Surgical Regret and Intraoperative Decision-Making: A Living Donor Kidney Case.

Surgical regret often experienced at times of a great loss may cause a surgeon to reflect on their practice and intraoperative decision-making. It is inevitable that in the surgical profession, both in training and practice, a surgeon's decisions will be questioned by themselves, peers, and possibly patients. Here, we explore a case of living donor kidney donation in which the surgeon chooses to discontinue the operation for an incidental finding. Ultimately, this is against the patient's wishes and a decision over which both the surgeon and patient experience moral hazard and regret. This article explores surgical regret from the lens of an altruistic donor case and a surgeon's inaction, discussing the ethics of the operative decision-making and surgeon's viewpoint intra- and post-operatively.

Race, Kidney Transplants, Immunosuppression Research, and White Supremacy under Apartheid, 1960-80.

This paper uses the history of kidney transplantation in South Africa as a lens through which to write a racialized, micro history that illustrates the politics of medical discoveries and medical research at one of South Africa's most prestigious medical research universities, the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits) in Johannesburg. Between 1966 and the 1980s, the Wits team became the most advanced and prolific kidney transplant unit in the country. Yet the racist, oppressive Apartheid system fundamentally shaped these developments. Transplantation, as this paper shows, became an elite medical procedure, performed by a select group of white doctors on mostly white patients. For these doctors, transplantation showed their medical prowess and displayed the technical advancements they were able to make in research and clinical practice as they strove to position South Africa as a significant international player in medical research, despite academic boycotts and increasing sanctions. Transplantation became a symbol of white supremacy in a country where the black majority were excluded from anything but the most basic health care.

Is Organ Retransplantation Among Undocumented Immigrants in the United States Just?

Numerous undocumented children in the United States with end-stage renal disease undergo kidney transplantation funded by charitable donation or state-sponsored Medicaid. However, when these funding sources expire by adulthood, most are unable to pay for follow-up appointments and immunosuppressive medications necessary for maintenance of their organ. The organs fail and patients are then left with the options of retransplantation or a lifetime of dialysis. The dilemma of retransplantation introduces many questions regarding justice and fairness. This commentary addresses several ethical concerns about the special case of organ retransplantation for undocumented patients. Clinical guidelines and a clear public policy for best practices are needed to adequately address the challenge of retransplantation and maintenance immunosuppression in this population.

Ethical Issues in the Use of Suboptimal Kidneys for Transplants: An Italian Point of View.

The shortage of organs leads to the need for utilizing suboptimal kidneys for transplantation. The distinction between optimal, marginal, and suboptimal kidneys leads surgeons to face not only technical problems but also ethical and legal issues related to clinical advantages offered by the transplant of a nonstandard kidney and the acquisition of consent. Between 1999 and 2015, we performed 658 transplants, 49 (7.5%) using suboptimal kidneys. All patients were alive and with vital graft throughout follow-up. We did not encounter any major surgical complications. From a technical point of view, our experience and literature review confirm that transplant of suboptimal kidney leads to good clinical results but exposes patients to a increased risks of surgical complications. Therefore, these interventions must take place in hospitals fully prepared for this type of surgery and performed by experienced transplant surgeons with proper matching between organ and recipient. Considering the insufficient resources available, from an ethical and legal point of view, doctors play an essential role in optimizing the use of these kidneys by avoiding wastage of organs, ensuring that transplants are done in suitable patients, and that patients are fully informed and aware of the risks and benefits associated with the specific suboptimal kidney being transplanted. We believe that, in highly specialized centers, the number of suboptimal kidney transplants should be increased, as their use has shown good clinical results and carries fewer ethical issues compared with marginal kidneys. Further, suboptimal kidneys may also be proposed for use in young patients with end-stage renal disease.

Should a patient with rheumatoid arthritis be a kidney donor?

We cared for a woman with sero-positive rheumatoid arthritis (RA), in clinical remission on oral methotrexate (MTX) and hydroxychloroquine, who wished to donate a kidney to a brother with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). We could find scant literature about this unusual clinical circumstance, and therefore review pertinent aspects of renal disease in RA, perioperative medical management, maintenance of disease remission, outcomes for RA patients who have donated kidneys, and relevant ethical issues. Renal complications in RA are not uncommon, with as many as 50% of patients at risk of reduced eGFR. This reflects anti-rheumatic and analgetic medication use (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, DMARDs [cyclosporine and, historically, D-penicillamine and gold compounds], and others), glomerulitis, interstitial nephritis, complicating Sjogren's syndrome, vasculitis, or amyloidosis, and/or emergence of an "overlap" syndrome or other rheumatic disorder. The literature suggests that MTX need not be interrupted for surgery. The risk of perioperative infection to our patient would be low and remission should be sustained. We are aware of one study of six patients with RA who donated kidneys; they experienced no complications, ESRD, or deaths after a median follow-up of 8.2 years. Our ethical responsibilities are to balance patient autonomy of decision-making while assuring clinical beneficence and minimizing potential maleficence. Our perspective was that it would not be unreasonable to support this patient donating a kidney if, when fully informed, that remained her wish.

A review of the possibility of adopting financially driven live donor kidney transplantation

ABSTRACT Kidney transplantation for end-stage renal disease remains the preferred solution due to its survival advantage, enhanced quality of life and cost-effectiveness. The main obstacle worldwide with this modality of treatment is the scarcity of organs. The demand has always exceeded the supply resulting in different types of donations. Kidney donation includes pure living related donors, deceased donors, living unrelated donors (altruistic), paired kidney donation and more recently compensated kidney donation. Ethical considerations in live donor kidney transplantation have always created a debate especially when rewarding unrelated donors. In this paper, we examine the problems of financially driven kidney transplantation, the ethical legitimacy of this practice, and propose some innovative methods and policies that could be adopted to ensure a better practice with accepted ethical guidelines.

Renal transplantation in Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome: should we?

BACKGROUND: Birt-Hogg-Dubé (BHD) Syndrome is a rare genodermatosis caused by a mutation on folliculin gene, with a strong link to renal cancer. To date few patients with such condition have reached dialysis stage, as nephron-sparing surgery is usually possible at the time of diagnosis. To our best knowledge no patient with BHD syndrome has been submitted to renal transplantation. CASE PRESENTATION: We report the case of a woman diagnosed with multifocal bilateral renal cell carcinoma that underwent bilateral radical nephrectomy and was started on a regular hemodialysis program at the age of 29. While on hemodialysis program she was diagnosed clinically with BHD syndrome and molecular testing confirmed an heterozygous mutation on FLCN gene. The patient has been kept on surveillance program for 2 years with no clinical complications from the genetic syndrome and in complete remission from renal cancer. Though there has not been any report of a patient with BHD being transplanted, risks and benefits for this patient were weighted. She has been considered apt by the transplant team and is currently waitlisted for cadaveric renal transplantation. DISCUSSION: It is a matter of discussion which should be cancer-free period for anephric patients with an inherited cancer syndrome to be candidates for renal transplant. So far BHD syndrome has not been causally associated with any other neoplastic disorder elsewhere. Accepting cancer biology is very complex and knowledge of the behaviour of this genetic syndrome is limited to a few cases reported worldwide, the authors believe that renal transplantation is the best treatment option for this young patient. The choice of post transplantation immunosuppression is debatable, but considering experience in other inherited cancer syndromes a maintenance scheme with mTOR inhibitor will be favoured.

Donor and Recipient Perspectives on Anonymity in Kidney Donation From Live Donors: A Multicenter Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Maintaining anonymity is a requirement in the Netherlands and Sweden for kidney donation from live donors in the context of nondirected (or unspecified) and paired exchange (or specified indirect) donation. Despite this policy, some donors and recipients express the desire to know one another. Little empirical evidence informs the debate on anonymity. This study explored the experiences, preferences, and attitudes of donors and recipients toward anonymity. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational multicenter study using both qualitative and quantitative methods. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 414 participants from Dutch and Swedish transplantation centers who received or donated a kidney anonymously (nondirected or paired exchange) completed a questionnaire about anonymity. Participation was a median of 31 months after surgery. FACTORS: Country of residence, donor/recipient status, transplant type, time since surgery. OUTCOMES: Experiences, preferences, and attitudes toward anonymity. RESULTS: Most participants were satisfied with their experience of anonymity before and after surgery. A minority would have liked to have met the other party before (donors, 7%; recipients, 15%) or after (donors, 22%; recipients, 31%) surgery. Significantly more recipients than donors wanted to meet the other party. Most study participants were open to meeting the other party if the desire was mutual (donors, 58%; recipients, 60%). Donors agree significantly more with the principle of anonymity before and after surgery than recipients. Donors and recipients thought that if both parties agreed, it should be permissible to meet before or after surgery. There were few associations between country or time since surgery and experiences or attitudes. The pros and cons of anonymity reported by participants were clustered into relational and emotional, ethical, and practical and logistical domains. LIMITATIONS: The relatively low response rate of recipients may have reduced generalizability. Recall bias was possible given the time lag between transplantation and data collection. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study illustrated that although donors and recipients were usually satisfied with anonymity, the majority viewed a strict policy on anonymity as unnecessary. These results may inform policy and education on anonymity.

Toward a conditional approach to anonymity? An explorative multicenter longitudinal study among anonymous living kidney donors and recipients.

Anonymity between living donors and recipients is a topic of discussion among transplant professionals. This longitudinal study explored living kidney donors' and patients' perspectives on anonymity. Prior to surgery (T0) and 3 months afterward (T1), participants in unspecified or specified indirect donation programs completed a questionnaire on their experiences with and attitudes toward anonymity as well as demographic and medical characteristics. Nonparametric tests were used to assess group differences and associations. Participants were content with anonymity at T0 and T1. Fourteen and 23% wanted to meet at T0 and T1, respectively. If the other party expressed the wish to meet, 50% (T0) and 55% (T1) would be willing to meet. Most participants agreed that meeting should be allowed if both parties agree. Attitude toward anonymity did not differ between donors/recipients, nor between T0/T1 and unspecified/specified indirect donation programs. This study showed that most donors and recipients who participated in anonymous donation schemes are in favor of a conditional approach to anonymity. Guidelines on how to revoke anonymity if both parties agree are needed and should include education about pros and cons of (non-) anonymity and a logistical plan on how, when, where, and by whom anonymity should be revoked.

[Living kidney donation]. / Le donneur vivant de rein.

OBJECTIVES: To review ethical, legal and technical aspects of living kidney donor surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An exhaustive systematic review of the scientific literature was performed in the Medline database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) and Embase (http://www.embase.com) using different associations of the following keywords: Donor nephrectomy; Kidney paired donation; Kidney transplantation; Laparoscopic nephrectomy; Living donor; Organs trafficking; Robotic assisted nephrectomy; Vaginal extraction. French legal documents have been reviewed using the government portal (http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr). Articles were selected according to methods, language of publication and relevance. A total of 6421 articles were identified; after careful selection, 161 publications were considered of interest and were eligible for our review. RESULTS: The ethical debate focuses on organ shortage, financial incentive, organ trafficking and the recent data suggesting a small but significant increase risk for late renal disease in donor population. Legal decisions aim to increase the number of kidneys available for donation, such as kidney-paired donation that faces several obstacles in France. Laparoscopic approach became widely used, while robotic-assisted donor nephrectomy failed to demonstrate improved outcome as compared with other minimal invasive techniques. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive living donor nephrectomy aims to limit side effects in the donor without increasing the morbidity in this specific population of healthy persons; long term surveillance to prevent the onset of renal disease in mandatory.

An ethical dilemma: malignant melanoma in a 51-year-old patient awaiting simultaneous kidney and pancreas transplantation for type 1 diabetes.

Malignant melanoma is a high-risk skin cancer that, in potential transplant recipients, is considered a substantial contraindication to solid organ transplantation due to significant risk of recurrence with immunosuppression. Current guidelines stipulate waiting between 3 and 10 years after melanoma diagnosis. However, in young patients with end-stage organ failure and malignant melanoma, complex ethical and moral issues arise. Assessment of the true risk associated with transplantation in these patients is difficult due to lack of prospective data, but an autonomous patient can make a decision that clinicians may perceive to be high risk. The national and worldwide shortage of available organs also has to be incorporated into the decision to maximize the net benefit and minimize the risk of graft failure and mortality. The incidence of malignant melanoma worldwide is increasing faster than that of any other cancer and continues to pose ethically challenging decisions for transplant specialists evaluating recipients for solid organ transplantation.

Advances in Ethical, Social, and Economic Aspects of Chronic Renal Disease in Bolivia.

Since 2005, great progress has been made in health care provision to patients with terminal renal failure in Bolivia. Access to dialysis and transplantation is regulated by the Ministry of Health, based on clinical criteria, applied equitably, without favoritism or discrimination based on race, sex, economic means, or political power. Until December 2013, there were no restrictions in dialysis and transplantation in Health Insurance institutions, but they covered only 30% of the population. Now the remaining 70% has access to free dialysis funded by the communities where patients live, with funds coming from the government and taxes on oil products. More than 2,231 people are getting dialysis, reaching a population growth of >60% annually. The number of hemodialysis units has increased by >200% (60 units), making access easier for end-stage renal failure patients. Treatment protocols have been drawn up to guarantee the best quality of life for the patients. The Law on Donation and Transplantation was enacted in 1996, and Supplementary Regulations were enacted in 1997 with various amendments over the past 5 years. A National Transplant Coordination Board, working under the National Renal Health Program, supervises and regulates transplants and promotes deceased-donor transplantation in an attempt to cover the demand for donors. Rules have been drawn up for accreditation of transplant centers and teams to guarantee the best possible conditions and maximum guaranties. Since January 2014, the National Renal Health Program has been providing free kidney transplants from living donors.

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.

Optimized donor management and organ preservation before kidney transplantation.

Kidney transplantation is a major medical improvement for patients with end-stage renal disease, but organ shortage limits its widespread use. As a consequence, the proportion of grafts procured from extended criteria donors (ECD) has increased considerably, but this comes along with increased rates of delayed graft function (DGF) and a higher incidence of immune-mediated rejection that limits organ and patient survival. Furthermore, most grafts are derived from brain dead organ donors, but the unphysiological state of brain death is associated with significant metabolic, hemodynamic, and pro-inflammatory changes, which further compromise patient and graft survival. Thus, donor interventions to preserve graft quality are fundamental to improve long-term transplantation outcome, but interventions must not harm other potentially transplantable grafts. Several donor pretreatment strategies have provided encouraging results in animal models, but evidence from human studies is sparse, as most clinical evidence is derived from single-center or nonrandomized trials. Furthermore, ethical matters have to be considered especially concerning consent from donors, donor families, and transplant recipients to research in the field of donor treatment. This review provides an overview of clinically proven and promising preclinical strategies of donor treatment to optimize long-term results after kidney transplantation.

Kidney and liver transplantation in the elderly.

BACKGROUND: Transplant surgery is facing a shortage of deceased donor organs. In response, the criteria for organ donation have been extended, and an increasing number of organs from older donors are being used. For recipients, the benefits of transplantation are great, and the growing ageing population has led to increasing numbers of elderly patients being accepted for transplantation. METHODS: The literature was reviewed to investigate the impact of age of donors and recipients in abdominal organ transplantation, and to highlight aspects of the fine balance in donor and recipient selection and screening, as well as allocation policies fair to young and old alike. RESULTS: Overall, kidney and liver transplantation from older deceased donors have good outcomes, but are not as good as those from younger donors. Careful donor selection based on risk indices, and potentially biomarkers, special allocation schemes to match elderly donors with elderly recipients, and vigorous recipient selection, allows good outcomes with increasing age of both donors and recipients. The results of live kidney donation have been excellent for donor and recipient, and there is a trend towards inclusion of older donors. Future strategies, including personalized immunosuppression for older recipients as well as machine preservation and reconditioning of donor organs, are promising ways to improve the outcome of transplantation between older donors and older recipients. CONCLUSION: Kidney and liver transplantation in the elderly is a clinical reality. Outcomes are good, but can be optimized by using strategies that modify donor risk factors and recipient co-morbidities, and personalized approaches to organ allocation and immunosuppression.

Medical and ethical challenges during the first successful human kidney transplantation in 1954 at Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, Boston.

BACKGROUND: The first successful major organ transplantation, a kidney transplant, took place on December 23, 1954, at Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. This was the beginning of major organ transplants commonly performed today, heralding one of the most significant achievements of medicine. A half-century later, heart, liver, limb, and even face transplants have become standard practice. In this report, we explore details of the preparations, the ethical dilemmas and the unknowns, and how these issues were addressed and overcome. METHODS: Published works, hospital records, personal notes, and conversations with the individuals who participated in this event allowed us a unique opportunity to collect, analyze, and interpret the events. RESULTS: Several factors converged at Peter Bent Brigham Hospital to enable success. The department chair in medicine was committed to studying renal hypertension who then recruited others to work in this area. The department chair in surgery was committed to research, including making research results clinically useful. The chair of the anesthesia division was a technically skilled clinician, able to manage a previously unknown procedure. Finally, a suitable candidate for kidney transplant happened to have an identical twin brother, eliminating the issue of possible rejection. These factors aligned at the right time and place to transplant the first human kidney. CONCLUSIONS: Medical and ethical challenges dominated the scene of the first successful major organ transplant, which began the remarkable advance in transplant medicine, an advance that occurred very rapidly between 1947 and 1951.

Seriously ill patients as living unspecified kidney donors: rationale and justification.

BACKGROUND: Between 2000 and December 2013, 106 live donor nephrectomies from anonymous living-donors were performed at the Erasmus MC Rotterdam; five of the donors (5.4%) had a life-threatening disease. The aim of the present report is to give the rational and justification for this procedure. METHODS: All five donors underwent the national standard living-donor screening procedure. Additionally, motivation to donate and psychologic stability were assessed by a psychologist using in-depth interview techniques and a psychologic complaints questionnaire. Post-donor nephrectomy follow-up consisted of standard questionnaires and clinical check-ups. RESULTS: One patient had cerebral and caudal ependymomas, one had severe and progressive emphysema, two had Huntington's disease and one had a grade 2 oligodendroglioma. The psychologic screening revealed genuine motivation, adequate risk perception, and normal sense of reality. No contraindications for donation were found. The five donor nephrectomies made nine kidney transplantations possible. All donors were satisfied with the donation procedure. Three donors died during follow-up (0.6-4.9 years) as a result of their disease. CONCLUSION: In the absence of apparent additional health risks, medical, and psychologic contraindications, we consider it ethically justified to accept an offer from a cognitively competent patient with a life-threatening disease in view of their self-reported satisfaction during follow-up. Although based on a limited number of patients, we conclude that a stricter psychologic screening for seriously ill donors compared to healthy unspecified anonymous donors to unspecified patients is not necessary.