A Comparison of the Content and Quality of Organ Donation Discussions with African American Families Who Authorize and Refuse Donation.

BACKGROUND: This study compares the experiences of African American (AA) families who authorized organ donation with those who refused. METHODS: Large administrative datasets were obtained from 9 partnering Organ Procurement Organizations (OPO). Initial analyses used these data to assess authorization among African American families (n = 1651). Subsequent analyses were performed using a subsample of interview data of AA family decision makers (n = 276). Initial bivariate analyses tested differences in study variables by authorization status (donor/nondonor). Two separate multilevel logistic regressions examined associations between independent variables and family authorization. RESULTS: Analyses of the administrative datasets found that refusal was more likely when the patient was older, female, a DCD case, and not referred in a timely manner; refusal was less likely when families initiated donation conversations. Interview data revealed that families who refused donation were less likely to respond favorably to initial donation requests and reported less satisfaction with the overall approach, amount of time with OPO staff, and how questions were handled. Refusing families were also more likely to feel pressured, had less comprehensive donation discussions, and rated the OPO requesters' communication skills lower. No significant differences in organ donation attitudes were found between families who authorized donation and those refusing to donate. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that AA families making decisions about organ donation would benefit from culturally appropriate discussions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Notation: NCT02138227.

Expanded-criteria donor kidneys: a single-center clinical and short-term financial analysis--cause for concern in retransplantation.

BACKGROUND: Expanded-criteria donor (ECD) kidneys are associated with a higher risk of posttransplant failure, but they remain a favorable alternative to dialysis. Now that a uniform definition of "expanded criteria" exists, it is more appropriate than ever to evaluate their utility compared with that seen with non-ECD kidneys. METHODS: The authors analyzed 202 cadaveric kidney-only recipients that underwent transplantation from January 1999 to September 2001, including 45 (22%) recipients whose donors met current ECD criteria. RESULTS: ECD and non-ECD kidney recipients had similar pretransplant characteristics except for older age and increased duration of renal failure in the ECD group. Patient, graft, and death-censored graft survival in both groups were similar in primary recipients but significantly worse in retransplant recipients of ECD kidneys. The relative risk of death-censored graft loss was 1.58 in the ECD group (P = 0.45). Overall inpatient charges (minus organ acquisition charge) for 1 year posttransplant were 76,962 US dollars (ECD) versus 71,026 US dollars (non-ECD) (P = 0.53); the same charges in retransplant recipients were 136,596 US dollars (ECD) versus 91,296 US dollars (non-ECD) (P = 0.25). ECD recipients, especially retransplant recipients, had consistently higher creatinine concentrations, although the average current value of all functioning ECD grafts remains less than 2 mg/dL. ECD recipients had a higher incidence of ureteral stricture (4.4% vs. 0%), but this never resulted in graft loss. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the widening disparity between renal allograft availability and need and the fact that ECD kidneys provide superior outcomes compared with dialysis, the authors' data encourage the continued use of ECD kidneys in primary recipients but justify caution in the retransplant setting.