Selection of Donors for Adult Living-Donor Liver Donation: Results of the Assessment of the First 205 Donor Candidates

Health-related quality of life of living liver donors 1 year after donation

Background

Improving the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of living liver donors post-donation is an important aspect of care quality. Analyzing the HRQOL of living liver donors prospectively could help improve our understanding of the recovery of HRQOL and help improve the quality of donor care. In this study, we examined the HRQOL of living liver donors at pre-donation and at 1-year post-donation and analyzed the effect of pre- and post-donation factors on the donors' physical and mental HRQOL.

Methods

This was a prospective study. During the enrollment period (August 2013 to December 2015), 68 living liver donors completed the study questionnaires 5 times: at pre-donation and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-donation. The Medical Outcomes Study Questionnaire Short Form-36, which yields both physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) component summary scores, was used to measure the HRQOL. The pre- and post-donation factors included donation ambivalence, recipients' physical condition, post-donation complications, and recipients' survival status.

Results

Participants' mean PCS scores were 43.59 and 56.50 at 1 and 12 months after donation, respectively, whereas their mean MCS scores were 46.89 and 46.28, respectively. The mean PCS score was worse at 1 month after donation but improved significantly over time (P<0.05); conversely, the MCS was quite stable over time (P>0.05). A good PCS score was associated with no surgical complications of donation (coefficient =2.87, P=0.02), whereas a poor MCS score was associated with an education of less than a bachelor's degree (coefficient =-3.60, P=0.004), a higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score in the recipient (coefficient =-0.13, P=0.03), and recipient death (coefficient =-3.48, P=0.03). Pre-donation ambivalence and sense of coherence were not significant predictors of the PCS or MCS scores.

Conclusions

The impact of living liver donation on HRQOL was strongest in the early stages of the post-surgery period for the physical domain. Health-care professionals should carefully manage and monitor the progress of surgical outcomes, particularly in high-risk groups such as donors with a low education level or donors whose recipients have severe illness or end up dying after the surgery. Doing so may allow for suitable intervention opportunities to improve the HRQOL of living liver donors.

Psychological profiles of excluded living liver donor candidates: An observational study

Living donor liver transplantation has advantages over deceased organ liver transplantation. However, the living liver donor candidates must be carefully assessed before surgery. Candidates may be excluded for various reasons. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the psychological profiles of excluded living liver donor candidates according to the reason for exclusion.A descriptive and cross-sectional study was conducted. Donor candidates were invited to participate if they were at least 20 years of age, related biologically or by marriage to the recipient (within 5 degrees), and had undergone living donor evaluation. Among the 338 participants recruited from August 2013 to December 2015, 116 were excluded for the following reasons: a medical condition (n = 35), failure to be chosen (n = 63), or withdrawal from the selection process (n = 18). The psychological profiles of these 3 exclusion groups were evaluated.There were no significant group differences in age, sex, education level, religion, marital status, and consanguinity (P > .05). The withdrawal group had fewer recipients with an hepatitis B virus infection than did the other groups (χ = 9.28, P = .01). Additionally, compared with the unchosen group, the withdrawal group had lower intimacy with the recipient (F = 5.32, P = .006) and higher ambivalence (F = 5.53, P = .005). In terms of family relationship parameters, the withdrawal group had lower family cohesion than the medical condition and unchosen groups (F = 4.44, P = .01), lower family expressiveness than the medical condition group (F = 3.76, P = .03), and higher family conflict than the medical condition and unchosen groups (F = 7.05, P = .001). The withdrawal group also had lower emotional social support than the medical condition group (F = 3.55, P = .03). There were no significant group difference in motivation, expectations, donation-related concerns, informational social support, value social support, instrumental social support, and health-related quality of life.The living donor candidates who withdrew from the selection process had obvious ambivalence, poorer family relationships, and insufficient emotional social support. The transplantation team should respect the autonomy of the candidate's decision and mitigate the impact of the donation decision on living liver donor candidates.

Assessment of relevant factors with respect to psychosocial properties in potential living donor candidates before liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been developed as one of gold standard treatments for end-stage liver disease. Mental health is a required selection criterion for adult living liver donors and may influence the quality of life after operation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 1,210 potential living donor candidates for liver transplantation (LT) underwent psychosocial evaluation that included a semi-structured interview, multi-choice self-reported inventory (Beck Depression Inventory-2nd edition [BDI-II], Beck Anxiety Inventory [BAI]), and the family APGAR (Adaptability, Partnership, Growth, Affection, Resolve) index. The test results were compared by family relationships, and subgroups were classified based on the donation type: 1) parents to children, 2) grown children to parents, 3) siblings to siblings, 4) spouses to spouses, and 5) other relatives to other relatives.

RESULTS

The BDI-II (P < 0.001) and BAI differed considerably according to the donation type in potential donor candidates. Compared with other subgroups, parents donating to their children suffered the most severe psychological stress before LDLT and exhibited more depressive (P < 0.001) and anxiety symptoms. However, the stress associated with grown children donating to their parents, siblings, and spouses was not significantly higher than it was for other relatives. Furthermore, a significant negative correlation existed between family APGAR scores and the severity of depression and anxiety (P < 0.001) among potential donor candidates.

CONCLUSION

These results indicate the importance of understanding potential donor candidates' psychological characteristics before LT. Greater anxiety and depression may be exhibited by parent donors due to the distress from fears of death or illness of the recipients, or their guilty feeling for their child. Additionally, family dysfunction also revealed more depression and anxiety. Such donor candidates should be given more extensive pre-donation counseling for minimizing pre-LDLT psychological stress.

Mental health status after living donor hepatectomy

Donor safety and preservation of donor health after living liver donation are of paramount importance. In addition, the preoperative mental state of a donor is an important factor in determining the psychological impact of donor hepatectomy. Thus, we aimed to explore the mental health status of living liver donors after hepatectomy. We enrolled 60 donors who were scheduled to undergo living donor hepatectomy during the period January 2014 to March 2015 at a single medical center. Mental health status was measured before and 3 months after surgery using 3 self-report questionnaires, namely the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) to assess depressive symptoms, the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL-BREF) questionnaire to measure quality of life, and the Chinese Health Questionnaire (CHQ) to screen for minor psychiatric disorders. A comparison of the pre- and postdonation CES-D scores revealed a significant reduction in depressive symptoms after surgery (P = .031). There were significant improvements in the physical health domain (P = .031), the psychological health domain (P = .005), the social relationships domain (P = .005), and the environmental health domain (P = .010) of the WHOQOL-BREF. There were no significant changes in CHQ scores after donor hepatectomy (P = .136). All donors reported that they would donate again if required. Approximately one-third (33.3%) of donors experienced more pain than they had anticipated in the immediate postoperative period, and 20.0% of donors had complications after donor hepatectomy. Donor mental health status tended to improve as donors regained physical function during the 1st 3 months of recovery. Long-term monitoring of living donors' mental health is needed to minimize the adverse psychological outcomes of living liver donation.

Live liver donors' information needs: A qualitative study of practical implications for informed consent

BACKGROUND

As live donor liver transplantation is increasingly used to expand the donor pool, concerns remain regarding how best to obtain live liver donors' informed consent. This study assessed donors' information preferences and their perceptions of informed consent.

METHODS

Cognitive interviews were conducted with donors by telephone about how knowledge items in a new survey instrument were material to informed consent, between November 2011 and April 2012. Thematic analysis was used to analyze qualitative data until reaching saturation.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine liver donors participated (85% participation). Donors commonly reported being unable to understand or retain much information disclosed during education. Donors preferred information about major donation risks, eg, death and minor risks that would likely affect their daily lives, eg, wound infection. Donors expressed less interest in information about their rights, confidentiality, or the medical procedure itself. Donors' preferences varied regarding statistical information. Many perceived the disclosure of risk information to be excessive, and rationalized risks they believed to be uncommon or not serious. Donors were disappointed by the brevity of the postdonation hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that the complexity and volume of disclosed information during evaluation were difficult for donors to adequately comprehend. Donors' lack of appreciation for the seriousness of complications may undermine their ability to provide informed consent. Future research should develop effective methods of information delivery to enhance informed consent.

Resilience and quality of life in 161 living kidney donors before nephrectomy and in the aftermath of donation: a naturalistic single center study

BACKGROUND

Due to the shortage of cadaveric organs, living kidney donation has begun to serve as the most crucial organ pool. Transplant centers have a legitimate interest in expanding the pool of donors. A psychosocial evaluation is established in transplantation centers to prevent donors from possible emotional harm in the aftermath of donation. We explored if the resilience questionnaire is an appropriate measure of the mental stability. To standardize procedures of psychosocial evaluation and to optimize donor recruitment, we present our evaluation protocol and analyze the causes of exclusion from donation.

METHOD

In a naturalistic design, we compared resilience and quality of life in eligible and excluded donors at the time point of donation. Potential living kidney donors (N = 161) participated in the obligatory psychosomatic evaluation. Quality of life (World Health Organization Quality of Life, WHOQOL-Bref) and resilience (Resilience Scale, RS-12) were measured. Three months after nephrectomy donors quality of life was screened in a follow-up.

RESULTS

In the evaluation interview donors were classified as eligible (n = 142) or excluded (n = 12). Nonrelated donors (n = 3) were excluded from donation significantly more often (p < .011). Eligible donors (M = 78.42, SD = 10.19) had higher values for resilience than excluded donors (M = 72.7, SD = 8.18, p < .04), who showed values comparable to the norm. In all domains of quality of life, eligible donors had significantly higher values than healthy normals (p < .001). After donation health-related quality of life decreased, but was comparable to the norm. A regression analysis showed that resilience was a significant predictor for all dimensions of quality of life before donation (R(2) = 10.2-24.6 %). Post-donation quality of life was significantly correlated with pre-donation resilience scores (p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The resilience score predicts high mental quality of life before and after donation. Therefor it can be implemented as a self-rating instrument to further objectify donor's mental stability. Despite the stressful life event of donation, donor candidates presented high resilience and high levels of quality of life. Therefor our findings support health care providers` intentions to improve living donation. In the group of excluded donors nonrelated persons were overrepresented. Guidelines for the admission of nonrelated donors are currently unclear and need to be optimized.

Effect of social support and donation-related concerns on ambivalence of living liver donor candidates

Ambivalence in the decision-making process for living liver donors has the potential to result in their experiencing a negative mental status. To promote donor candidates' well-being, it is important to study the factors related to ambivalence. Thus, the aim of this study was to explore the ambivalence of living liver donor candidates and to investigate the effect of social support and donation-related concerns on their ambivalence. A cross-sectional design was used. In total, 100 living liver donor candidates who underwent a preoperative evaluation between April and October 2009 were recruited for the study. Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire that contained items related to ambivalence, donation-related concerns, and social support. The mean score for ambivalence was 3.14 (standard deviation = 1.8), and the median was 3. Only 7% of the study sample reported no ambivalence during the assessment stage. Ambivalence was positively correlated with donation-related concerns (physical concerns, r = 0.39; psychosocial concerns, r = 0.43; financial concerns, r = 0.29) and negatively correlated with social support (r = -0.16 to -0.33). Those with psychosocial concerns had significantly worse ambivalence (β = 0.29, P = 0.03), but social support mitigated ambivalence (β = -0.34, P = 0.01). When intimacy and social support were included in the model, the effect of psychosocial concerns on ambivalence became nonsignificant (β = 0.24, P = 0.08). Ambivalence is common among living liver donor candidates, but instrumental social support can mediate the negative effect of donation-related concerns. Recommendations include providing appropriate social support to minimize donation-related concerns and, thus, to reduce the ambivalence of living liver candidates.

Preventive intervention for living donor psychosocial outcomes: feasibility and efficacy in a randomized controlled trial

There are no evidence-based interventions to prevent adverse psychosocial consequences after living donation. We conducted a single-site randomized controlled trial to examine the postdonation impact of a preventive intervention utilizing motivational interviewing (MI) to target a major risk factor for poor psychosocial outcomes, residual ambivalence (i.e. lingering hesitation and uncertainty) about donating. Of 184 prospective kidney or liver donors, 131 screened positive for ambivalence; 113 were randomized to (a) the MI intervention, (b) an active comparison condition (health education) or (c) standard care only before donation. Ambivalence was reassessed postintervention (before donation). Primary trial outcomes-psychosocial variables in somatic, psychological and family interpersonal relationship domains-were assessed at 6 weeks and 3 months postdonation. MI subjects showed the greatest decline in ambivalence (p = 0.050). On somatic outcomes, by 3 months postdonation MI subjects reported fewer physical symptoms (p = 0.038), lower rates of fatigue (p = 0.021) and pain (p = 0.016), shorter recovery times (p = 0.041) and fewer unexpected medical problems (p = 0.023). Among psychological and interpersonal outcomes, they had a lower rate of anxiety symptoms (p = 0.046) and fewer unexpected family-related problems (p = 0.045). They did not differ on depression, feelings about donation or family relationship quality. The findings suggest that the intervention merits testing in a larger, multisite trial.

Prevention of poor psychosocial outcomes in living organ donors: from description to theory-driven intervention development and initial feasibility testing

CONTEXT

Although some living donors experience psychological, somatic, and interpersonal difficulties after donation, interventions to prevent such outcomes have not been developed or evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To (1) summarize empirical evidence on psychosocial outcomes after donation, (2) describe a theoretical framework to guide development of an intervention to prevent poor outcomes, and (3) describe development and initial evaluation of feasibility and acceptability of the intervention.

METHODS

Based on a narrative literature review suggesting that individuals ambivalent about donation are at risk for poor psychosocial outcomes after donation, the intervention targeted this risk factor. Intervention structure and content drew on motivational interviewing principles in order to assist prospective donors to resolve ambivalence. Data were collected on donors' characteristics at our institution to determine whether they constituted a representative population in which to evaluate the intervention. Study participants were then recruited to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. They were required to have scores greater than 0 on the Simmons Ambivalence Scale (indicating at least some ambivalence about donation).

RESULTS

Our population was similar to the national living donor population on most demographic and donation-related characteristics. Eight individuals who had been approved to donate either a kidney or liver segment were enrolled for pilot testing of the intervention. All successfully completed the 2-session telephone-based intervention before scheduled donation surgery. Participants' ratings of acceptability and satisfaction were high. Open-ended comments indicated that the intervention addressed participants' thoughts and concerns about the decision to donate.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention is feasible, acceptable, and appears relevant to donor concerns. A clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of the intervention is warranted.

[Postoperative pain trajectories to identify risk of chronic postsurgical pain in living donors for liver transplantation]

OBJECTIVES

To assess pain trajectories in predicting risk of chronic postoperative pain (CPP) after liver resection for living donor transplantation.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of patients undergoing liver resection for living donor transplantation during 3years.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

After recording perioperative data, patients presenting CPP at 3months were separated from patients without postsurgical pain problem in order to build a pain trajectory for liver donor patients without CPP. Postoperative course of liver donors with CPP was then compared to that standard pain trajectory.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients (30 females, 35 males) were included. Epidural analgesia was used in 66%; others received autocontrolled analgesia by morphine. Severe acute pain was expressed by 11% and 37% at rest and movement respectively on the first day. Chronic pain involved six patients without any link with gender or type of analgesia. Analysis of pain trajectories shown that these patients presented either higher initial pain at day 1 or positive slopes with worsening of pain.

CONCLUSION

Acute postoperative pain is a risk factor of developing CPP. Identification of those people by pain trajectories can be useful to treat them early.

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

Given the organ scarcity, live organ donation is increasingly considered a viable alternative for kidney and liver transplantation. Yet living donation challenges the ethical principle of nonmaleficence by subjecting healthy individuals to medical, psychosocial and unknown risks. Therefore, transplant providers, policy-makers and donors are committed to ensuring that prospective donors provide adequate informed consent to undergo the procedure. Informed consent for living donation is ethically required as a means of demonstrating respect for donor's autonomy and protecting their safety. However, all elements of informed consent are fraught with difficulties due to the unique nature of the donation process and outcome. This paper reviews empirical research on informed consent for live kidney donors (LKD) and live liver donors (LLD) for both adult and pediatric recipients. As this review shows, studies that empirically assessed the quality of informed consent elements reveal considerable variability and deficiencies across the informed consent process, suggesting the need for improvement. This review highlights challenges to each element of consent for both LKDs and LLDs, and situates trends within broader policy contexts, ethical debates and avenues for future innovative research.

Influence of kinship on donors' mental burden in living donor liver transplantation

In the context of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), German transplantation law stipulates that donor candidates should primarily be relatives of the recipients or persons with distinct and close relationships. In this study, we investigated the influence of the relationship between the donor and the recipient on the donor's emotional strain before transplantation. Donors were categorized according to the following subgroups: (1) parents donating for their children, (2) children donating for their parents, (3) siblings, (4) spouses, (5) other relatives, and (6) nonrelatives. The sample consisted of 168 donor candidates. Anxiety (F = 2.8, P = 0.02), depression (F = 2.6, P = 0.03), and emotional quality of life (F = 3.1, P = 0.01) differed significantly according to the relationship between the donor and the recipient. In comparison with healthy controls, parents donating for their children were significantly less stressed before LDLT and demonstrated fewer anxiety (P < 0.01) and depression symptoms (P < 0.05). Adult children donating for their parents demonstrated the highest mental burden and the lowest emotional quality of life. However, this was not due to the responsibility of these children for their own families because differences between donors with children and donors without children could not be ascertained. This group should be given special attention before LDLT and during follow-up visits, and psychological help should be provided when it is necessary.

Informed consent and decision-making about adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation: a systematic review of empirical research

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a complex procedure that poses serious health risks to and provides no direct health benefit for the donor. Because of this uneven risk-benefit ratio, ensuring donor autonomy through informed consent is critical. To assess the current knowledge pertaining to informed consent for LDLT, we conducted a systematic review of the empirical literature on donors' decision-making process, comprehension about risks and outcomes, and information needs for LDLT. Of the 1423 identified articles, 24 met final review criteria, representing the perspective of approximately 2789 potential and actual donors. As donors' decisions to donate often occur before evaluation, they often make uninformed decisions. The review found that 88% to 95% of donors reported understanding information clinicians disclosed about risks and benefits. However, donors reported unmet information needs, knowledge gaps regarding risks, and unanticipated complications. Few donors reported feeling pressure to donate. Most studies were limited by cultural differences, small sample sizes, inconsistent measures, and poor methodological approaches. This systematic review suggests that informed consent for LDLT is sub-optimal as donors do not adequately appreciate disclosed information during the informed consent process, despite United Network for Organ Sharing/CMS regulations requiring formal psychological evaluation of donor candidates. Interventions are needed to improve donor-clinician communication during the LDLT informed consent process such as through the use of comprehension assessment tools and e-health educational tools that leverage adult learning theory to effectively convey LDLT outcome data.

A psychosocial evaluation process for living liver donors: the University of Rochester model

OBJECTIVE

The donation of livers by living donors entails complex processes, both surgically and psychosocially, potentially involving risks in both domains. Thorough psychosocial evaluation is necessary to minimize those risks, yet little has been written about the donor assessment process. This article describes one such process, utilized by a transplant program in upstate New York.

METHOD

Donor candidates undergo multiple psychosocial interviews early in the overall transplant evaluation process. Evaluators subsequently meet as a group, along with an independent ethicist, to determine psychosocial candidacy prior to final medical/surgical clearance.

RESULTS

Between 2003 and 2007, 416 donor candidates initiated and/or underwent full evaluation, resulting in a 17.5% surgery and 55.5% exclusion rate among those individuals. Of those ruled out, 20.8% were for (medical or psychosocial) reasons associated with the recipient, and 8.7% were for donor-related psychosocial issues.

CONCLUSION

Given the primacy ofpsychosocial and ethical issues in living liver donor candidate evaluation, the multiple interview process, followed by team discussion and overseen by an ethicist removed from other transplant program functions, has advantages as a donor assessment model.

Long-term follow-up after right hepatectomy for adult living donation and attitudes toward the procedure

OBJECTIVES

To determine the long-term health status of donors after right hepatectomy for adult live donor liver transplantation (ALDLT).

BACKGROUND

The long-term outcomes for ALDLT donors are unknown.

METHODS

ALDLT donors undergoing right hepatectomy from April 1998 to June 2007 were invited to complete a questionnaire regarding health status, satisfaction (1-10/worst-best scale), self-esteem, willingness to donate again, and suggestions for improvement. In addition, donor files and cholecystectomy specimens were reviewed. Fisher's exact test, Kaplan-Meier and logistic regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Eighty-three donors were contacted (median age: 36 years; median follow-up: 69 months). 39 (47%) were free of symptoms. The remaining 44 (53%) reported: intolerance to fatty meals and diarrhea (31%), gastroesophageal reflux associated with left liver hypertrophy (9%), incisional discomfort requiring pain medications (6%), severe depression requiring hospitalization (4%), rib pain affecting lifestyle (2%), and exacerbation of psoriasis (1%). Median satisfaction score was 8. Self-esteem diminished in 5%. Thirty-nine (47%) recommended improvements particularly more detailed informed donor consent and a centralized living donor liver registry. Seventy-eight (94%) were willing to donate again. There were no differences between donors with and without complaints with respect to: donor age, gender, early complications and follow-up time, young-to-old donation, recipient diagnosis of malignancy and death of the recipient. Noninflamed donor cholecystectomy specimens correlated with intolerance to fatty meals and diarrhea (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

ALDLT donors are at risk for long-term complaints that are neither reflected nor related to early complications. This information should be included in both the donor evaluation and the ALDLT decision-making process.

Adult right-lobe living liver donors: quality of life, attitudes and predictors of donor outcomes

To refine selection criteria for adult living liver donors and improve donor quality of care, risk factors for poor postdonation health-related quality of life (HRQOL) must be identified. This cross-sectional study examined donors who underwent a right hepatectomy at the University of Toronto between 2000 and 2007 (n = 143), and investigated predictors of (1) physical and mental health postdonation, as well as (2) willingness to participate in the donor process again. Participants completed a standardized HRQOL measure (SF-36) and measures of the pre- and postdonation process. Donor scores on the SF-36 physical and mental health indices were equivalent to, or greater than, population norms. Greater predonation concerns, a psychiatric diagnosis and a graduate degree were associated with lower mental health postdonation whereas older donors reported better mental health. The majority of donors (80%) stated they would donate again but those who perceived that their recipient engaged in risky health behaviors were more hesitant. Prospective donors with risk factors for lower postdonation satisfaction and mental health may require more extensive predonation counseling and postdonation psychosocial follow-up. Risk factors identified in this study should be prospectively evaluated in future research.