Phospholipases A2 of rod outer segment-free bovine retinae are different from well-known phospholipases A2.

M. Jacob,P. Weech,C. Salesse

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-2760(98)00003-4

1998-03-30

Biochimica et Biophysica Acta

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Experiences of living kidney donors: A synthesis of unsolicited patient narratives

Katya Loban,Saly El Wazze,Théa Milland,Lindsay Hales,Anita Slominska,Shaifali Sandal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trre.2024.100855

IF: 3.066

2024-04-12

Transplantation Reviews

Abstract:Introduction Despite the lauded benefits of living kidney donation, there is growing evidence of the challenges that living kidney donors (LKD) encounter in their donation trajectory and gaps in healthcare service provision. However, most of the evidence is derived from research conducted by clinicians or academic investigators. Significantly less attention has been devoted to analyzing unsolicited accounts of LKDs' experiences. Methods We conducted a review and synthesis of published unsolicited first-person narratives of LKDs and aimed to synthesize their experiences and identify care needs. Four electronic databases were searched and 27 LKD narratives were included in our final analysis. Thematic synthesis was used to generate themes inductively. Results Although the majority of LKDs reported the act of donation to be a fulfilling experience, almost 48% reported encountering challenges in the care that they received. Also, 29% of LKDs reported experiencing an adverse clinical event. Five distinct themes emerged surrounding the donation experience and healthcare needs: 1) Educational needs due to perceived lack of transparency and compensating for knowledge gaps; 2) Respect for donor autonomy due to coercive influences from family or healthcare providers, lack of respect for donor preferences and loopholes in the consent process; 3) Unmet care needs related to poor communication with healthcare providers, coordination issues and inconsistent and inadequate long-term care; 4) Unanticipated outcomes due to economic costs and the emotional burden of donation; and 5) Contributing beyond the donation event by advocating for a balanced view of donation and generating support mechanisms. Conclusion In this synthesis of LKDs narratives, important care gaps and the need to advocate for a balanced perspective on living kidney donation were highlighted. Our review underscores the value of patients' own stories as critical evidence that can inform improvement in healthcare service delivery.

immunology,transplantation
The motivations and experiences of living kidney donors: a thematic synthesis

Allison Tong,Jeremy R Chapman,Germaine Wong,John Kanellis,Grace McCarthy,Jonathan C Craig

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2011.11.043

Abstract:Background: Living kidney donation is associated with better recipient outcomes compared with deceased kidney donation, but living kidney donors face the risk of physical and psychological complications. The aim of this study was to synthesize published qualitative studies of the experiences and perspectives of living kidney donors. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies of motivations to donate and experiences after donation of living kidney donors. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and reference lists of articles were searched to April 2011. Results: 26 studies involving 478 donors were included. We identified 6 themes about the decision to donate: compelled altruism, inherent responsibility, accepting risks, family expectation, personal benefit, and spiritual confirmation. Three themes dominated the impact of donation and postdonation: renegotiating identity (including subthemes of fear and vulnerability, sense of loss, depression and guilt, new appreciation of life, and personal growth and self-worth), renegotiating roles (including subthemes of multiplicity of roles, unable to resume previous activities, and hero status), and renegotiating relationships (including subthemes of neglect, proprietorial concern, strengthened family and recipient bonds, and avoidance of recipient indebtedness). Conclusions: Kidney donation has a profound and multifaceted impact on the lives of donors and requires them to renegotiate their identity, roles, and relationships. Strategies to safeguard against unwarranted coercion, and to maximize donor resilience, capacity to negotiate their multiple roles as a patient and carer, emotional fortitude, and ability to have balanced expectations and relationships with the recipient and the family are needed to ultimately protect the safety and well-being of living kidney donors.
Perceptions of Psychosocial and Ethical Issues and the Psychological Characteristics of Donors in the Clinical Setting of Living Kidney Donors: A Qualitative Study

Nana Arai,Naoki Yokoyama,Mayumi Hara,Yoshiyuki Takimoto

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2023.2232776

2023-07-09

AJOB Empirical Bioethics

Abstract:There are several psychosocial and ethical issues surrounding the decision to be a living kidney donor. The present study aimed to determine the perceptions of psychosocial and ethical issues that living kidney donors may have, and analyze their psychological characteristics. Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 donors. Thematic analysis was then performed to categorize the thematic elements of the transcripts. All procedures were approved by the relevant review board. Four main categories were identified: Awareness of family dynamics, barriers to a proper understanding, contrasting psychological effects of recipient presence in clinical practice, insufficient information explained in informed consent. Donors felt that they took on the "role as a care giver" for the recipient and were less aware of themselves as patients. This is a new concept that has not been shown in previous studies. Donors exist within the recipient and family, and the range of their autonomy may go beyond the traditional concept of autonomy and be rooted in relational autonomy. This study suggested that medical treatment in the presence of the recipient promotes the relational autonomy of the donor.
Characteristics of Potential and Actual Living Kidney Donors: A Single-center Experience

Liza K Cholin,Jesse D Schold,Susana Arrigain,Emilio D Poggio,John R Sedor,John F O'Toole,Joshua J Augustine,Alvin C Wee,Anne M Huml

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/TP.0000000000004357

2023-04-01

Transplantation

Abstract:Background: There are limited data and no national capture of barriers associated with initiating and completing the donation process for potential living kidney donors (LKDs). Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 3001 intake forms completed by prospective LKDs from 2016 to 2019 at a single transplant center. We analyzed data from all potential donors who completed the intake until they became ineligible or withdrew or donation was complete. We used univariate and multivariate models to evaluate independent factors associated with donation at various stages in the donation process. Results: The donation process was deconstructed into 5 steps: intake form, immunologic compatibility testing, clinic evaluation, selection committee review, and donation. The highest percentage of potential donors dropped out after completing the intake form, primarily because of not responding to the follow-up phone call (22.6%). Of 455 potential LKDs that completed immunologic compatibility testing, 36% were ABO or crossmatch incompatible. One-hundred eighty-eight (7.5%) of all LKD applicants reached donation, the majority of whom were White (91.0%) and female (63.8%). Conclusions: A minority of LKD applicants make it to donation. Our ability to track all potential LKDs from the initial touch point to the transplant center will help us develop interventions to address barriers to a successful donation.
[Radiotherapy in the treatment of malignant nasosinusal neoplasms. The experience of the Trento Cancer Center].

G. Fellin,A. Bolner,L. Busana,G. Ambrosini,R. Valdagni,S. Piffer,M. Amichetti,G. Pani,C. Valdagni

1986-03-01

Minerva Stomatologica

Abstract:
National Attitudes Toward Living Kidney Donation in the United States: Results of a Public Opinion Survey

Katya Kaplow,Jessica M Ruck,Macey L Levan,Alvin G Thomas,Darren Stewart,Allan B Massie,Hannah C Sung,Sarah F Pisano,Carolyn Sidoti,Dorry L Segev,Joseph Sinacore,Amy D Waterman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xkme.2023.100788

2023-12-27

Abstract:Rationale & objective: Understanding national attitudes about living kidney donation will enable us to identify and address existing disincentives to living kidney donation. We performed a national survey to describe living kidney donation perceptions, perceived factors that affect the willingness to donate, and analyzed differences by demographic subgroups. Study design: The survey items captured living kidney donation awareness, living kidney donation knowledge, willingness to donate, and barriers and facilitators to living kidney donation. Setting & population: We surveyed 802 US adults (aged 25-65 years) in June 2021, randomly selected from an online platform with diverse representation. Analytical approach: We developed summed, scaled indices to assess the association between the living kidney donation knowledge (9 items) and the willingness to donate (8 items) to self-reported demographic characteristics and other variables of interest using analysis of variance. All other associations for categorical questions were calculated using Pearson's χ2 and Fisher exact tests. We inductively evaluated free-text responses to identify additional barriers and facilitators to living kidney donation. Results: Most (86.6%) of the respondents reported that they might or would definitely consider donating a kidney while they were still living. Barriers to living kidney donation included concerns about the risk of the surgery, paying for medical expenses, and potential health effects. Facilitators to living kidney donation included having information on the donation surgery's safety, knowing that the donor would not have to pay for medical expenses related to the donation, and hearing living kidney donation success stories. Awareness of the ability to participate in kidney-paired donation was associated with a higher willingness to donate. Limitations: Potential for selection bias resulting from the use of survey panels and varied incentive amounts, and measurement error related to respondents' attention level. Conclusions: Most people would consider becoming a living kidney donor. Increased rates of living kidney donation may be possible with investment in culturally competent educational interventions that address risks associated with donating, policies that reduce financial disincentives, and communication campaigns that raise awareness of kidney-paired donation and living kidney donation.
Donor Perceptions and Preferences of Telemedicine and In-Person Visits for Living Kidney Donor Evaluation

Ellie Kim,Hannah C Sung,Katya Kaplow,Victoria Bendersky,Carolyn Sidoti,Abimereki D Muzaale,Jasmine Akhtar,Macey Levan,Suad Esayed,Amir Khan,Christina Mejia,Fawaz Al Ammary

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ekir.2024.05.009

2024-05-15

Abstract:Introduction: Living kidney donor evaluation is a lengthy and complex process requiring in-person visits. Access to transplant centers, travel costs, lost wages, and dependent care arrangements are barriers to willing donors initiating evaluation. Telemedicine can help streamline and epedite the evaluation process. We aimed to deeply understand donor experiences and preferences using hybrid telemedicine video/in-person visits to ease access to donor evaluation or counseling. Methods: We conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with donors or donor candidates who completed their evaluation through telemedicine/in-person, or in-person only visits at a tertiary transplant center between November 27, 2019 and March 1, 2021. Enrollment continued until data saturation was reached (interviews with 20 participants) when no new information emerged from additional interviews. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: Eight themes were identified as follows: (i) reducing financial and logistical burdens (minimizing travel time and travel-related expenses), (ii) enhancing flexibility with scheduling (less time off work and child or family caregiver arrangements), (iii) importance of a walkthrough and establishing shared understanding, (iv) supporting information with technology and visual aids, (v) key role of the coordinator, (vi) preferred visit by provider role (meeting donor surgeon in-person to create rapport and engaging primary care provider in donor evaluation/follow-up), (vii) comparing modality differences in human connection, and (viii) opportunity for family and support network engagement (allowing loved ones to be involved in telemedicine visits irrespective of geographic locations and pandemic restrictions). Conclusion: Telemedicine/in-person hybrid model can make donor evaluation more accessible and convenient. Our findings help inform about determinants that influence the adoption of telemedicine to initiate donor evaluation to motivate willing donors. In addition, our results call for policy and legislation that support telemedicine services for living donor kidney transplantation across states.
A Single-Center Retrospective Study to Identify Causes of Sex Differences in the Living Kidney Donor Evaluation Process

Ritah R Chumdermpadetsuk,Adriana Montalvan,Stalin Canizares,Bhavna Chopra,Martha Pavlakis,David D Lee,Devin E Eckhoff

DOI: https://doi.org/10.34067/KID.0000000581

2024-09-16

Kidney360

Abstract:Background: Multiple studies have shown that females are living donors for kidney transplantation at higher rates than males. However, the underlying reasons for this observation are not well-understood. We examined the living donor evaluation process to determine the point at which sex imbalance arises. Based on a previous study, we hypothesized that both sexes are equally likely to become approved as living donors, but females are more likely to follow through with donation. Methods: Single institution retrospective chart review of self-referrals for living donor evaluation between 1/2009 - 12/2022. Self-referrals identified using the Organ Transplant Tracking Record database and cross referenced with billing data. Exclusion at each stage of evaluation was recorded and compared between sexes using log binomial regression; unadjusted and adjusted (for donor age, race, ethnicity, relationship to recipient, and recipient sex) risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were determined. Results: 1,861 self-referrals were reviewed, including 1,214 (65.2%) females and 647 (34.8%) males, resulting in 146 approvals and 125 donations (76/125, 60.8% females, 49/125 39.2% males). Adjusted RRs indicated no significant differences between sexes in completing medical and/or psychosocial workup, having medical and/or psychosocial contraindications, being approved for donation, and proceeding with donation. The top medical contraindications for both sexes were obesity, hypertension, and nephrolithiasis. Conclusion: Female overrepresentation among living donors is likely due to the 1.9 times higher rate of self-referral for evaluation. After this point, both sexes were equally likely to complete workup, be approved, and follow through with donation. Increased efforts to engage males at the initial self-referral stage has the potential to expand access to living donor kidney transplantation.
Über das wirksame Prinzip der Kamillenblüten

K. Junkmann,W. Wiechowski

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01865844

Abstract:
Assessing Health-Related Quality of Life in Non-Directed Versus Directed Kidney Donors: Implications for the Promotion of Non-Directed Donation

Assaf Vital,Maya Siman-Tov,Gadi Shlomai,Yana Davidov,Keren Cohen-Hagai,Moshe Shashar,Enosh Askenasy,Ronen Ghinea,Eytan Mor,Tammy Hod

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/ti.2024.12417

2024-01-12

Transplant International

Abstract:Living kidney donation has increased significantly, but little is known about the post-donation health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of non-directed donors (NDs) vs. directed donors (DDs). We thus examined the outcomes of 112 living kidney donors (82 NDs, 30 DDs). For the primary outcomes—namely, the mean physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores of the 12-item Short Form Survey (SF-12) questionnaire—scores were significantly higher for the NDs vs. the DDs (PCS: +2.69, MCS: +4.43). For secondary outcomes, NDs had shorter hospital stays (3.4 vs. 4.4 days), returned to physical activity earlier (45 vs. 60 days), exercised more before and after donation, and continued physical activity post-donation. Regression analyses revealed that donor type and white blood cell count were predictive of the PCS-12 score, and donor type was predictive of the MCS-12 score. Non-directed donation was predictive of a shorter hospital stay (by 0.78 days, p < 0.001) and the odds of having PCS-12 and MCS-12 scores above 50 were almost 10 and 16 times higher for NDs, respectively ( p < 0.05). These findings indicate the safety and potential benefits of promoting non-directed donation. However, careful selection processes must be maintained to prevent harm and exploitation.

surgery,transplantation
Survey of Patient's Experience of Altruistic Nondirected Kidney Donation

Katharina J Schumacher,Sarah Stacey,Jacob A Akoh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/1319-2442.292307

Abstract:The scarcity of organs for donation is an ongoing issue. Change in legislative framework allows for altruistic donations in the UK, but, whereas the number of donations from deceased donors has increased, there has been a slow decline in altruistic living donors. The aim of this study was to review perspectives of altruistic nondirected kidney donors (ANDKD) at our center and outcome of all enquiries to inform service improvement and increase the numbers of donors. All enquiries by potential ANDKD at our center from September 2005 to September 2017 were analyzed. Donor assessment was performed as per the UK Guidelines, prior to obtaining Human Tissue Authority approval. The outcome of donation and results of questionnaires sent to 50 ANDKD were analyzed. During the period, 51 of the 180 enquiries (28.3%) resulted in kidney donation. Questionnaire responses were: 66% donors were retired; most heard about altruistic donation through media (60%); 72% thought psychological or psychiatric assessment was necessary; 95% found the information provided prior to donation adequate; 82% rated their overall experience as good/excellent; and 90% would recommend kidney donation to others. Thirteen of 50 donated kidneys were fed into the kidney exchange program. The mean ± standard error of the mean of the duration from human tissue authority approval to donation were 60.4 ± 5.4 and 131.2 ± 11.2 days, respectively (P = 0.00001). A significant proportion of enquiries for altruistic donation would result in donation but the assessment process needs to be quicker. ANDKD is useful way of priming the National Living Donor Kidney Sharing Scheme.
Non-Maleficence toward Young Kidney Donors: A Call for Stronger Ethical Standards and Associated Factors in Multidisciplinary Nephrology Teams

Mahdi Tarabeih,Wasef Na'amnih

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/nursrep14030149

2024-08-19

Abstract:Background: The rising frequency of live kidney donations is accompanied by growing ethical concerns as to donor autonomy, the comprehensiveness of disclosure, and donors' understanding of long-term consequences. Aim: To explore donors' satisfaction with the ethical competence of multi-professional nephrology teams regarding disclosure of donation consequences to live kidney donors. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed among Israeli live kidney donors who had donated a kidney in two hospitals that belonged to the Ministry of Health's Transplantation Center one year after the donation, from December 2018 to December 2020. Data collection was conducted online and through face-to-face interviews with the donors in their native language (Hebrew or Arabic). Results: Overall, 91 live kidney donors aged 18-49 years were enrolled. Of those, 65.9% were males, and 54.9% were academic donors. Among the live kidney donors, 59.3% reported that the motivation behind the donation was a first-degree family member vs. 35.2% altruistic and 5.5% commercial. Only 13.2% reported that the provided disclosure adequately explained the possible consequences of living with a single kidney. Approximately 20% of the participants reported that the disclosure included information regarding their risk of developing ESRD, hypertension, and proteinuria. The donors reported a low mean of the index score that indicates a low follow-up by the physician after the donation (mean = 1.16, SD = 0.37). The mean GFR level was significantly lower in the post-donation period one year following a kidney donation (117.8 mL/min/1.73 m2) compared with the pre-donation period (84.0 mL/min/1.73 m2), p < 0.001. Conclusion: Our findings display that donors' satisfaction with the ethical competence of multi-professional nephrology teams regarding the disclosure of donation consequences to live kidney donors is low. This study indicates that donors are at an increased risk of worsening kidney functions (creatinine and GFR), and BMI. Our findings underscore the imperative to advise donors that their condition may worsen over time and can result in complications; thus, they should be monitored during short and long-term follow-up periods. This study was not registered.
Evaluation and Long-Term Follow-Up of Living Kidney Donors

Katafan A Achkar,Lama M Abdelnour,Bassam G Abu Jawdeh,Ekamol Tantisattamoa,Fawaz Al Ammary

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.akdh.2024.04.003

Abstract:The evaluation of living kidney donor candidates is a complex and lengthy process. Donor candidates face geographic and socioeconomic barriers to completing donor evaluation. Inequities in access to living donations persist. With a growing demand for kidney transplants and a shortage of living donors, transplant centers are more permissive of accepting less-than-ideal donor candidates. Donors have an increased lifetime risk of kidney failure, but the absolute risk increase is small. Efforts are needed to support donor candidates to complete donor nephrectomy safely and efficiently and receive optimal follow-up care to prevent risk factors for kidney disease and detect complications early. In this article, the authors address key elements of donor kidney evaluation, including current living donation policy requirements and transplant center practices. The authors present a simplified comprehensive practical approach to help guide providers in completing donor evaluation and follow-up care with best outcomes possible.
A Prospective Study on Living Related Kidney Donors’ Quality of Life in the First Year: Choosing Appropriate Reference Data

Sylvia Kroencke,Lutz Fischer,Bjoern Nashan,Lena Herich,Karl-Heinz Schulz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-0012.2012.01691.x

2012-01-01

Abstract:Prospective studies on living kidney donors’ quality of life (QoL) are still rare. Most existing studies compare healthy donors with the general population, including subjects with diseases. This is the first prospective study comparing living donors’ QoL with reference data of both the general population and healthy individuals. We investigated QoL, anxiety, and depression in living kidney donors (n = 79) before donation and at two post‐operative data points (three months and one yr). Subsequently, data from the donors were compared with the reference data. Our results show an impaired physical QoL three months post‐donation. One yr after surgery, physical QoL had returned to the pre‐operative level. Neither mental QoL nor anxiety or depression showed major changes across time. Pre‐operative QoL was comparable to that of healthy individuals and higher than that in the general population. Donors’ perception of the recipient's health showed moderate correlations with donors’ mental outcome three months after donation. In conclusion, the impact on physical QoL seems to persist for at least three months after kidney donation. It could be demonstrated that in the context of living donation, healthy individuals provide more adequate reference data. Future research needs to determine the length and the nature of the post‐operative QoL impairment and further explore possible influencing factors.
Understanding Barriers and Facilitators to Living Kidney Donation Within a Sociotechnical Systems Framework

Rachel Crenshaw,Cary Woods,Naoru Koizumi,Hitarth S. Dave,Monica Gentili,Jason J. Saleem

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323231224706

IF: 4.233

2024-01-18

Qualitative Health Research

Abstract:Qualitative Health Research, Ahead of Print. The objective of this study was to investigate factors influencing one's decision to become a live kidney donor under the framework of sociotechnical systems, by expanding the focus to include larger organizational influences and technological considerations. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with live kidney donors who donated through University of Louisville Health, Trager Transplant Center, a mid-scale transplant program, in the years 2017 through 2019. The interview transcripts were analyzed for barriers and facilitators to live kidney donation within a sociotechnical system. The most salient facilitators included: having an informative, caring, and available care team; the absence of any negative external pressure toward donating; donating to a family or friend; and the ability to take extra time off work for recovery. The most recurrent barriers included: short/medium-term (<1 year) negative health impacts because of donation; the need to make minor lifestyle changes (e.g., less alcohol consumption) after donation; and mental health deterioration stemming from the donation process. The sociotechnical systems framework promotes a balanced system comprised of social, technical, and environmental subsystems. Assessing the facilitators and barriers from the sociotechnical system perspective revealed the importance of and opportunities for developing strategies to promote integration of technical subsystem, such as social media apps and interactive AI platforms, with social and environmental subsystems to enable facilitators and reduce barriers effectively.

social sciences, biomedical, interdisciplinary,information science & library science
Expanding the live kidney donor pool: ethical considerations regarding altruistic donors, paired and pooled programs

Shaneel Rajendra Patel,Priyanka Chadha,Vassilios Papalois

Abstract:In renal transplant, there is a well-known deficiency in organ supply relative to demand. Live donation provides superior results when compared with deceased donation including a better rate of graft success and fewer immunologic complications. This deficiency in organs leads to significant morbidity and mortality rates. Alternative avenues have been extensively explored that may expand the live donor pool. They include altruistic donation as well as paired and pooled exchange programs. Altruistic donation is a truly selfless act from a donor unknown to the recipient. Kidney paired donation involves 2 incompatible donor-recipient pairs swapping donors to produce compatibility. Pooled donation involves at least 2 pairs, and can take the form of domino chains in which altruistic input sets up a chain of transplants, in which each recipient's incompatible donor makes a donation for the next recipient. Despite application of these various methods, there lie extensive ethical issues surrounding them. Misconceptions frequently occur; for instance, the perceived benefit that donating an organ to a loved one is greater for a related donor than for an altruistic one. Additionally, it is frequently believed that immunologic incompatibility offers coerced donors liberation from surgery, and that overcoming these barriers by introducing exchange programs provides vulnerable donors less protection. This article explores these and other complex ethical issues surrounding the various methods of expanding the donor pool. The authors offer opinions that challenge the ethical issues and attempt to overcome those views that hinder progress in the field.
Pregnancy Outcomes in Living Kidney Donors: Protocol of a Population-Based Cohort Study in Three Canadian Provinces

Carol Wang,Kyla L Naylor,Eric McArthur,Jessica M Sontrop,Pavel Roshanov,Ngan N Lam,Sarah D McDonald,Krista L Lentine,James King,Erik Youngson,Joseph Beyene,Elizabeth Hendren,Amit X Garg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20543581241284030

2024-10-06

Abstract:Background: A substantial proportion of living kidney donors are women of childbearing age. Some prior studies report a higher risk of gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia in living kidney donors compared with nondonors. Further research is needed to better quantify the risk of adverse maternal, fetal/infant, and neonatal outcomes attributable to living kidney donation. Objective: To determine the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, including gestational hypertension, pre-eclampsia, and eclampsia, and other maternal and fetal/infant outcomes in living kidney donors compared with a matched group of nondonors of similar baseline health. Design and setting: Protocol for a population-based, matched cohort study using Canadian administrative health care databases. The protocol will be run separately in 3 provinces, Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia, and results will be combined statistically using meta-analysis. Participants: The cohort will include women aged 18 to 48 years who donated a kidney between July 1992 and March 2022 and had at least one postdonation singleton pregnancy of ≥20 weeks gestation between January 1993 and February 2023. We expect to include at least 150 living kidney donors with over 200 postdonation pregnancies from Ontario and a similar number of donors and pregnancies across Alberta and British Columbia combined. Nondonors will include women from the general population with at least one pregnancy of ≥20 weeks gestation between January 1993 and February 2023. Nondonors will be randomly assigned cohort entry dates based on the distribution of nephrectomy dates in donors. The sample of nondonors will be restricted to those aged 18 to 48 years on their cohort entry dates with delivery dates at least 6 months after their assigned entry dates. A concern with donor and nondonor comparisons is that donors are healthier than the general population. To reduce this concern, we will also apply 30+ exclusion criteria to further restrict the nondonor group so that they have similar health measures at cohort entry as the donors. Donor and nondonor pregnancies will then be matched (1:4) on 5 potential confounders: delivery date, maternal age at delivery date, time between cohort entry and delivery date, neighborhood income quintile, and parity at delivery date. Measurements: The primary outcome will be a composite of maternal gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, or eclampsia. Secondary maternal outcomes will include components of the primary outcome, early pre-eclampsia, severe maternal morbidity, cesarean section, postpartum hemorrhage, and gestational diabetes. Fetal/infant/neonatal outcomes will include premature birth/low birth weight, small for gestational age, neonatal intensive care unit admission, stillbirth, and neonatal death. Methods: The primary unit of analysis will be the pregnancy. We will compute the risk ratio of the primary composite outcome in donors versus nondonors using a log-binomial mixed regression model with random effects to account for the correlation within women with multiple pregnancies and within matched sets of donors and nondonors. We will perform the statistical analyses within each province and then combine aggregated results using meta-analytic techniques to produce overall estimates of the study outcomes. Limitations: Due to regulations that prevent individual-level records from being sent to other provinces, we cannot pool individual-level data from all 3 provinces. Conclusion: Compared to prior studies, this study will better estimate the donation-attributable risk of adverse maternal, fetal/infant, and neonatal outcomes. Transplant centers can use the results to counsel female living donor candidates of childbearing age and to inform recommended practices for the follow-up and care of living kidney donors who become pregnant.
Ethical Issues in Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: An Update from a Psychosocial Perspective

Valentina Martinelli,Estella L. L. Lumer,Matteo Chiappedi,Pierluigi Politi,Marilena Gregorini,Teresa Rampino,Andrea Peri,Andrea Pietrabissa,Laura Fusar-Poli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12181832

2024-09-14

Health Care

Abstract:Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) currently represents the treatment of choice for patients with end-stage renal failure. LDKT is a serious event with profound psychological, interpersonal, familial, and social implications. Over the last few years, there has been an exponential growth in living donation programs involving genetically and emotionally related donors, as well as people who donate to an unrelated and unknown subject. The implementation of paired exchange programs, Samaritan donation, and preemptive transplantation raise further ethical issues, which are inextricably linked to the unique psychosocial context of both the donor and the recipient. The present narrative review aims to provide an update on the main ethical challenges related to LDKT. We conducted a comprehensive literature search in PubMed/Medline. The results of the most relevant studies were narratively synthesized from a psychosocial perspective around the four principles of biomedical ethics: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Finally, we discussed the potential future directions to provide an effective, patient-centered, and ethical psychosocial assessment and follow-up of living donors and recipients that underwent LDKT.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Psychological Impact of Living Kidney Donation: A Systematic Review by the EAU-YAU Kidney Transplant Working Group

Valentine Cazauvieilh,Valérie Moal,Thomas Prudhomme,Alessio Pecoraro,Alberto Piana,Riccardo Campi,Vital Hevia,Angelo Territo,Romain Boissier

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/ti.2023.11827

2023-11-24

Abstract:We performed a systematic literature review of the psychological impact on donors of living kidney donation. We conducted a literature review in PubMed/Medline according to PRISMA guidelines which included both qualitative (based on interviews) and quantitative studies (based on standardized questionnaire). There were 15 quantitative studies and 8 qualitative studies with 2,732 donors. Given that the methodologies of qualitative and quantitative studies are fundamentally different, we narratively synthetized results of studies according to four axes: quality of life, anxiety/depression, consequences of donation on the donor/recipient relationship, overall satisfaction and regret. The quantitative studies reported that donor quality of life remained unchanged or improved. Donor regret rates were very low and donor-recipient relationships also remained unchanged or improved. Qualitative studies reported more complex donation experiences: one can regret donation and still decide to recommend it as in a social desirability bias. In both study types, donor-recipient relationships were closer but qualitative studies reported that post-donation rebonding was required. The qualitative studies therefore highlighted the psychological complexity of donation for donors, showing that living donation impacts the donor's life whether it is successful or not. A better understanding of the impact of donation on donors could provide better care for donors.
"Weighing the Pros and Cons of Everything": A Qualitative Descriptive Study Exploring Perspectives About Living Donor Kidney Transplantation From Parents of Chinese Canadian Pediatric Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease

Sarah J Pol,Enid K Selkirk,Alameen Damer,Istvan Mucsi,Susan Abbey,Beth Edwards,Kenneth Fung,Jagbir Gill,Paula Neves,Suk Yin Ng,Rulan S Parekh,Linda Wright,Minglin Wu,Samantha J Anthony

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20543581241249872

2024-05-10

Abstract:Background: As of 2021, more than 6000 children and youth in Canada were living with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), for which kidney transplantation is considered the preferred treatment by health professionals. Research shows that living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) has superior allograft and recipient survival compared to deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT). However, in a pediatric setting, the choice of LDKT or DDKT is a summative consideration of factors weighed carefully by the patient's family, health care team, and patient. Decision-making surrounding transplantation may be more complex for racial and ethnic minorities as culturally specific values and beliefs are interwoven within dominant understandings and concepts of health and accepted models of health care. For example, Chinese Canadians have an increased risk of ESKD, yet reduced access to LDKT compared to White patients, despite being the largest visible minority population in Canada. Objective: The objective of this qualitative study is to deepen our understandings of the decision-making process surrounding DDKT versus LDKT among parents of Chinese Canadian pediatric patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Design: Qualitative descriptive study design. Setting: The Nephrology Program at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Canada. Participants: Caregivers of Chinese Canadian patients with CKD, 18 years of age or older, and who spoke English, Cantonese, or Mandarin. Methods: One-on-one, semistructured interviews were conducted virtually, by a member of the research team and were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was used to explore participants' shared experience. Results: Seven interviews were conducted with 6 mothers and 1 father of 6 Chinese Canadian pediatric patients with CKD: 4 patients had undergone a kidney transplant, and 2 were not yet listed for transplant. Analysis of data highlighted that cultural influences affected whether parents shared with others about their child's illness and experience. The cultural understanding that it is inappropriate to burden others contributed to the creation of an isolating experience for participants. Cultural influences also impacted whether parents asked others to be a living donor as participants articulated this would place a physical burden on the living donor (e.g., potential risk to their health) and an emotional burden on the participant as they would be indebted to a willing donor. Ultimately, parents' decision to choose DDKT or LDKT for their patient-child was a result of evaluating both options carefully and within an understanding that the ideal treatment choice reflected what was best for all family members. Limitations: Findings reflect experiences of a small sample from a single recruitment site which may limit transferability. Conclusions: Parents in this study felt that they had access to the necessary evidence-based information to make an informed decision about the choice of DDKT versus LDKT for their child. Participant narratives described feeling isolated within cultural communities of family and friends and participants' suggestion of benefiting from increased support may guide future research directions. Practitioners can offer direct and indirect support to families, with recognition of the importance of cultural values and family-centered care on decision-making within families. Opportunities are needed for accessible, virtual social support platforms to increase parental feelings of culturally mediated peer support from parents who share similar experiences.

Phospholipases A2 of rod outer segment-free bovine retinae are different from well-known phospholipases A2.

Experiences of living kidney donors: A synthesis of unsolicited patient narratives

The motivations and experiences of living kidney donors: a thematic synthesis

Perceptions of Psychosocial and Ethical Issues and the Psychological Characteristics of Donors in the Clinical Setting of Living Kidney Donors: A Qualitative Study

Characteristics of Potential and Actual Living Kidney Donors: A Single-center Experience

[Radiotherapy in the treatment of malignant nasosinusal neoplasms. The experience of the Trento Cancer Center].

National Attitudes Toward Living Kidney Donation in the United States: Results of a Public Opinion Survey

Donor Perceptions and Preferences of Telemedicine and In-Person Visits for Living Kidney Donor Evaluation

A Single-Center Retrospective Study to Identify Causes of Sex Differences in the Living Kidney Donor Evaluation Process

Über das wirksame Prinzip der Kamillenblüten

Assessing Health-Related Quality of Life in Non-Directed Versus Directed Kidney Donors: Implications for the Promotion of Non-Directed Donation

Survey of Patient's Experience of Altruistic Nondirected Kidney Donation

Non-Maleficence toward Young Kidney Donors: A Call for Stronger Ethical Standards and Associated Factors in Multidisciplinary Nephrology Teams

Evaluation and Long-Term Follow-Up of Living Kidney Donors

A Prospective Study on Living Related Kidney Donors’ Quality of Life in the First Year: Choosing Appropriate Reference Data

Understanding Barriers and Facilitators to Living Kidney Donation Within a Sociotechnical Systems Framework

Expanding the live kidney donor pool: ethical considerations regarding altruistic donors, paired and pooled programs

Pregnancy Outcomes in Living Kidney Donors: Protocol of a Population-Based Cohort Study in Three Canadian Provinces

Ethical Issues in Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: An Update from a Psychosocial Perspective

Psychological Impact of Living Kidney Donation: A Systematic Review by the EAU-YAU Kidney Transplant Working Group

"Weighing the Pros and Cons of Everything": A Qualitative Descriptive Study Exploring Perspectives About Living Donor Kidney Transplantation From Parents of Chinese Canadian Pediatric Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease