Approaching the Families of Potential Deceased Organ Donors: An Overview of Regulations and Practices in Council of Europe Member States.

The primary aim of this study was to describe regulations and practices concerning the family approach to discuss donation, specifically after the neurological determination of death, one of the most challenging steps in the donation pathway. A secondary objective was to assess the impact of legislation on consent rates for organ donation. The Council of Europe surveyed 39 member states about national regulations, practices, and consent rates; 34 replied. Opt-out legislation is present in 19, opt-in in 9 and a mixed system in six countries. An opt-out register is kept by 24 countries and an opt-in register by 18 countries, some keeping both. The mean consent rate was 81.2% of all family approaches. Most countries regulate how death using neurological criteria is confirmed (85.3%), while regulation of other aspects of the deceased donation pathway varies: the timing of informing the family about brain death (47.1%) and organ donation (58.8%), the profile of professional who discusses both topics with the family (52.9% and 64.7%, respectively) and the withdrawal of treatment after brain death (47.1%). We also noted a mismatch between what regulations state and what is done in practice in most countries. We suggest possible reasons for this disparity.

Donation after circulatory death today: an updated overview of the European landscape.

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) has become an accepted practice in many countries and remains a focus of intense interest in the transplant community. The present study is aimed at providing a description of the current situation of DCD in European countries. Specific questionnaires were developed to compile information on DCD practices, activities and post-transplant outcomes. Thirty-five countries completed the survey. DCD is practiced in 18 countries: eight have both controlled DCD (cDCD) and uncontrolled DCD (uDCD) programs, 4 only cDCD and 6 only uDCD. All these countries have legally binding and/or nonbinding texts to regulate the practice of DCD. The no-touch period ranges from 5 to 30 min. There are variations in ante and post mortem interventions used for the practice of cDCD. During 2008-2016, the highest DCD activity was described in the United Kingdom, Spain, Russia, the Netherlands, Belgium and France. Data on post-transplant outcomes of patients who receive DCD donor kidneys show better results with grafts obtained from cDCD versus uDCD donors. In conclusion, DCD is becoming increasingly accepted and performed in Europe, importantly contributing to the number of organs available and providing acceptable post-transplantation outcomes.

First-in-human feasibility study of the aXess graft (aXess-FIH): 6-Month results.

OBJECTIVE: The creation of an arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is considered the most effective hemodialysis (HD) vascular access. For patients who are not suitable for AVF, arteriovenous grafts (AVGs) are the best access option for chronic HD. However, conventional AVGs are prone to intimal hyperplasia, stenosis, thrombosis, and infection. Xeltis has developed an AVG as a potential alternative to currently available AVGs based on the concept of endogenous tissue restoration. The results of the first 6-month follow-up are presented here. METHODS: The aXess first-in-human (FIH) study [NCT04898153] is a prospective, single-arm, multicenter feasibility study that evaluates the early safety and performance of the aXess Hemodialysis Graft. A total of 20 patients with end-stage renal disease were enrolled across six European investigational sites. RESULTS: At 6-months follow-up, all grafts were patent with primary and secondary patency rates were 80% and 100%, respectively. Three patients required a re-intervention to maintain graft patency, while one re-intervention was required to restore patency. One graft thrombosis and zero infections were reported. CONCLUSION: The expected advantages of the novel aXess Hemodialysis Graft over conventional AVGs would be evaluated by the analysis on long-term safety and effectiveness during the 5-year follow-up of the currently ongoing trial.