Does prehabilitation before esophagectomy improve postoperative outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is associated with high morbidity. It remains unclear whether prehabilitation, a strategy aimed at optimizing patients' physical and mental functioning prior to surgery, improves postoperative outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of prehabilitation on post-operative outcomes after esophagectomy. Data sources included Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PEDro, with information from 1 January 2000 to 5 August 2023. The analysis included randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared prehabilitation interventions to standard care prior to esophagectomy. A random effects model was used to generate a pooled estimate for pairwise meta-analysis, meta-analysis of proportions, and meta-analysis of means. A total of 1803 patients were included with 584 in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1219 in observational studies. In the randomized evidence, there were no significant differences between prehabilitation and control in the odds of postoperative pneumonia (15.0 vs. 18.9%, odds ratio (OR) 1.06 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.66;1.72]) or pulmonary complications (14 vs. 25.6%, OR 0.68 [95% CI: 0.32;1.45]). In the observational data, there was a reduction in both postoperative pneumonia (22.5 vs. 32.9%, OR 0.48 [95% CI: 0.28;0.83]) and pulmonary complications (26.1 vs. 52.3%, OR 0.35 [95% CI: 0.17;0.75]) with prehabilitation. Hospital and intensive care unit length of stay (days), operative mortality, and severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) did not differ between groups in both the randomized data and observational data. Prehabilitation demonstrated reductions in postoperative pneumonia and pulmonary complications in observational studies, but not RCTs. The overall certainty of these findings is limited by the low quality of the available evidence.

Gift Discourse in Transplant and Its Implications in Anonymous Living Liver Donation.

The Gift of Life metaphor is prevalent in pro-donation dialogue, aiming to promote transplant programs and conceptualize the act of organ donation. To obtain a better understanding of living donor perceptions on the term Gift of Life, we analyzed thematic views presented by anonymous living donors (ALLDs). Twenty-six ALLDs completed a semi-structured qualitative interview consisting of questions regarding their motivations, experiences, and perceptions on donation. The following 5 major themes relating to the Gift of Life terminology were elucidated: (1) Complete agreement with the term and its relevance to donation. (2) Their donation did not represent a Gift of Life. (3) The term was too grandiose. (4)A belief that the term has more meaning for the recipient rather than donor. (5 )That the "gift" goes both ways, with the donor also benefiting from the experience.

Anonymity: What does it mean and why is it important to anonymous living liver donors?

Anonymous living organ donation has recently become more common in select transplantation programs, with donors voluntarily offering a kidney or a lobe of their liver to those in need. These anonymous donations may be directed to a specific recipient or nondirected, and anonymity may be one way or reciprocal. Given their unique situation, we interviewed a cohort of anonymous living liver donors and explored their opinions surrounding anonymity and its implications in living liver donation. A total of 26 anonymous donors completed a semistructured qualitative interview consisting of questions regarding their experiences as a living liver donor. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for common themes, specifically those pertaining to the donor's perceptions and experiences with anonymity. Five main themes related to anonymity were identified: (1) the moral importance of an unencumbered gift, (2) wanting internal satisfaction rather than seeking external accolades, (3) anonymity as a protection against potential negative outcomes in the recipient, (4) feelings of ambivalence toward meeting the recipient, and (5) concerns about negative perceptions among their own friends and family. These insights into the range of donors' attitudes toward anonymity will help improve awareness and provide the best possible mental and physical care for the anonymous donor.

Anonymous living liver donor perspectives on the role of family in their donation experience.

Anonymous living organ donation is an understudied but rapidly expanding sector in organ transplantation, in which donors choose to donate anonymously to a recipient in need. The family members and close support network of living donors often play a crucial role in the donation process, and their influence likely has a large impact on the decision to donate as well as the donor's physical and psychosocial state. However, there is limited data examining the impact donor families have on the anonymous donor, and in turn, the impact donation has on donors' families. To assess this, we analyzed a semi-structured qualitative interview on living donor experiences with 26 anonymous living liver donors for common themes concerning donor families. Responses surrounding donor families were grouped into three major categories: (1) family reactions to donation, ranging from (a) pride/support, (b) fear/worry, and (c) jealousy/anger; (2) the impact of donation on donor-family relationships, including (a) positive impacts, (b) negative impacts, (c) a positive ripple effect; (3) gaps in institutional support for donor families. This study provides unique information on anonymous living liver donor perceptions related to their families and will help improve existing programs to accommodate donor family needs and cater to donor relationships.

Lung transplant recipient attitudes and beliefs on accepting an organ that is positive for hepatitis C virus.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about patient perceptions regarding HCV+ organ use in non-HCV-infected recipients. This study examined factors influencing the decision to accept HCV+ organs and the resulting impacts. METHODS: Adult lung transplant (LT) patients or candidates who had consented to receive an HCV+ organ completed a survey including multiple choice, a five-point Likert scale, and free-text answers. A total of 67 LT recipients or candidates who had consented to receive HCV+ organs were enrolled, of which 21/67 (31%) received HCV+ lungs, 39 (58%) HCV- lungs, and seven (10%) were still waiting. RESULTS: Pre-transplant, 50/67 (75%) patients felt it was either "completely safe" or "very safe" to accept an HCV+ organ. Although 22/67 (33%) said they never or rarely took risks, they still made the decision to accept an HCV+ organ. Common reported reasons were desperation, perception of having "no choice," and increasing symptom severity. In the subset of patients that were transplanted with an HCV+ organ (n = 21), only 12.5% reported second thoughts about accepting. Post-transplant, the majority (87.5%) never felt any anxiety about HCV and most (83%) reported no impact from HCV. Perception of treatment tolerability and ease was highly favorable. CONCLUSION: Use of HCV+ organs demonstrated minimal detrimental perceived impacts on lung transplant patients. Patients generally found the experience to be very positive.

Attitudes of Liver Transplant Candidates Toward Organs From Increased-Risk Donors.

Increased-risk donor (IRD) organs make up a significant proportion of the deceased organ donor pool but may be declined by patients on the waiting list for various reasons. We conducted a survey of patients awaiting a liver transplant to determine the factors leading to the acceptance of an IRD organ as well as what strategies could increase the rate of acceptance. Adult liver transplant candidates who were outpatients completed a survey of 51 questions on a 5-point Likert scale with categories related to demographics, knowledge of IRDs, and likelihood of acceptance. A total of 150 transplant candidates completed the survey (age 19-80 years). Male patients constituted 67.3%. Many patients (58.7%) had postsecondary education. Only 23.3% of patients had a potential living donor, and 58/144 (40.3%) were not optimistic about receiving an organ in the next 3 months. The overall IRD organ acceptance rate was 41.1%, whereas 26.2% said they would decline an IRD organ. Women were more likely to accept an IRD organ (54.3% versus 34.7%; P = 0.02). Those who had a college education or higher tended to have lower IRD organ acceptability (28.3% versus 47.4%; P = 0.07). Acceptability also increased as the specified transmission risk of human immunodeficiency virus or hepatitis C virus decreased (P < 0.001). Patients were also more likely to accept an IRD organ if they were educated on the benefits of IRD organs (eg, knowledge that an IRD organ was of better quality increased overall acceptance from 41.1% to 63.3%; P < 0.001). Our survey provides insight into liver transplant candidates who would benefit from greater education on IRD organs. Strategies targeting specific educational points are likely to increase acceptability.