[Heart donation after circulatory death: ethical and emotional aspect of central normothermic regional perfusion]. / Hoe behoud je een donorhart na circulatoir overlijden?

Heart transplantation after circulatory death is possible in different countries with the use of ex situ normothermic perfusion of the donor heart. Central normothermic regional perfusion, where the circulation in the donor is restarted using an extracorporeal life support system after circulatory death, may give a better 1-years survival and a reduction in costs compared to ex situ normothermic perfusion of the donor heart. However, restarting circulation in a donor that was just declared death by circulatory criteria may be controversial. The advantages described are, in our view, reason to consider central normothermic regional perfusion, in which case a debate on ethical and emotional aspects is of great importance. In this article, we describe two point of views and hope in this way to start the debate on central normothermic regional perfusion in the Netherlands.

Does the Use of a Decision Aid Improve Decision Making in Prosthetic Heart Valve Selection? A Multicenter Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: A Dutch online patient decision aid to support prosthetic heart valve selection was recently developed. A multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted to assess whether use of the patient decision aid results in optimization of shared decision making in prosthetic heart valve selection. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a 5-center randomized controlled trial, patients were allocated to receive either standard preoperative care (control group) or additional access to the patient decision aid (intervention group). Legally capable adult patients accepted for elective isolated or combined aortic and mitral valve replacement were included. Primary outcome was preoperative decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale); secondary outcomes included patient knowledge, involvement in valve selection, anxiety and depression, (valve-specific) quality of life, and regret. Out of 306 eligible patients, 155 were randomized (78 control and 77 intervention). Preoperative decisional conflict did not differ between the groups (34% versus 33%; P=0.834). Intervention patients felt better informed (median Decisional Conflict Scale informed subscore: 8 versus 17; P=0.046) and had a better knowledge of prosthetic valves (85% versus 68%; P=0.004). Intervention patients experienced less anxiety and depression (median Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score: 6 versus 9; P=0.015) and better mental well-being (mean Short Form Health Survey score: 54 versus 50; P=0.032). Three months postoperatively, valve-specific quality of life and regret did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: A patient decision aid to support shared decision making in prosthetic heart valve selection does not lower decisional conflict. It does result in more knowledgeable, better informed, and less anxious and depressed patients, with a better mental well-being. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.trialregister.nl. Unique identifier: NTR4350.