Ethical Issues in Normothermic Regional Perfusion in Controlled Organ Donation After Determination of Death by Circulatory Criteria: A Scoping Review.

IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 IMMUNOLOGY Transplantation Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-28 DOI:10.1097/TP.0000000000005161
Nicholas B Murphy, Marat Slessarev, John Basmaji, Laurie Blackstock, Michael Blaszak, Mayur Brahmania, Jennifer A Chandler, Sonny Dhanani, Matthew Gaulton, Jed A Gross, Andrew Healey, Lorelei Lingard, Mary Ott, Sam D Shemie, Charles Weijer
{"title":"Ethical Issues in Normothermic Regional Perfusion in Controlled Organ Donation After Determination of Death by Circulatory Criteria: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Nicholas B Murphy, Marat Slessarev, John Basmaji, Laurie Blackstock, Michael Blaszak, Mayur Brahmania, Jennifer A Chandler, Sonny Dhanani, Matthew Gaulton, Jed A Gross, Andrew Healey, Lorelei Lingard, Mary Ott, Sam D Shemie, Charles Weijer","doi":"10.1097/TP.0000000000005161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) is a surgical technique that can improve the quality and number of organs recovered for donation after the determination of death by circulatory criteria. Despite its promise, adoption of NRP has been hindered because of unresolved ethical issues. To inform stakeholders, this scoping review provides an impartial overview of the major ethical controversies surrounding NRP. We undertook this review according to a modified 5-step methodology proposed by Arksey and O'Malley. Publications were retrieved through MEDLINE and Embase. Gray literature was sourced from Canadian organ donation organizations, English-language organ donation organization websites, and through our research networks. Three reviewers independently screened all documents for inclusion, extracted data, and participated in content analysis. Disagreements were resolved through consensus meetings. Seventy-one documents substantively engaging with ethical issues in NRP were included for full-text analysis. We identified 6 major themes encompassing a range of overlapping ethical debates: (1) the compatibility of NRP with the dead donor rule, the injunction that organ recovery cannot cause death, (2) the risk of donor harm posed by NRP, (3) uncertainties regarding consent requirements for NRP, (4) risks to stakeholder trust posed by NRP, (5) the implications of NRP for justice, and (6) NRP's potential to benefits of NRP for stakeholders. We found no agreement on the ethical permissibility of NRP. However, some debates may be resolved through additional empirical study. As decision-makers contemplate the adoption of NRP, it is critical to address the ethical issues facing the technique to ensure stakeholder trust in deceased donation and transplantation systems is preserved.</p>","PeriodicalId":23316,"journal":{"name":"Transplantation","volume":" ","pages":"597-609"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11927451/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transplantation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/TP.0000000000005161","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) is a surgical technique that can improve the quality and number of organs recovered for donation after the determination of death by circulatory criteria. Despite its promise, adoption of NRP has been hindered because of unresolved ethical issues. To inform stakeholders, this scoping review provides an impartial overview of the major ethical controversies surrounding NRP. We undertook this review according to a modified 5-step methodology proposed by Arksey and O'Malley. Publications were retrieved through MEDLINE and Embase. Gray literature was sourced from Canadian organ donation organizations, English-language organ donation organization websites, and through our research networks. Three reviewers independently screened all documents for inclusion, extracted data, and participated in content analysis. Disagreements were resolved through consensus meetings. Seventy-one documents substantively engaging with ethical issues in NRP were included for full-text analysis. We identified 6 major themes encompassing a range of overlapping ethical debates: (1) the compatibility of NRP with the dead donor rule, the injunction that organ recovery cannot cause death, (2) the risk of donor harm posed by NRP, (3) uncertainties regarding consent requirements for NRP, (4) risks to stakeholder trust posed by NRP, (5) the implications of NRP for justice, and (6) NRP's potential to benefits of NRP for stakeholders. We found no agreement on the ethical permissibility of NRP. However, some debates may be resolved through additional empirical study. As decision-makers contemplate the adoption of NRP, it is critical to address the ethical issues facing the technique to ensure stakeholder trust in deceased donation and transplantation systems is preserved.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
根据循环标准确定死亡后在受控器官捐献中进行常温区域灌注的伦理问题:范围审查。
常温区域灌注(NRP)是一种外科技术,可提高按循环标准判定死亡后捐献器官的质量和数量。尽管 NRP 前景广阔,但由于伦理问题尚未解决,NRP 的采用一直受到阻碍。为了向利益相关者提供信息,本范围界定综述公正地概述了围绕 NRP 的主要伦理争议。我们按照 Arksey 和 O'Malley 提出的修改后的 5 步方法进行了此次综述。我们通过 MEDLINE 和 Embase 检索了相关文献。灰色文献来源于加拿大器官捐献组织、英文器官捐献组织网站以及我们的研究网络。三位审稿人独立筛选所有纳入文献、提取数据并参与内容分析。分歧通过共识会议解决。对 71 篇涉及 NRP 伦理问题的文献进行了全文分析。我们确定了 6 大主题,其中包括一系列相互重叠的伦理争论:(1) NRP 与死亡捐献者规则(即器官复苏不能导致死亡的禁令)的兼容性,(2) NRP 对捐献者造成伤害的风险,(3) 有关 NRP 同意要求的不确定性,(4) NRP 对利益相关者的信任造成的风险,(5) NRP 对司法的影响,以及 (6) NRP 对利益相关者的潜在益处。我们发现,在国家资源规划的道德允许性问题上没有达成一致意见。不过,通过更多的实证研究,一些争论可能会得到解决。在决策者考虑采用 NRP 时,关键是要解决该技术面临的伦理问题,以确保利益相关者对死亡捐献和移植系统的信任得以维护。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Transplantation
Transplantation 医学-免疫学
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
11.30%
发文量
1906
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The official journal of The Transplantation Society, and the International Liver Transplantation Society, Transplantation is published monthly and is the most cited and influential journal in the field, with more than 25,000 citations per year. Transplantation has been the trusted source for extensive and timely coverage of the most important advances in transplantation for over 50 years. The Editors and Editorial Board are an international group of research and clinical leaders that includes many pioneers of the field, representing a diverse range of areas of expertise. This capable editorial team provides thoughtful and thorough peer review, and delivers rapid, careful and insightful editorial evaluation of all manuscripts submitted to the journal. Transplantation is committed to rapid review and publication. The journal remains competitive with a time to first decision of fewer than 21 days. Transplantation was the first in the field to offer CME credit to its peer reviewers for reviews completed. The journal publishes original research articles in original clinical science and original basic science. Short reports bring attention to research at the forefront of the field. Other areas covered include cell therapy and islet transplantation, immunobiology and genomics, and xenotransplantation. ​
期刊最新文献
Revisiting Ureteral Stenting in Kidney Transplantation: To Stent or not to Stent? Advances in Beta-cell Replacement Therapy for Diabetes-Insights From the 20th International Pancreas and Islet Transplant Association (IPITA) World Congress, Pisa, 2025. Survival Benefit of Liver Transplantation in Low Model for End-stage Liver Disease Score Patients: Interpretation and Implications. Conventional and Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound Imaging in 2 Human Kidney Xenotransplant Recipients. APOL1 Genotype and Patient Outcomes in US and South African Transplant Recipients With HIV who Received Kidneys From Donors With HIV.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1