Global kidney exchange : opportunity or exploitation? An ELPAT/ESOT appraisal

This paper addresses ethical, legal, and psychosocial aspects of Global Kidney Exchange (GKE). Concerns have been raised that GKE violates the nonpayment principle, exploits donors in low‐ and middle‐income countries, and detracts from the aim of self‐sufficiency. We review the arguments for and against GKE. We argue that while some concerns about GKE are justified based on the available evidence, others are speculative and do not apply exclusively to GKE but to living donation more generally. We posit that concerns can be mitigated by implementing safeguards, by developing minimum quality criteria and by establishing an international committee that independently monitors and evaluates GKE’s procedures and outcomes. Several questions remain however that warrant further clarification. What are the experiences and views of recipients and donors participating in GKE? Who manages the escrow funds that have been put in place for donor and recipients? What procedures and safeguards have been put in place to prevent corruption of these funds? What are the inclusion criteria for participating GKE centers? GKE provides opportunity to promote access to donation and transplantation but can only be conducted with the appropriate safeguards. Patients’ and donors’ voices are missing in this debate

Global Kidney Exchange: opportunity or exploitation? An ELPAT/ESOT appraisal

This paper addresses ethical, legal, and psychosocial aspects of Global Kidney Exchange (GKE). Concerns have been raised that GKE violates the nonpayment principle, exploits donors in low- and middle-income countries, and detracts from the aim of self-sufficiency. We review the arguments for and against GKE. We argue that while some concerns about GKE are justified based on the available evidence, others are speculative and do not apply exclusively to GKE but to living donation more generally. We posit that concerns can be mitigated by implementing safeguards, by developing minimum quality criteria and by establishing an international committee that independently monitors and evaluates GKE’s procedures and outcomes. Several questions remain however that warrant further clarificati

Surgical quality in organ procurement during day and night: an analysis of quality forms

OBJECTIVES: To analyse a potential association between surgical quality and time of day. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of complete sets of quality forms filled out by the procuring and accepting surgeon on organs from deceased donors. SETTING: Procurement procedures in the Netherlands are organised per region. All procedures are performed by an independent, dedicated procurement team that is associated with an academic medical centre in the region. PARTICIPANTS: In 18 months' time, 771 organs were accepted and procured in The Netherlands. Of these, 17 organs were declined before transport and therefore excluded. For the remaining 754 organs, 591 (78%) sets of forms were completed (procurement and transplantation). Baseline characteristics were comparable in both daytime and evening/night-time with the exception of height (p=0.003). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: All complete sets of quality forms were retrospectively analysed for the primary outcome, procurement-related surgical injury. Organs were categorised based on the starting time of the procurement in either daytime (8:00-17:00) or evening/night-time (17:00-8:00). RESULTS: Out of 591 procured organs, 129 organs (22%) were procured during daytime and 462 organs (78%) during evening/night-time. The incidence of surgical injury was significantly lower during daytime; 22 organs (17%) compared with 126 organs (27%) procured during evening/night-time (p=0.016). This association persists when adjusted for confounders. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows an increased incidence of procurement-related surgical injury in evening/night-time procedures as compared with daytime. Time of day might (in)directly influence surgical performance and should be considered a potential risk factor for injury in organ procurement procedures

Corrigendum:An Inventory of Deceased Donor Family Care and Contact Between Donor Families and Recipients in 15 European Countries

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/ti.2021.10188.]

Corrigendum: An Inventory of Deceased Donor Family Care and Contact Between Donor Families and Recipients in 15 European Countries

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/ti.2021.10188.]

Building Kindey Exchange Programmes in Europe - An Overview of Exchange Practice and Activities

Bakgrund: Considerable differences exist among the living donor Kidney Exchange Programmes (KEPs) that are in use and being built in Europe, contributing to a variation in the number of living donor transplants [6]. Efforts of European KEPs to exchange (best) practices and share approaches to address challenges have, however, been limited.Methods: Experts from 23 European countries, collaborating on the ENCKEP COST Action, developed a questionnaire to collect detailed information on the functioning of all existing KEPs in Europe, as well as their opportunities and challenges. Following a comparative analysis, results were synthesised and interpreted by the same experts.Results: The practices, opportunities and challenges reported by 17 European countries reveal that some of the 10 operating programmes are mature, while others are in earlier stages of development. Over 1300 transplants were performed through existing KEPs up to the end of 2016, providing approximately 8% of their countries’ living kidney donations in 2015. All countries report challenges to either initiating KEPs or increasing volumes. Some challenges are shared, whilst others differ because of differences in context (eg, country size, effectiveness of deceased donor programme) and ethical and legal considerations (eg, regarding living donation as such, nonrelated donors, and altruistic donation). Transnational initiatives have started in Central Europe, Scandinavia, and Southern Europe.Conclusions: Exchange of best practices and shared advancement of national programmes to address existing challenges, aided by transnational exchanges, may substantially improve access to the most (cost) effective treatment for the increasing number of patients suffering from kidney disease

Current situation of donation after circulatory death in European countries

The aim of the present study was to describe the current situation of donation after circulatory death (DCD) in the Council of Europe, through a dedicated survey. Of 27 participating countries, only 10 confirmed any DCD activity, the highest one being described in Belgium, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (mainly controlled) and France and Spain (mainly uncontrolled). During 2000-2009, as DCD increased, donation after brain death (DBD) decreased about 20% in the three countries with a predominant controlled DCD activity, while DBD had increased in the majority of European countries. The number of organs recovered and transplanted per DCD increased along time, although it remained substantially lower compared with DBD. During 2000-2008, 5004 organs were transplanted from DCD (4261 kidneys, 505 livers, 157 lungs and 81 pancreas). Short-term outcomes of 2343 kidney recipients from controlled versus 649 from uncontrolled DCD were analyzed: primary non function occurred in 5% vs. 6.4% (P = NS) and delayed graft function in 50.2% vs. 75.7% (P < 0.001). In spite of this, 1 year graft survival was 85.9% vs. 88.9% (P = 0.04), respectively. DCD is increasingly accepted in Europe but still limited to a few countries. Controlled DCD might negatively impact DBD activity. The degree of utilization of DCD is lower compared with DBD. Short-term results of DCD are promising with differences between kidney recipients transplanted from controlled versus uncontrolled DCD, an observation to be further analyzed

Abdominal organ procurement in the Netherlands - an analysis of quality and clinical impact

Between March 2012 and August 2013, 591 quality forms were filled out for abdominal organs in the Netherlands. In 133 cases (23%), there was a discrepancy between the evaluation from the procuring and transplanting surgeons. Injuries were seen in 148 (25%) organs of which 12 (2%) led to discarding of the organ: one of 133 (0.8%) livers, five of 38 (13%) pancreata and six of 420 (1.4%) kidneys (P < 0.001). Higher donor BMI was a risk factor for procurement-related injury in all organs (OR: 1.06, P = 0.011) and donor after cardiac death (DCD) donation in liver procurement (OR: 2.31, P = 0.034). DCD donation is also associated with more pancreata being discarded due to injury (OR: 10.333, P = 0.046). A higher procurement volume in a centre was associated with less injury in pancreata (OR = -0.95, P = 0.013) and kidneys (OR = -0.91, P = 0.012). The quality form system efficiently monitors the quality of organ procurement. Although there is a relatively high rate of organ injury, the discard rate is low and it does not significantly affect 1-year graft survival for any organ. We identified higher BMI as a risk factor for injury in abdominal organs and DCD as a risk factor in livers. A higher procurement volume is associated with fewer injuries