Promising Results of Kidney Transplantation From Donors Following Euthanasia During 10-Year Follow-Up: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

The outcome of kidneys transplanted following organ donation after euthanasia (ODE) remains unclear. This study analyzed all kidney transplantations in the Netherlands from January 2012 to December 2021, comparing the outcomes following ODE, donation after circulatory death (DCD-III), and donation after brain death (DBD). 9,208 kidney transplantations were performed: 148 ODE, 2118 DCD-III, and 1845 DBD. Initial graft function was compared between these categories. Immediate graft function, delayed graft function and primary non-function in ODE kidney recipients were 76%, 22%, and 2%, respectively, 47%, 50% and 3% in DCD-III kidney recipients and 73%, 25%, and 2% in DBD kidney recipients (overall p-value: p < 0.001). The number of kidneys transplanted over a median follow-up period of 4.0 years (IQR 2.0-6.6), was 1810, including 72 ODE, 958 DCD-III and 780 DBD kidneys. In this period, 213 grafts (11.8%) failed [7 grafts (9.7%) from ODE donors, 93 grafts (9.7%) from DCD-III donors, and 113 grafts (14.5%) from DBD donors]. Kidneys transplanted after euthanasia have a good immediate graft function, a comparable longitudinal 10 years eGFR, and similar graft failure hazard to kidneys from DCD-III and DBD. Kidney transplantation following ODE is a valuable and safe contribution to the donor pool.

Organ Donation After Euthanasia in Patients Suffering From Psychiatric Disorders: 10-Years of Preliminary Experiences in the Netherlands.

Euthanasia based on psychiatric suffering, followed by subsequent organ donation, is considered medically and legally permissible in the Netherlands. Although organ donation after euthanasia (ODE) in patients suffering from unbearable psychiatric illness is performed, it is not specifically addressed in the Dutch guideline on organ donation after euthanasia, and national data on ODE in psychiatric patients have not yet been published. In this article, the preliminary results of the 10-year Dutch case series of psychiatric patients who choose ODE are presented and potential factors influencing opportunities for donation in this population are discussed. We conclude that further future in-depth qualitative exploration of ODE in patients suffering from psychiatric illness and its associated ethical and practical dilemmas, including the consequences for the patient and their family and healthcare professionals, will be important to help make sense of potential barriers to donation for people undergoing euthanasia as a result of psychiatric suffering.

Organ donation after euthanasia starting at home in a patient with multiple system atrophy.

BACKGROUND: A patient who fulfils the due diligence requirements for euthanasia, and is medically suitable, is able to donate his organs after euthanasia in Belgium, the Netherlands and Canada. Since 2012, more than 70 patients have undergone this combined procedure in the Netherlands. Even though all patients who undergo euthanasia are suffering hopelessly and unbearably, some of these patients are nevertheless willing to help others in need of an organ. Organ donation after euthanasia is a so-called donation after circulatory death (DCD), Maastricht category III procedure, which takes place following cardiac arrest, comparable to donation after withdrawal of life sustaining therapy in critically ill patients. To minimize the period of organ ischemia, the patient is transported to the operating room immediately after the legally mandated no-touch period of 5 min following circulatory arrest. This means that the organ donation procedure following euthanasia must take place in the hospital, which appears to be insurmountable to many patients who are willing to donate, since they already spent a lot of time in the hospital. CASE PRESENTATION: This article describes the procedure of organ donation after euthanasia starting at home (ODAEH) following anesthesia in a former health care professional suffering from multiple system atrophy. This case is unique for at least two reasons. He spent his last conscious hours surrounded by his family at home, after which he underwent general anaesthesia and was intubated, before being transported to the hospital for euthanasia and organ donation. In addition, the patient explicitly requested the euthanasia to be performed in the preparation room, next to the operating room, in order to limit the period of organ ischemia due to transport time from the intensive care unit to the operating room. The medical, legal and ethical considerations related to this illustrative case are subsequently discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Organ donation after euthanasia is a pure act of altruism. This combined procedure can also be performed after the patient has been anesthetized at home and during transportation to the hospital.

In-hospital logistics: what are the key aspects for succeeding in each of the steps of the process of controlled donation after circulatory death?

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors are becoming an increasingly important population of organ donors in Europe and worldwide. We report the state of the art regarding controlled DCD donation describing the organizational and technical aspects of establishing a controlled DCD programme and provide recommendations regarding the introduction and development of this type of programme.

Uncontrolled donation after circulatory death: European practices and recommendations for the development and optimization of an effective programme.

The shortage of organs remains one of the biggest challenges in transplantation. To address this, we are increasingly turning to donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors and now in some countries to uncontrolled DCD donors. We consolidate the knowledge on uncontrolled DCD in Europe and provide recommendations and guidance for the development and optimization of effective uncontrolled DCD programmes.

Case report: Organ donation after euthanasia for psychiatric suffering: some of the practical and ethical lessons Martijn taught us.

Euthanasia in psychiatric patients presents unique challenges, especially when combined with organ donation. In this article, the hurdles psychiatric patients might encounter after expressing their wish for organ donation after euthanasia, are discussed and illustrated by the case of Martijn, a 45-year-old psychiatric patient who altruistically donated his organs after euthanasia. Hospital and physician-related factors, including caution in determination of mental capacity, consideration of conflicting interests, and healthcare staff stress are discussed as impediments to organ donation after euthanasia (ODE) in psychiatric patients. The primary objective of this article is to raise awareness among psychiatrists regarding the fact that although the combination of euthanasia and organ donation is an uncommonly performed procedure, it is frequently requested by psychiatric patients. In conclusion, the article advocates for a nuanced approach, respecting patients' altruistic wishes while at the same time addressing challenges associated with ODE in psychiatric suffering. Where possible, and within the current medical, ethical and legal boundaries, the importance of facilitating organ donation without unnecessarily prolonging the suffering of competent psychiatric patients seeking euthanasia is emphasized. The topic calls, for example, for further qualitative research to understand the stakeholders' perspectives to determine the perceived possibilities on the one hand and boundaries on the other.

Organ donation after euthanasia in a patient living with dementia: a landmark case report.

Background: Organ donation after euthanasia (ODE) has been performed over 100 times in the Netherlands, primarily involving patients suffering from a neurodegenerative or psychiatric disease. In recent years, the number of euthanasia cases related to dementia has increased in the Netherlands, with some patients living with dementia expressing a wish for organ donation after euthanasia. Methods: We describe a unique case of a 67-year-old female diagnosed with primary progressive aphasia as part of frontotemporal dementia who requested and underwent organ donation after euthanasia. Results: The patient had expressed her explicit wishes for both euthanasia and organ donation, which were discussed with her family physician, the Euthanasia Expertise Center (EE), and an organ donation coordinator. The patient was informed that to proceed with ODE, she should still be capable of voicing a voluntary and well-considered request for organ donation. The legally required euthanasia assessment procedure was carefully completed before ODE. Multiple healthcare professionals assessed the patient's competence, voluntariness, and unbearable suffering. Thereafter the patient's ODE request was granted, and both lungs and kidneys were successfully donated and transplanted. Post hoc analysis confirmed that all due diligence criteria for euthanasia were met, and the patient's relatives received an anonymous letter of gratitude from one of the organ recipients. Conclusions: This unique case demonstrates that ODE is feasible from medical, ethical, and legal perspectives in patients living with dementia. This case highlights several aspects essential to enable an ODE request by a patient living with dementia to be granted, such as the role of the physician performing euthanasia, the relevance of the decision-making capacity of the patient, the presence of an advance directive, and the involvement of and support by relatives and caregivers. However, several unresolved ethical issues surrounding ODE in patients with dementia, especially in patients with advanced stages of dementia, warrant further exploration, including the timing of discussing organ donation after the initial euthanasia request.

Hypothermic Machine Perfusion as a National Standard Preservation Method for Deceased Donor Kidneys.

BACKGROUND: Recently, continuous nonoxygenated hypothermic machine perfusion (HMP) has been implemented as standard preservation method for deceased donor kidneys in the Netherlands. This study was designed to assess the effect of the implementation of HMP on early outcomes after transplantation. METHODS: Kidneys donated in the Netherlands in 2016 and 2017 were intended to be preserved by HMP. A historical cohort (2010-2014) preserved by static cold storage was chosen as the control group. Primary outcome was delayed graft function (DGF). Additional analyses were performed on safety, graft function, and survival up until 2 y after transplantation. RESULTS: Data were collected on 2493 kidneys. Analyses showed significantly more donation after circulatory death, preemptive transplantation, and retransplants in the project cohort. Of the 681 kidneys that were transplanted during the project, 81% were preserved by HMP. No kidneys were discarded due to HMP-related complications. DGF occurred in 38.2% of the project cohort versus 43.7% of the historical cohort (P < 0.001), with a significantly shorter duration within the project cohort (7 versus 9 d, P = 0.003). Multivariate regression analysis showed an odds ratio of 0.69 (95% confidence interval, 0.553-0.855) for the risk of DGF when using HMP compared with cold storage (P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in kidney function, graft survival, and recipient survival up until 2 y posttransplantation. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that HMP as a standard preservation method for deceased donor kidneys is safe and feasible. HMP was associated with a significant reduction of DGF.

Factors That Complicated the Implementation of a Program of Donation After Unexpected Circulatory Death of Lungs and Kidneys. Lessons Learned From a Regional Trial in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Organ shortage remains a problem in transplantation. An expansion of the donor pool could be the introduction of unexpected donation after circulatory death (uDCD) donors. The goal of this study was to increase the number of transplantable kidneys and lungs by implementing a uDCD protocol. METHODS: A comprehensive protocol for uDCD donation was developed and implemented in the emergency departments (EDs) of 3 transplant centers. All out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients were screened for uDCD donation. Inclusion criteria were declaration of death in the ED, age (<50 y for kidneys, <65 y for lungs), witnessed arrest, and basic and advanced life support started within 10 and 20 min, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 553 OHCA patients were reported during the project, of which 248 patients survived (44.8%). A total of 87 potential lung and 42 potential kidneys donors were identified. A broad spectrum of reasons resulted in termination of all uDCD procedures. Inclusion and organ-specific exclusion criteria were the most common reason for not proceeding followed by consent. None of the potential donors could be converted into an actual donor. CONCLUSION: Although uDCD potential was shown by successful recognition of potential donors in the ED, we were not able to transplant any organs during the study period. The Dutch Emergency medical service guidelines to stop futile OHCA in the prehospital setting and the strict use of inclusion and exclusion criteria like age and witnessed arrest hampered the utilization. A prehospital uDCD protocol to bring all OHCA patients who are potential uDCD candidates to an ED would be helpful in creating a successful uDCD program.