ABSTRACT
Objetivo: Analisar a confidencialidade nos transplantes renais com doadores cadáveres. METODOLOGIA - Foram aplicados 60 questionários com participantes escolhidos aleatoriamente, divididos em três grupos: pacientes em lista de espera para transplantes, pacientes transplantados renais e familiares dos doadores. RESULTADOS - No grupo de pacientes em lista de espera, 85% manifestaram interesse em conhecer a identidade do doador; no grupo de pacientes transplantados, apenas 45% manifestaram interesse; no grupo de famílias doadoras, 55% manifestaram vontade de conhecer o receptor. A Central Nacional de Notificação, Captação e Distribuição de Órgãos (CNCDO) foi indicada por 61.7% dos participantes como responsável pela identificação do doador. CONCLUSÃO - O critério da decisão compartilhada sobre a identificação ou não do doador cadáver, com a intermediação do Estado por meio das CNCDO, é o mais condizente com a opinião dos sujeitos que responderam à amostra estudada...
Objetivo - Analizar la confidencialidad en los trasplantes renales con donantes cadáveres. Metodología - Se aplicaron 60 cuestionarios con participantes escogidos aleatoriamente, divididos en tres grupos: pacientes en lista de espera para trasplantes; pacientes renales trasplantados; y familiares de los donantes. Resultados - En el grupo de pacientes en lista de espera, el 85% manifestó interés en conocer la identidad del donante; en el grupo de pacientes trasplantados, sólo el 45% manifestó interés; en el grupo de familias donantes, el 55% manifestó el deseo de conocer el receptor. La Central Nacional de Notificación, Captación y Distribución de Órganos (CNCDO) fue indicada por un 61,7% de los participantes como responsable por la identificación del donante. Conclusión - El criterio de decisión compartida sobre la identificación o no del donante cadáver, con la intermediación del Estado a través de las CNCDO, es lo que más se ajusta a la opinión de las personas que respondieron a la muestra estudiada...
Objective: To analyze the confidentiality in kidney transplantation from cadaver donors. METHODOLOGY - Questionnaires with 60 participants divided in three groups: patients on waiting lists for transplants; patients who had received a transplant; and members of donors' families. RESULTS - In the first group, 85% expressed interest in knowing the donor's identity; in the second group, only 45% expressed interest; and in the group of donor families, 55% expressed a wish to know who had received the transplant. The National Center for Organ Notification, Collection and Distribution (CNCDO) was indicated by 61.7% of the participants as the body responsible for donor identification. CONCLUSION - The criterion of shared decisions between the subjects involved, with intermediation by the State through CNCDO, fitted best with the opinions of the sample studied...
Subject(s)
Humans , Bioethics , Tissue Donors/ethics , Kidney Transplantation , Tissue DonorsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Health maintenance and monitoring of transplant candidates, the great majority of whom are undergoing chronic dialysis, can be a determinant of post-transplant prognosis. New issues such as malignancy, inflammation, cardiovascular disease, and psychosocial problems might arise among potential recipients, which may lead to cancellation of the transplantation. METHODS: A questionnaire, including questions regarding follow-up monitoring, was sent to 66 transplant centers, and responses to the survey were obtained from 35 centers (53%). A similar questionnaire was sent to 217 wait-listed patients, and 164 (76%) responded. RESULTS: Regular contact between the transplant center and patients was maintained by only 37% of the centers. No consistent pattern of contact was observed for 11%. Sixty percent of the centers monitored patients by telephone. Three-fourths of the transplant centers monitored their patients annually or every 6 months. A cancer screening program was run by only 17% of the centers, and 29% did not routinely request cardiac screening. Most centers (83%) informed their patients of the features of marginal kidneys. However, many patients (69%) reported not hearing about marginal kidneys, and 43% indicated that a cadaver transplant was cancelled because of a cadaver donor problem. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey indicates that the necessity for routine follow-up monitoring is broadly recognized by 86% of transplant centers and 78% of wait-listed patients However, no formal monitoring guidelines currently exist for wait-listed patients in Korea. Therefore, guidelines are absolutely necessary for improving the quality of post-transplant life.
Subject(s)
Humans , Cadaver , Cardiovascular Diseases , Dialysis , Early Detection of Cancer , Follow-Up Studies , Hearing , Inflammation , Kidney , Kidney Transplantation , Korea , Mass Screening , Prognosis , Surveys and Questionnaires , Telephone , Tissue Donors , Transplants , Waiting ListsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation from cadaveric donor is increasing in KOREA. Knowledge of donor factors that can influence early graft function should be an important guideline in determining the suitability of a donor kidney for transplantation. METHOD: From June 1989 to August 1995, sixty patients with end-stage renal disease underwent kidney transplantation from thirty-two cadaver donors in Asan Medical Center. In this study, we reviewed the clinical characteristics of the cadaver donors including vital sign, urine output, serum creatinine, amounts of vasopressor needed, as well as the cause of brain death and evaluated the effect of these parameters on the early post-transplantation graft function (up to 6 months). RESULTS: The data are given as median (range). The donors had been admitted for 40 hours (12-177) before nephrectomy. During admission, the lowest systolic blood pressure was 85mmHg (60-130). Platelet count was 112 X 10(3)/L (11-270 X 10(3)). Hour urine output was 447ml/h (212-937). These parameters did not have significant effects on the early post-transplantation graft function of our patients. Fifteen of thirty two donors had peak serum creatinine higher than 1.4mg/dl (mean 1.9mg/dl, range 1.5-3.6mg/dl) with serum creatinine 1.5mg/dl (1.5-2.0) at the time of nephrectomy. The declining tendency and lowest level of serum creatinine after renal transplantation in patients who received kidneys from donor with peak serum creatinine higher than 1.4mg/dl was not different from those in patients who received kidney with normal function. CONCLUSION: The transient hypotension or acute reversible mild to moderate deterioration of renal function in cadaver donor does not seem to have significant effect on the early post-transplantation graft function if underlying organic renal disease could be ruled out by careful history taking and clinical evaluation.