evolving role of FMT in clinical practice,Consensus on each statement was achieved through a Delphi process and then in a plenary face-to-face meeting. For each key issue, the best available evidence was assessed, with the aim of providing guidance for the development of stool banks in order to promote accessibility to FMT in clinical practice.

Ethical dilemmas related to living donor liver transplantation in Asia

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has evolved rapidly in Asia with good outcomes for both donor and recipient. Nonetheless, LDLT remains a highly demanding technique and complex surgery. The potential risks to the donors provide the basis for many of the ethical dilemmas associated with LDLT. The transplant team must have a good knowledge of the principles of bioethics in order to handle these matters. To look after the need, donor's safety and the chance for good recipient outcomes, the principles of respect for the donor's autonomy, beneficence, and non-maleficence should be practiced. In accordance with the concept of equipoise, the risk to the donor must balance the benefit to the recipient. The transplant center should have adequate experience and proven expertise in LDLT. There are concerns regarding the validity of informed consent given by the donor. While donations to non-relative patients may, at first sight, indicate radical altruism, it is important to apply careful scrutiny. Though organ trading is strictly prohibited by the law, there seems to be an inherent risk with directed donations to strangers. Transplant tourism has flourished in some countries in spite of the existence of strict laws. There are reservations regarding transplantation done by foreign visiting teams. Donor websites facilitating patients and donors and Facebook pages bear no responsibility for the outcomes of their matches and cannot ensure sufficient and accurate information about donation, transplantation, and post-operation life. Telemedicine and virtual consultations appeared to work better when the clinician and the patient know and trust each other.

Specific issues concerning the management of patients on the waiting list and after liver transplantation

The present document is a second contribution collecting the recommendations of an expert panel of transplant hepatologists appointed by the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver (AISF) concerning the management of certain aspects of liver transplantation, including: the issue of prompt referral; the management of difficult candidates; malnutrition; living related liver transplants; hepatocellular carcinoma; and the role of direct acting antiviral agents before and after transplantation. The statements on each topic were approved by participants at the AISF Transplant Hepatology Expert Meeting organized by the Permanent Liver Transplant Commission in Mondello on 12-13 May 2017. They are graded according to the GRADE grading system.

The Ethics of Organ Donation in Patients Who Lack the Capacity for Decision Making

Free and informed consent is the legal and ethical basis for organ donation from living donors, and is a requirement for making an autonomous health decision. In clinical practice, health-care providers are required to respect four bioethical principles: respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice (Beauchamp & Childress, 2012), with the best interest of their patients in mind. Yet there are bioethical concerns behind organ procurement from living donors who have never attained capacity, do not yet have the capacity, or have permanently lost the capacity for decision making. A consensus statement by the Live Organ Donor Consensus Group (Abecassis et al., 2000) protects these donors’ well-being and autonomy, but there still is a need to raise ethical awareness about the decision-making process regarding vulnerable potential donors. Health-care providers who are staff members in transplant clinics should be aware of the current consensus statement, commit to essential bioethical principles surrounding organ donation, and advocate for vulnerable living donors.

Considerations on the Factors Influencing Living Kidney Donors' Autonomous Decision-Making: A Systematic Literature Review

As outcomes of organ transplantation have improved with advances in medicine, managing medical ethics issues has become increasingly more important. Although a basic consensus has been formed on the respect of autonomy in decision-making by prospective donors regarding living kidney transplantation, concrete and practical measures at the clinical site are required to ensure donor autonomy. The aim of the study was to identify elements related to autonomy in the kidney donor decision-making process.

METHODS

We systematically collected relevant studies from multiple databases in and out of Japan and conducted qualitative and inductive analyses.

RESULTS

The identified elements were categorized into 12 subcategories and then regrouped into the following 4 categories based on the similarity of the contents: donor personality and values, inability to fully understand the implications of donation, possibility of direct pressure on donor's decision-making process, and donor's environment and situation.

DISCUSSION

The autonomy-related elements were highly diverse, including obvious pressure upon the donor and their values as well as influences from health care professionals. Some elements had room for change, such as the informed consent procedure, while some elements were unchangeable. Other elements were changeable by intervention, but discussion is required about the appropriateness of the intervention itself. Further, a classification of clinical approach was suggested by the development of an analytical framework using 2 axes of "site where the element arises" and "room for change" based on the practical viewpoint of clinical circumstances.

A liver for a kidney: Ethics of trans-organ paired exchange

Living donation provides important access to organ transplantation, which is the optimal therapy for patients with end-stage liver or kidney failure. Paired exchanges have facilitated thousands of kidney transplants and enable transplantation when the donor and recipient are incompatible. However, frequently willing and otherwise healthy donors have contraindications to the donation of the organ that their recipient needs. Trans-organ paired exchanges would enable a donor associated with a kidney recipient to donate a lobe of liver and a donor associated with a liver recipient to donate a kidney. This article explores some of the ethical concerns that trans-organ exchange might encounter including unbalanced donor risks, the validity of informed consent, and effects on deceased organ donation.

Should living donor liver transplantation be an option when deceased donation is not?

When a liver transplantation candidate is declined for listing to receive a deceased organ, sometimes a loved one comes forward and offers to be a living donor. This raises the ethical question of whether a patient who is not eligible for deceased donor liver transplantation should be eligible for living donor liver transplantation. We compare living organ donation in kidney and liver transplantation and explore key ethical concepts of justice, fairness, and societal trust. Ultimately, because there is no alternative life-preserving therapy in end-stage liver disease, and because transplantation with a living donor organ does not involve removing a resource from the common pool of transplant organs, we argue that a standard of "slightly less benefit" than that required for deceased transplantation should be used to determine the acceptability of living donor liver transplantation.

Readability, content analysis, and racial/ethnic diversity of online living kidney donation information

More than three-fourths of adults in the USA use the Internet to access health-related information. Adults exploring the possibility of living donation should have access to online content that is readable and comprehensive. We simulated a search of online information about living kidney donation and evaluated readability, topics covered, and racial/ethnic diversity of 21 websites meeting inclusion criteria (eg, hosted by a nonprofit or patient advocacy organization, English content, based in USA). Using standard readability metrics, 62% of sites were classified as "Difficult to read" and none achieved the recommended reading level of sixth grade. On average, websites covered 18.5 (62%) of 30 recommended information topics (range: 7 to 28) and only 2.1 (23%) of 9 racial/ethnic diversity items (range: 0 to 6). Overall, the most common nonprofit or patient advocacy organization websites do not meet the readability standards established by the National Institutes of Health and the American Medical Association, many lack fundamental information about living kidney donation, and most are not racially/ethnically diverse. We encourage the transplant community to consider playing a more active role in improving the overall quality of online information disseminated to the general public. Further, there is a need to more critically examine the accuracy of online living donation content in future investigations.

KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

The 2017 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors is intended to assist medical professionals who evaluate living kidney donor candidates and provide care before, during and after donation. The guideline development process followed the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies that included critical appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations. However, many recommendations, for which there was no evidence or no systematic search for evidence was undertaken by the Evidence Review Team, were issued as ungraded expert opinion recommendations. The guideline work group concluded that a comprehensive approach to risk assessment should replace decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation. Original data analyses were undertaken to produce a "proof-in-concept" risk-prediction model for kidney failure to support a framework for quantitative risk assessment in the donor candidate evaluation and defensible shared decision making. This framework is grounded in the simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics. The processes and framework for the donor candidate evaluation are presented, along with recommendations for optimal care before, during, and after donation. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, especially regarding the lack of definitive prospective studies and clinical outcome trials. Suggestions for future research, including the need for continued refinement of long-term risk prediction and novel approaches to estimating donation-attributable risks, are also provided.In citing this document, the following format should be used: Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Living Kidney Donor Work Group. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors. Transplantation. 2017;101(Suppl 8S):S1-S109.

Living Organ Donation and Informed Consent in the United States: Strategies to Improve the Process

About 6,000 individuals participate in the U.S. transplant system as a living organ donor each year. Organ donation (most commonly a kidney or part of liver) by living individuals is a unique procedure, where healthy patients undergo a major surgical operation without any direct functional benefit to themselves. In this article, the authors explore how the ideal of informed consent guides education and evaluation for living organ donation. The authors posit that informed consent for living organ donation is a process. Though the steps in this process are partially standardized through national health policy, they can be improved through institutional structures at the local, transplant center-level. Effective structures and practices aimed at supporting and promoting comprehensive informed consent provide more opportunities for candidates to ask questions about the risks and benefits of living donation and to opt out voluntarily Additionally, these practices could enable new ways of measuring knowledge and improving the consent process.

Unconventional combinations of prospective parents: ethical challenges faced by IVF providers

Background

Professional guidelines have addressed ethical dilemmas posed by a few types of nontraditional procreative arrangements (e.g., gamete donations between family members), but many questions arise regarding how providers view and make decisions about these and other such arrangements.

Methods

Thirty-seven ART providers and 10 patients were interviewed in-depth for approximately 1 h each. Interviews were systematically analyzed.

Results

Providers faced a range of challenges and ethical dilemmas concerning both the content and the process of decisions about requests for unconventional interfamilial and other reproductive combinations. Providers vary in how they respond — what they decide, who exactly decides (e.g., an ethics committee or not), and how — often undergoing complex decision-making processes. These combinations can involve creating or raising the child, and can shift over time — from initial ART treatment through to the child’s birth. Patients’ requests can vary from fully established to mere possibilities. Arrangements may also be unstable, fluid, or unexpected, posing challenges. Difficulties emerge concerning not only familial but social, combinations (e.g., between friends). These arrangements can involve blurry and confusing roles, questions about the welfare of the unborn child, and unanticipated and unfamiliar questions about how to weigh competing moral and scientific concerns — e.g., the autonomy of the individuals involved, and the potential risks and benefits. Clinicians may feel that these requests do not “smell right”; and at first respond with feelings of “yuck,” and only later, carefully and explicitly consider the ethical principles involved. Proposed arrangements may, for instance, initially be felt to involve consanguineous individuals, but not in fact do so. Obtaining and verifying full and appropriate informed consent can be difficult, given implicit familial and/or cultural expectations and senses of duty. Social attitudes are changing, yet patients’ views of these issues may also vary, based on their cultural backgrounds.

Conclusions

These data, the first to examine how clinicians make decisions about unconventional reproductive arrangements, highlight several critical ethical questions and ambiguities, and variations in clinicians’ responses. While several professional guidelines exist, the current data highlight additional challenges, and have vital implications for improving future guidelines, practice, education and research.

Trial registration

Not applicable.

Living Kidney Donors' Information Needs and Preferences

INTRODUCTION

Past research suggests the information exchanged from transplant centers to potential living kidney donors is, in many cases, suboptimal. The purpose of this study was to assess donors' perceptions of the information provided while considering living donation.

METHODS

Semistructured telephone interviews conducted with 81 past living donors seen at 1 mid-Atlantic transplant center assessed the extent to which living kidney donors deemed Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)-mandated information useful to making a decision about donation and to which more information was or would have been desired before donating. Understanding of and satisfaction with the information was also assessed.

RESULTS

Participants were primarily white (67.9%), females (67.9%), with an average age of 57.8 years. Perceived usefulness ranged from a mean of 3.1 for the confidentiality of the transplant center's communication to 4.1 for postoperative care and short-term medical risks of donation. Donors of minority descent as well as those with more education and less income found the information provided most useful. Few donors desired additional information about the right to opt out of (8.6%) or decline (13.6%) donation; however, most wanted more information regarding the risk of being refused health, disability and/or life insurance after donating (77.8%), and insurance coverage for future health problems (66.7%).

DISCUSSION

This study revealed limited usefulness of certain CMS-mandated topics and a desire for additional information about donation. Efforts to standardize the informed consent process should incorporate donors' perspectives as to the specific topics, quantity of information, and the mode of communication found most useful when considering living donation.

Towards a standardized informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy: What do surgeons tell their donors?

INTRODUCTION

Living kidney donors comprise a unique group of "patients", undergoing an operation for the benefit of others. The informed consent process is therefore valued differently. Although this is a team effort, the surgeon is responsible for performing the donor nephrectomy, and often the one held accountable, should adverse events occur. Although there is some consensus on how the informed consent procedure should be arranged, practices vary. The aim of this study was to evaluate the surgical informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy, with special regards to disclosure of complications.

METHODS

A web-based survey was sent to all kidney transplant surgeons (n = 50) in eight transplant centers with questions regarding the local procedure and disclosure of specific details.

RESULTS

Response rate was 98% (n = 49), of which 32 (65%) were involved in living donor education; overall, transplant- (50%), vascular- (31%), and abdominal surgeons (13%), and urologists (6%) performed donor nephrectomies in the eight centers. Informed consent procedures varied, ranging from assumed to signed consent. Bleeding was the only complication every surgeon mentioned. Risk of death was always mentioned by 16 surgeons (50%), sometimes by 13 (41%), three surgeons (9%) never disclosed this disastrous complication. Reported mortality rates ranged from 0.003% to 0.1%. Mentioning frequencies for all other complications varied.

CONCLUSION

Important complications are not always disclosed during the surgical informed consent process for live donor nephrectomy. Informed consent procedures vary. To optimally prepare living kidney donors for the procedure, a standardized informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy is highly recommended.

Exploring Knowledge About Dialysis, Transplantation, and Living Donation Among Patients and Their Living Kidney Donors

Background

In order to make a well-considered decision and give informed consent about renal replacement therapy, potential living kidney donors and recipients should have sufficient understanding of the options and risks.

Purpose

We aimed to explore knowledge about Dialysis & Transplantation (DT) and Living Donation (LD) among prospective living kidney donors and recipients.

Methods

Eighty-five donors and 81 recipients completed the Rotterdam Renal Replacement Knowledge-Test (R3K-T) 1 day before surgery. The questionnaire was available in various languages.

Results

Recipients knew significantly more about DT than donors (p < 0.001); donors knew more about LD than recipients (p < 0.001). A minority of donors (15 %) and recipients (17 %) had a score that was comparable to the knowledge level of the naïve general population. Recipients and donors knew less about DT and LD if their native language was not Dutch. In addition, recipients knew less about DT if they were undergoing pre-emptive transplantation.

Conclusions

We conclude that recipients and donors retain different information. The decision to undergo living donation appears to be not always based on full knowledge of the risks. We recommend that professionals assess knowledge of prospective donors and recipients during the education process using the R3K-T, and extra attention is required for non-native speakers.

Psychosocial assessment of living kidney donors: What implications have temperament and character for decision-making?

OBJECTIVE

We compared the personality of kidney donor candidates to non-donor controls and analyzed the personality profile of candidates psychosocially at risk.

METHODS

49 consecutive living kidney donor candidates underwent an extensive psychosocial evaluation. Psychosocial risk factors concerning knowledge of donation risks (1), donor-recipient-relationship (2), and/or mental health (3) were rated on a 3-point rating scale (0=high risk, 2=no risk). Furthermore, candidates as well as 49 age-and gender-matched non-donor controls filled in questionnaires concerning psychological distress (Symptom Checklist 90-R) and personality (Temperament and Character Inventory).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between candidates and controls concerning psychological distress or personality. Psychosocial assessment identified 13 candidates (26.5%) with increased psychosocial risk. This group displayed compared to candidates without psychosocial risk no difference concerning age, gender, formal education, donor-recipient relationship and psychological distress. However, this group scored significantly higher on reward dependence compared to suitable donors and controls (p<0.05). Reward dependence was associated with a lack of adequate knowledge on donation (r=-0.35, p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Reward dependence has important implications for decision-making, because it is associated with an increased tendency to deny potential risks of donation. Careful identification and assessment of reward dependent donor candidates is needed to ensure a free-willed decision.

Right lobe living-donor hepatectomy-the Toronto approach, tips and tricks

Living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a well-established treatment for end-stage liver disease. Nevertheless, it has not been extensively accepted in North America or Europe as it has been in Asia. At the University of Toronto we initiated our LDLT program in 2000 and since then our program has grown each year, representing today the largest LDLT program in North America. Our right-lobe LDLT experience from 2000-2014 includes 474 right lobes. Only 30% of our grafts have included the middle hepatic vein. We present excellent outcomes in terms of graft and patient survival which is not different to that achieved with deceased donor liver transplantation. In the present study we will discuss the evolution, challenges and current practices of our LDLT program. We will discuss what is and has been the program philosophy. We will also discuss how we evaluate our donors and the extensive workup we do before a donor is accepted for live donation. Furthermore we will discuss some tips and tricks of how we perform the right hepatectomy for live donation.

Towards a standardised informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy: the PRINCE (Process of Informed Consent Evaluation) project-study protocol for a nationwide prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Informed consent is mandatory for all (surgical) procedures, but it is even more important when it comes to living kidney donors undergoing surgery for the benefit of others. Donor education, leading to informed consent, needs to be carried out according to certain standards. Informed consent procedures for live donor nephrectomy vary per centre, and even per individual healthcare professional. The basis for a standardised, uniform surgical informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy can be created by assessing what information donors need to hear to prepare them for the operation and convalescence.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The PRINCE (Process of Informed Consent Evaluation) project is a prospective, multicentre cohort study, to be carried out in all eight Dutch kidney transplant centres. Donor knowledge of the procedure and postoperative course will be evaluated by means of pop quizzes. A baseline cohort (prior to receiving any information from a member of the transplant team in one of the transplant centres) will be compared with a control group, the members of which receive the pop quiz on the day of admission for donor nephrectomy. Donor satisfaction will be evaluated for all donors who completed the admission pop-quiz. The primary end point is donor knowledge. In addition, those elements that have to be included in the standardised format informed consent procedure will be identified. Secondary end points are donor satisfaction, current informed consent practices in the different centres (eg, how many visits, which personnel, what kind of information is disclosed, in which format, etc) and correlation of donor knowledge with surgeons' estimation thereof.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Approval for this study was obtained from the medical ethical committee of the Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, on 18 February 2015. Secondary approval has been obtained from the local ethics committees in six participating centres. Approval in the last centre has been sought.

RESULTS

Outcome will be published in a scientific journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR5374; Pre-results.

Long-term, self-reported health outcomes in kidney donors

Background

The wide use of healthy persons as kidney donors calls for awareness of risks associated with donation. Live kidney donation may impair quality of life (QOL) and result in fatigue. Long-term data on these issues are generally lacking in the donor population. Thus we aimed to investigate long-term self-reported health outcomes in a nationwide donor cohort.

Methods

We assessed self-reported QOL, fatigue and psychosocial issues after donation in 217 donors representing 63 % of those who donated 8–12 years ago. QOL was measured using the generic Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), fatigue using the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) and psychosocial issues using donor specific questions. For each of the 8 domains of SF-36 and the 5 domains of MFI, we performed generalized linear regression.

Results

Donors scored high on QOL with mean scores between 63.9 and 91.4 (scale 1–100) for the 8 subscales. Recognition from family and friends was associated with higher QOL scores in four domains. There were no significant gender differences. Fatigue scores were generally low. Females generally scored higher than males on all five dimensions of fatigue, although significantly only on two. Recipient still alive was associated with lower scores on mental fatigue. Regretting donors scored higher than average on all domains of fatigue. Recipient death, worries about own health and worsened relationship with the recipient influenced willingness to donate in retrospect. Donor age did not affect long-term health outcomes.

Conclusions

Eight till 12 years after donation QOL scores were generally high and improved with recogniton from family and friends. Fatigue was independent of donor age and more pronounced in females and in those who regretted donation.

Optimizing scintigraphic evaluation of split renal function in living kidney donors using the geometric mean method: a preliminary retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Accurate assessment of pre-transplant split renal function in candidates for living kidney donation is indispensable for side-selection and a sufficient long-term residual renal function.

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the need of depth correction in the assessment of split renal function in potential living kidney donors.

METHODS

In 13 consecutive patients screened for living kidney donation split renal function was measured with four different methods including conventional posterior MAG-3-scintigraphy, the geometric mean method in MAG-3-scintigraphy, MAG-3-scintigraphy with CT-based depth correction and CT-volumetry. Correlation and agreement of methods were analyzed using Spearman's rho correlation coefficient and the Bland-Altman method.

RESULTS

Despite good correlation and agreement between the different radioisotopic methods there were clinically relevant differences in split renal function in 2/13 patients (15 %) between conventional posterior MAG-3 scan and the geometric mean method. The best correlation was found between the two scintigraphic methods with depth correction. Comparing radioisotopic methods with CT-volumetry, significant differences were found in up to 6/13 patients (46 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results clearly indicate that in the case of living kidney donation further assessment concerning the accuracy and reliability of measuring split renal function is necessary. As there are no differences in duration of examination, costs and radiation exposure between techniques with and without depth correction, but clinically relevant differences in up to 46 % of patients, kidney depth should be incorporated in daily clinical practice of living kidney donor evaluation. The geometric mean method could significantly improve future patient assessment in cases of living kidney donation.

Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: Improving Efficiencies in Live Kidney Donor Evaluation--Recommendations from a Consensus Conference

The education, evaluation, and support of living donors before, during, and after donation have historically been considered the roles and responsibilities of transplant programs. Although intended to protect donors, ensure true informed consent, and prevent coercion, this structure often leaves referring nephrologists unclear about the donor process and uncertain regarding the ultimate outcome of potential donors for their patients. The aim of this article is to help the referring nephrologist understand the donor referral and evaluation process, help the referring nephrologist understand the responsibilities of the transplant program, and offer suggestions about how the referring nephrologist can help to improve efficiencies in the process of donor education and evaluation. A partnership between referring nephrologists and transplant programs is an important step in advancing living kidney donation. The referring nephrologists are the frontline providers and are in a unique position to offer education about living donation and improve efficiencies in the process. Understanding the donor referral and evaluation process, the responsibilities of the transplant program, and the potential role referring nephrologists can play in the process is critical to establishing such a partnership.

Strategies to optimize kidney recovery and preservation in transplantation: specific aspects in pediatric transplantation

In renal transplantation, live donor kidney grafts are associated with optimum success rates due to the shorter period of ischemia during the surgical procedure. The current shortage of donor organs for adult patients has caused a shift towards deceased donors, often with co-morbidity factors, whose organs are more sensitive to ischemia-reperfusion injury, which is unavoidable during transplantation. Donor management is pivotal to kidney graft survival through the control of the ischemia-reperfusion sequence, which is known to stimulate numerous deleterious or regenerative pathways. Although the key role of endothelial cells has been established, the complexity of the injury, associated with stimulation of different cell signaling pathways, such as unfolded protein response and cell death, prevents the definition of a unique therapeutic target. Preclinical transplant models in large animals are necessary to establish relationships and kinetics and have already contributed to the improvement of organ preservation. Therapeutic strategies using mesenchymal stem cells to induce allograft tolerance are promising advances in the treatment of the pediatric recipient in terms of reducing/withdrawing immunosuppressive therapy. In this review we focus on the different donor management strategies in kidney graft conditioning and on graft preservation consequences by highlighting the role of endothelial cells. We also propose strategies for preventing ischemia-reperfusion, such as cell therapy.

Transplant professionals' proposals for the implementation of an altruistic unbalanced paired kidney exchange program

BACKGROUND

Kidney recipients in the O blood group are at a disadvantage in kidney exchange programs (KEPs) because they can only receive an organ from O blood group donors. A way to remedy this unfair situation is through altruistic unbalanced paired kidney exchange (AUPKE) where a compatible pair (CP) consisting of an O donor and a non-O recipient is invited to participate in a KEP. There is no established AUPKE program in Canada. The aim of this study was to gather transplant professionals' views on the conditions necessary for the implementation of an AUPKE program.

METHODS

Nineteen Canadian transplant professionals took part in semistructured interviews. The content of these interviews was analyzed using a qualitative data analysis method.

RESULTS

Respondents' recommendations focused on the following: (i) the logistics of AUPKE (e.g., not delaying the transplantation for the CP, retrieving organs locally, providing a good quality organ to the CP, and maintaining anonymity); (ii) the transplantation teams (e.g., establishing a consensus among members and ensuring sufficient resources); (iii) information provided to CPs; and (iv) research (e.g., looking into all transplant options for O recipients, studying all potential impacts of KEPs and AUPKE).

CONCLUSION

The respondents in our study made the following recommendations for the implementation of an AUPKE program: (i) CPs should not be disadvantaged, (ii) measures should be taken to ensure that all transplant team members agree to participate and that there are sufficient resources for implementation, (iii) comprehensive information should be provided to the CP, and (iv) further research is needed on AUPKE.

The independent living donor advocate: a guidance document from the American Society of Transplantation's Living Donor Community of Practice (AST LDCOP)

The independent living donor advocate (ILDA) serves a mandated and supportive role in the care of the living organ donor, yet qualifications and role requirements are not clearly defined. Guidance comes from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Conditions for Transplant Center Participation and interpretive guidelines, Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) Policy and CMS and OPTN site surveys, yet interpretation of regulations varies. Herein, the AST Living Donor Community of Practice (LDCOP) offers seven recommendations to clarify and optimize the ILDA role: (a) the ILDA must have a certain skill set rather than a specific profession, (b) the ILDA must be educated and demonstrate competence in core knowledge components, (c) the ILDA's primary role is to assess components of informed consent, (d) centers must develop a transparent system to define ILDA independence, (e) the ILDA should have a reporting structure outside the transplant center, (f) the ILDA's role should be integrated throughout the donor care continuum, (g) the ILDA role should include a narrow "veto power." We address controversies in ILDA implementation, and offer pathways to maximize benefits and minimize limitations of approaches that may each meet regulatory requirements but confer different practice benefits. We propose a research agenda to explore the impact of the ILDA.

Long-term quality of life after liver donation in the adult to adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study (A2ALL)

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There are few long-term studies of the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in living liver donors. This study aimed to characterize donor HRQOL in the Adult to Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Study (A2ALL) up to 11 years post-donation.

METHODS

Between 2004 and 2013, HRQOL was assessed at evaluation, at 3 months, and yearly post-donation in prevalent liver donors using the short-form survey (SF-36), which provides a physical (PCS) and a mental component summary (MCS).

RESULTS

Of the 458 donors enrolled in A2ALL, 374 (82%) had SF-36 data. Mean age at evaluation was 38 (range 18-63), 47% were male, 93% white, and 43% had a bachelor's degree or higher. MCS and PCS means were above the US population at all time points. However, at every time point there were some donors who reported poor scores (>1/2 standard deviation below the age and sex adjusted mean) (PCS: 5.3-26.8%,

MCS

10.0-25.0%). Predictors of poor PCS and MCS scores included recipient's death within the two years prior to the survey and education less than a bachelor's degree; poor PCS scores were also predicted by time since donation, Hispanic ethnicity, and at the 3-month post-donation time point.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, most living donors maintain above average HRQOL up to 11 years prospectively, supporting the notion that living donation does not negatively affect HRQOL. However, targeted support for donors at risk for poor HRQOL may improve overall HRQOL outcomes for living liver donors.

The need for a standardized informed consent procedure in live donor nephrectomy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Informed consent in live donor nephrectomy is a topic of great interest. Safety and transparency are key items increasingly getting more attention from media and healthcare inspection. Because live donors are not patients, but healthy individuals undergoing elective interventions, they justly insist on optimal conditions and guaranteed safety. Although transplant professionals agree that consent should be voluntary, free of coercion, and fully informed, there is no consensus on which information should be provided, and how the donors' comprehension should be ascertained.

METHODS

Comprehensive searches were conducted in Embase, Medline OvidSP, Web-of-Science, PubMed, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2014, issue 1) and Google Scholar, evaluating the informed consent procedure for live kidney donation. The methodology was in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Interventional Systematic Reviews and written based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 1,009 hits from which 21 articles fell within the scope of this study. Procedures vary greatly between centers, and transplant professionals vary in the information they disclose. Although research has demonstrated that donors often make their decision based on moral reasoning rather than balancing risks and benefits, providing them with accurate, uniform information remains crucial because donors report feeling misinformed about or unprepared for donation. Although a standardized procedure may not provide the ultimate solution, it is vital to minimize differences in live donor education between transplant centers.

CONCLUSION

There is a definite need for a guideline on how to provide information and obtain informed consent from live kidney donors to assist the transplant community in optimally preparing potential donors.

Hispanic/Latino concerns about living kidney donation: a focus group study

CONTEXT

Given the shortage of kidneys for transplant, living kidney donation (LKD) is increasingly used to expand the organ donor pool. Although Hispanics/Latinos need disproportionately more kidney transplants, they receive a smaller proportion of living donor kidney transplants than other ethnic/racial groups.

OBJECTIVE

To assess Hispanics' awareness, perceptions, misconceptions, cultural beliefs, and values about and barriers to LKD.

DESIGN

Nine focus groups were conducted with 76 adult Hispanics in Chicago, Illinois, between January and March 2012.

PARTICIPANTS

Focus groups included kidney transplant recipients, living kidney donors, dialysis patients, and the general Hispanic public.

RESULTS

Several themes emerged as perceived barriers to LKD. Many participants identified knowledge deficits about LKD, expressing uncertainty about the differences between LKD and deceased donation, and whether kidney disease simultaneously afflicts both kidneys. Many believed that donors experience dramatically shorter life expectancies, are unable to have children, and are more susceptible to kidney disease after donating. Recipients and donors reported that family members were involved in discussions about the donor's decision to donate, with some family members discouraging donation. Financial barriers cited included fear of becoming unable to work, losing one's job, or being unable to pay household bills while recovering. Participants also identified logistic barriers for undocumented immigrants (eg, the inability to obtain government insurance for transplant candidates and uncertainty about their eligibility to donate). Donors desired information about optimizing self-care to promote their remaining kidney's health. Culturally competent interventions are needed to redress Hispanics' knowledge deficits and misconceptions and reduce LKD disparities among Hispanics.

Morbidity and mortality of live lung donation: results from the RELIVE study

The Renal and Lung Living Donors Evaluation Study assesses outcomes of live lung (lobectomy) donors. This is a retrospective cohort study at University of Southern California (USC) and Washington University (WASHU) Medical Centers (1993–2006), using medical records to assess morbidity and national databases to ascertain postdonation survival and lung transplantation. Serious complications were defined as those that required significant treatment, were potentially life-threatening or led to prolonged hospitalization. The 369 live lung donors (287 USC, 82 WASHU) were predominantly white, non-Hispanic and male; 72% had a biological relationship to the recipient, and 30% were recipient parents. Serious complications occurred in 18% of donors; 2.2% underwent reoperation and 6.5% had an early rehospitalization. The two centers had significantly different incidences of serious complications (p < 0.001). No deaths occurred and no donors underwent lung transplantation during 4000+ person-years of follow-up (death: minimum 4, maximum 17 years; transplant: minimum 5, maximum 19). Live lung donation remains a potential option for recipients when using deceased donor lungs lacks feasibility. However, the use of two live donors for each recipient and the risk of morbidity associated with live lung donation do not justify this approach when deceased lung donors remain available. Center effects and long-term live donor outcomes require further evaluation.

Psychosocial support for children and families requiring renal replacement therapy

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) can place a great strain on the child and family. As well as the medical and nutritional prescription, each child and family requires an individual psychosocial prescription that requires input from multiprofessional team members. The information needs of each child and family need to be constantly evaluated as well as the choice of therapy in relation to social, psychological and economic factors. Many tertiary units lack adequate "time" to deliver such assessments and coordinate the support and respite care for those on long-term dialysis, especially when significant numbers of children are now accepted onto RRT programmes with co-morbidities. National and international standards are needed for the staffing of comprehensive tertiary paediatric renal units as well as studies evaluating supportive care to families.