Behavior Profile of Family Members of Donors and Nondonors of Organs

Organ transplant shortage is a global problem caused by several factors, most of which are related to members of the family, who play it major role in the donation process. Objective. We sought to determine the most determinant features in the donor profile that relate to positive decisions versus refusal of donation. Material and Methods. Fifty-six families who were approached by the Organ Procurement Organization (OPO) from November 2004 to April 2006 agreed to participate in this work. To assess donor profiles, we used it structured interview. Results. Parental involvement directly in decisions about donation lead to significantly less frequent consent (P = .005), young donor age was associated with a reduced probability of donation (P = .002), violent death negatively influenced donation consent, excluding suicide (P = .004). Conclusion. The present study showed violent death, young patient age, and parental donation consent to be the most important factors that make it harder to obtain consent organ donation. When a collateral relative (sibling/uncle) or children were responsible for the donation decision, there was more success of consent.

Experimental multivisceral xenotransplantation

Background: Organ shortage impairs the proposition of multivisceral transplantation to treat multiple organ failure. Interspecies (xeno) transplantation is a valid solution for organ shortage; however, suitable models of this advance are lacking. We describe an effective model of multivisceral xenotransplantation to study hyperacute rejection. Methods: Under general anesthesia, we in block recovered the distal esophagus, stomach, small bowel, colon, liver, pancreas, spleen, and kidneys from donors and implanted heterotopically in the lower abdomen of recipients. Animals were divided into four groups: I-canine donor, swine recipient (n = 6); II - swine donor, canine recipient (n = 5); III-canine donor, canine recipient (n = 4); and IV-swine donor, swine recipient (n = 5). Groups I and 11 comprised experimental (xenotransplantation) and III and IV control groups (allotransplantation). During the experiment, we appraised recipient evolution and graft modification by sequential biopsy up to 3 h. At this time, we killed animals for autopsy (experimental end point). Results: We accomplished all experiments successfully. Every grafts attained customary appearance and convenient urine output immediately after unclamp. Around 15 min after reperfusion, xenografts achieved signs of progressive hyperacute rejection and absence of urine output. At the end of experiments we observed moderate to severe hyperacute rejection at small bowel, colon, mesenteric lymph node, liver, spleen, pancreas, and kidney, while stomach and esophagus achieved mild lesions. In contrast, allograft achieved normal or minimum ischemia/reperfusion injury and constant urine output. Conclusion: The present procedure assembles a simple and effective model to study multivisceral xenotransplantation and may ultimately spread researches toward hyperacute rejection.

Communication between organ donor families and recipients: A definitely controversial subject

In transplant centers, few topics are more controversial than communication between organ donor families (ODF) and recipients (RE). The Organ Procurement Organizations and transplant centers have felt obliged to protect the confidentiality and interests of ODF and RE. However, some authors have reported favorable effects of contact between ODF and RE. This study sought to investigate the current situation of the communication between ODF and RE from the viewpoint of transplanted patients (n = 50) and waiting transplant patients (n 50) at a Brazilian University Hospital, ODF (n = 10), physicians from transplant centers (n 50), as well as the opinion of the general population of a Brazilian city (n = 100). This work was developed as a survey whose questions related to the issue of communication between ODF and RE. The results showed that the majority of transplanted patients (82%) and patients awaiting transplant (60%) wanted to meet ODF to express their gratitude for receiving the organ. Likewise, ODF (67%) wanted to have a meeting with recipients, which allowed them to confirm the benefit of their donation. The general population was also favorable (66%) to ODF and RE communication. In contrast, the physicians (74%) were opposed to the ODF and RE contact. They affirmed that direct contact could lead to serious emotional conflicts or attempts of material involvement. One believes that decisions concerning the contact between ODF and RE would have to be determined by the involved parties. The transplant team could analyze the requests case by case, but ODF and RE must have the right to make the final decision.