Minors as Living Organ Donors

2021 ◽  
pp. 108-123
Author(s):  
Lainie Friedman ◽  
J. Richard Thistlethwaite, Jr

In 1957, three years after the first successful kidney transplant between identical twin brothers, the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts authorized kidney transplantation between three sets of identical twin minors and approved another two dozen living donor transplants involving minor donors over the next twenty years. Today, minors rarely serve as living solid organ donors, and donation by minors is prohibited in much of the world. In this chapter arguments are made to restrict children from serving as living donors except as a last resort. It is also argued that if one embraces the concept of the living donor as patient, then one would not make an exception for living donation by a minor to his or her identical twin sibling.

Author(s):  
Lainie Friedman Ross ◽  
J. Richard Thistlethwaite, Jr.

This is a book about living solid organ donors as patients in their own right. This book is premised on the supposition that the field of living donor organ transplantation is ethical, even if some specific applications are not, eg, pre-mortem organ procurement of an imminently dying patient. When Joseph Murray performed the first successful living kidney donor transplant in 1954, he thought this would be a temporary stopgap. Today, however, the goal of adequate organ supply without living donors remains elusive. If anything, the supply:demand ratio is worse. In this book, a five-principle living donor ethics framework is developed and used to examine the ethical issues raised by living donor selection demographics, innovative attempts to increase living organ donation, and living donor decision-making and risk thresholds. This ethics framework uses the three principles of the Belmont Report modified to organ transplantation (respect for persons, beneficence, and justice) supplemented by the principles of vulnerability and of special relationships creating special obligations. The approach requires that the transplant community fully embraces living organ donors (and prospective living organ donors) as patients to whom special obligations are owed. Only when living organ donors are regarded as patients in their own right and have a living donor advocate team dedicated to their well-being can the moral boundaries of living solid organ donation be determined and realized. This book provides theoretical arguments and practice guidelines, complemented by case studies, to ensure that living donors are given the full respect and care they deserve.


Author(s):  
B. Z. Khubutiya ◽  
O. N. Rzhevskaya ◽  
A. A. Lisenok

Introduction. All over the world and in Russia, the number of patients requiring dialysis therapy and kidney transplantation for chronic renal failure in the end-stage of the renal disease is increasing. In many countries of the world, the number of dialysis patients over 60 years of age accounts for 30 to 45% of all patients with chronic renal failure. Meantime, taking into account the improved methods for early diagnosis of chronic renal failure and the treatment methods for chronic kidney disease, including the renal replacement therapy, we can expect an increase in the number of elderly potential kidney transplant recipients. The likelihood of receiving a renal graft in elderly patients is significantly lower than in young recipients. Elderly patients are known to have a higher risk of death while waiting for a kidney transplant due to higher morbidity and lethality on dialysis. For this reason, the urgency of increasing the availability of kidney transplantation in elderly patients is growing over time. One of the solutions can be the use of kidneys from suboptimal donors with a far from ideal graft quality, but which could meet the needs for transplant care of the older age group of patients. The older age of a recipient entails a certain risk of developing a graft dysfunction due to the presence of concomitant diseases, and the potential risk increases even more with kidney transplants from expanded criteria donors. If a reduced functional reserve of kidneys removed from donors with extended criteria is identified, two-kidney transplantation is possible, which provides fairly good long-term results. To reduce the risk of a kidney graft loss, a careful selection of recipients is necessary, taking into account their co-morbidities, including the presence of urological diseases that impair the function of the upper and lower urinary tract. Their timely identification and correction makes it possible to raise the availability of kidney transplantation for elderly patients and improve its results. This review presents the results of the studies conducted in various world transplant centers, covers the mortality rates, kidney graft and recipient survival rates.The study purpose was to summarize the actual data and the results of the study on kidney transplantation in elderly patients with urological pathology.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 2118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Irene Bellini ◽  
Aisling E Courtney ◽  
Jennifer A McCaughan

Background: Failed kidney transplant recipients benefit from a new graft as the general incident dialysis population, although additional challenges in the management of these patients are often limiting the long-term outcomes. Previously failed grafts, a long history of comorbidities, side effects of long-term immunosuppression and previous surgical interventions are common characteristics in the repeated kidney transplantation population, leading to significant complex immunological and technical aspects and often compromising the short- and long-term results. Although recipients’ factors are acknowledged to represent one of the main determinants for graft and patient survival, there is increasing interest in expanding the donor’s pool safely, particularly for high-risk candidates. The role of living kidney donation in this peculiar context of repeated kidney transplantation has not been assessed thoroughly. The aim of the present study is to analyse the effects of a high-quality graft, such as the one retrieved from living kidney donors, in the repeated kidney transplant population context. Methods: Retrospective analysis of the outcomes of the repeated kidney transplant population at our institution from 1968 to 2019. Data were extracted from a prospectively maintained database and stratified according to the number of transplants: 1st, 2nd or 3rd+. The main outcomes were graft and patient survivals, recorded from time of transplant to graft failure (return to dialysis) and censored at patient death with a functioning graft. Duration of renal replacement therapy was expressed as cumulative time per month. A multivariate analysis considering death-censored graft survival, decade of transplantation, recipient age, donor age, living donor, transplant number, ischaemic time, time on renal replacement therapy prior to transplant and HLA mismatch at HLA-A, -B and -DR was conducted. In the multivariate analysis of recipient survival, diabetic nephropathy as primary renal disease was also included. Results: A total of 2395 kidney transplant recipients were analysed: 2062 (83.8%) with the 1st kidney transplant, 279 (11.3%) with the 2nd graft, 46 (2.2%) with the 3rd+. Mean age of 1st kidney transplant recipients was 43.6 ± 16.3 years, versus 39.9 ± 14.4 for 2nd and 41.4 ± 11.5 for 3rd+ (p < 0.001). Aside from being younger, repeated kidney transplant patients were also more often males (p = 0.006), with a longer time spent on renal replacement therapy (p < 0.0001) and a higher degree of sensitisation, expressed as calculated reaction frequency (p < 0.001). There was also an association between multiple kidney transplants and better HLA match at transplantation (p < 0.0001). A difference in death-censored graft survival by number of transplants was seen, with a median graft survival of 328 months for recipients of the 1st transplant, 209 months for the 2nd and 150 months for the 3rd+ (p = 0.038). The same difference was seen in deceased donor kidneys (p = 0.048), but not in grafts from living donors (p = 0.2). Patient survival was comparable between the three groups (p = 0.59). Conclusions: In the attempt to expand the organ donor pool, particular attention should be reserved to high complex recipients, such as the repeated kidney transplant population. In this peculiar context, the quality of the donor has been shown to represent a main determinant for graft survival—in fact, kidney retrieved from living donors provide comparable outcomes to those from single-graft recipients.


BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. e024671 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mira Keddis ◽  
Dawn Finnie ◽  
Wonsun (Sunny) Kim

ObjectiveNative Americans suffer from lower rates of kidney transplantation compared with whites. Our goal was to elicit patients’ perceptions of and attitudes about kidney transplant and the impact of financial burden and cultural taboos.DesignThis is an exploratory qualitative interview study of 12 Native American patients recruited after completion of the kidney transplant evaluation.SettingSemistructured interviews were conducted. Interviews were coded using inductive methods, followed by interpretive coding by the investigators.ResultsThematic analysis revealed the following themes: (1) experience with kidney transplant education by the healthcare team; (2) cultural beliefs regarding kidney transplant; (3) personal motivation and attitude towards kidney transplant; (4) financial burden of kidney transplant and post-transplant care and (5) attitude about living donation.Most participants were educated about transplant as a treatment option after dialysis initiation. All patients in this study recognised that some taboos exist about the process of organ procurement and transplantation; however, the traditional views did not negatively impact their decision to pursue kidney transplant evaluation. Patients shared the common theme of preferring an organ from a living rather than a deceased person; however, the majority did not have a living donor and preferred not to receive an organ from a family member. Most patients did not perceive transplant-related cost as negatively impacting their attitude about receiving a transplant even for patients with below poverty level income.ConclusionsNative American patients presenting for kidney transplant were less likely to be educated about transplant before dialysis initiation; did not perceive financial burden and cultural beliefs were not discussed as obstacles to transplant. While a living donor was the preferred option, enthusiasm for living donation from family members was limited.


2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Takahisa Hiramitsu ◽  
Kiyomi Ohara ◽  
Toshihide Tomosugi ◽  
Kenta Futamura ◽  
Manabu Okada ◽  
...  

Abstract Background and Aims Although elderly living donors are recognized as a marginal donor for kidney transplantation, the number of elderly living donors are increasing because of insufficiency. We investigated the impact of donor age on living donor kidney transplantation. Method A total 858 adult living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) between January 2008 and December 2018 was included in this study and followed up until September 2020. LDKTs were stratified into 3 groups according to the donor age; 157 LDKTs from donors aged 30 – 49, 592 LDKTs from donors aged 50 – 69, and 109 LDKTs from donors aged 70 – 89. To investigate the impact of donor age on living donors, postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR), mortality rate and incidence of end stage renal disease were compared between 3 donor age groups. To investigate the impact of donor age on recipients, postoperative eGFR was compared between 3 donor age groups and the risk factors of graft loss were analyzed using Cox regression hazard model. Results The eGFRs of donors demonstrated a decline with increased donor age and significant differences at all time points among 3 donor age groups. (Figure 1) Mortality rate and incidence of end stage renal disease of donors were similar among 3 donor age groups. (Figure 2) The eGFRs of recipients demonstrated a decline with increased donor age and significant differences at all time points among 3 donor age groups. (Figure 3) Multivariate analysis using Cox regression hazard model demonstrated donor aged 70 – 89 as a significant risk of graft loss (P = 0.024, hazard ratio 3.053, 95% confidence interval 1.160 – 8.040). Conclusion The prognosis of living donors after donation were not affected by the donor age except for the lower eGFR with increased donor age. The eGFRs of recipients and graft loss rates were the worst in the recipients transplanted from donors aged 70 – 89.


2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Katie Wong ◽  
Fergus Caskey ◽  
Yoav Ben-Shlomo ◽  
Anna Casula ◽  
Pippa Bailey

Abstract Background and Aims Previous UK Renal Registry (UKRR) analyses and the Access to Transplantation and Transplant Outcome Measures (ATTOM) study have shown ethnic disparity in access to kidney transplants in the UK, but access to transplantation for the UK Chinese population has not been investigated In this UKRR analysis, we compared the likelihood of kidney transplantation between the UK White and UK Chinese renal populations, aiming to investigate whether there was evidence of ethnic disparity in access to kidney transplantation for this specific ethnic group. Method Data on all adult patients &gt;=18 years who started renal replacement therapy (RRT) between 1/1/97 and 31/12/16 were extracted from the UKRR. Patients with ethnicity recorded as anything other than “Chinese” or “White” were excluded from analysis. Patients with ethnicity data missing were also excluded. Patients aged &gt;= 75 years at the start of RRT were excluded because of the high prevalence of comorbidity which decreases the likelihood of transplantation and the very small proportion of patients receiving a kidney transplant in the UK in this age group. Socioeconomic status (SES) was measured using country-specific Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) quintiles derived from patient postcodes (1= most deprived, 5= least deprived). The independent variable of interest was Chinese ethnicity (Chinese vs White). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to investigate the relationship between Chinese ethnicity and being listed on the deceased donor transplant waiting list i) at start of RRT ii) 2 years after start of RRT iii) pre-emptive kidney transplantation, iv) kidney transplantation at 3 years after start of RRT, and v) living-donor kidney transplantation. The models were run unadjusted and then adjusted for the confounders, specified a priori, age, sex, primary renal disease and SES. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using robust standard errors to account for clustering by renal centre. Results The dataset comprised of 92,857 incident RRT patients. 0.5% (n=501) were of Chinese ethnicity, 76% (n=70,575) were White. The findings of the multivariable logistic regression analyses are presented in Table 1. Even after adjustment for potential confounders UK Chinese patients had lower odds of being waitlisted at the start of RRT (OR 0.71, [95% CI 0.54-0.94]) but were more likely to be waitlisted at 2 years (OR 1.28, [95% CI 1.02-1.61]) compared to White patients. UK Chinese individuals were also less likely to receive a pre-emptive kidney transplant (OR 0.47, [95% CI 0.29-0.78]), less likely to be transplanted within 3 years of starting RRT (OR 0.69, [95% CI 0.52-0.92]) or have a living-donor kidney transplant(LDKT) (OR 0.39, [95% CI 0.26-0.59]) compared to White patients. Conclusion This is the first study that has shown that UK Chinese renal patients are less likely to have the opportunity to receive a living or deceased kidney transplant. Future research needs to test whether later presentation or more rapid progression of renal disease could explain these observations. The higher odds of transplant listing at 2 years suggests fitness for transplantation is not a significant barrier. The reasons why this ethnic group are less likely to receive a LDKT is also not well understood. Understanding whether these disparities reflect modifiable policy, health system or donor/recipient level barriers will help ensure equitable access to transplantation.


Author(s):  
Martha Gershun ◽  
John D., MD Lantos

This book tells the story of the author's decision to donate a kidney to a stranger. The book takes readers through the complex process by which such donors are vetted to ensure that they are physically and psychologically fit to take the risk of a major operation. The story is also placed in the larger context of the history of kidney transplantation and the ethical controversies that surround living donors. The book helps readers understand the discoveries that made transplantation relatively safe and effective as well as the legal, ethical, and economic policies that make it feasible. The book explores the steps involved in recovering and allocating organs. It analyzes the differences that arise depending on whether the organ comes from a living donor or one who has died. It observes the expertise — and the shortcomings — of doctors, nurses, and other professionals and describes the burdens that we place on people who are willing to donate. It asks us to consider just how far society should go in using one person's healthy body parts in order to save another person. The book provides an account of organ donation that is both personal and analytical. A combination of perspectives leads to a profound and compelling exploration of a largely opaque practice. The book pulls back the curtain to offer readers a more transparent view of the fascinating world of organ donation.


2021 ◽  
pp. 22-52
Author(s):  
Lainie Friedman ◽  
J. Richard Thistlethwaite, Jr

This chapter provides a brief history of solid organ transplantation. Although the focus is on the living donor, the history of living donor solid organ transplantation is intertwined with the history of deceased donor solid organ transplantation. This is particularly true in the early years of solid organ transplantation when the earliest success for some solid organ transplants began with living donors, e.g. kidney, and began with deceased donors for other solid organ transplants, e.g. liver. The history of each solid organ in which living donors have supplied grafts (kidney, liver, lung, pancreas, intestines, and uterus) is described even though some are rarely if ever performed today, e.g. lung, intestine, pancreas. We also discuss the living domino donor—a candidate-recipient (most commonly the recipient of a deceased donor liver or heart) whose own organ is not discarded but is transplanted into another person.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document