2015-2021年加拿大某省份死者器官捐献组织方式和看护人同意的感染风险增加——捐赠者身份和公平相关预测因素

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Clinical Transplantation Pub Date : 2024-12-21 DOI:10.1111/ctr.70058
Murdoch Leeies, Karen Doucette, Brenden Dufault, Tricia Carta, Owen Mooney, Carmen Hrymak, Nicolette Balzer, Ben Borys, Yasmine El-Salakawy, Mirna Ragheb, Davie Xie, Emily Christie, David Collister, Matthew J. Weiss, Sonny Dhanani, Julie Ho
{"title":"2015-2021年加拿大某省份死者器官捐献组织方式和看护人同意的感染风险增加——捐赠者身份和公平相关预测因素","authors":"Murdoch Leeies,&nbsp;Karen Doucette,&nbsp;Brenden Dufault,&nbsp;Tricia Carta,&nbsp;Owen Mooney,&nbsp;Carmen Hrymak,&nbsp;Nicolette Balzer,&nbsp;Ben Borys,&nbsp;Yasmine El-Salakawy,&nbsp;Mirna Ragheb,&nbsp;Davie Xie,&nbsp;Emily Christie,&nbsp;David Collister,&nbsp;Matthew J. Weiss,&nbsp;Sonny Dhanani,&nbsp;Julie Ho","doi":"10.1111/ctr.70058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Current donor risk assessments to identify risk of infectious transmission through transplantation have been criticized as unnecessarily discriminatory for sexual and gender minorities. Little is known about how increased infectious risk donor (IIRD) patients transition through the deceased donation system. We sought to evaluate how IIRD status and other equity-relevant identities impacted the likelihood of a caregiver of a deceased donor being approached for organ donation and the likelihood of caregiver consent.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a retrospective, observational cohort study of potential deceased donors referred to a Canadian provincial organ donation organization (ODO) from 2015 to 2021. Our primary outcome is the difference in the likelihood of being approached by the ODO for organ donation for IIRDs compared to baseline risk donors, amongst referred potential deceased organ donors. Secondary outcomes include the difference in caregiver consent for donation for IIRDs compared to baseline risk donors, amongst approached deceased organ donors. We built multivariable logistic regression models to evaluate these outcomes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Amongst all referred potential deceased organ donors, IIRD status did not impact the likelihood of being approached by our ODO for deceased organ donation compared to baseline risk donors (OR 1.695, 95% CI 0.902–3.197). Amongst approached deceased organ donors, there was no significant difference in caregiver consent for donation between IIRD and baseline risk donors (OR 1.854, 95% CI 0.902–3.929). Approached eligible IIRDs were younger with fewer comorbidities, lower KDPI scores, were more likely to have died from anoxic brain injuries and have death determined by neurologic criteria, and more likely to have non-medical injection drug use than baseline risk donors. There were no cases of donor-derived human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), or hepatitis B virus (HBV) reported for any donors included, regardless of IIRD status, during the study period.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>We found no significant difference in the likelihood of ODO approach in IIRDs compared to baseline risk donors. There was no difference in caregiver consent for donation in IIRDs compared to baseline risk donors. A greater proportion of IIRDs became successful donors compared to baseline risk donors.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10467,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Transplantation","volume":"38 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ctr.70058","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Increased Infectious Risk Donor Status and Equity-Relevant Predictors of Organ Donation Organization Approach and Caregiver Consent for Deceased Organ Donation in a Canadian Province (2015–2021)\",\"authors\":\"Murdoch Leeies,&nbsp;Karen Doucette,&nbsp;Brenden Dufault,&nbsp;Tricia Carta,&nbsp;Owen Mooney,&nbsp;Carmen Hrymak,&nbsp;Nicolette Balzer,&nbsp;Ben Borys,&nbsp;Yasmine El-Salakawy,&nbsp;Mirna Ragheb,&nbsp;Davie Xie,&nbsp;Emily Christie,&nbsp;David Collister,&nbsp;Matthew J. Weiss,&nbsp;Sonny Dhanani,&nbsp;Julie Ho\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ctr.70058\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Current donor risk assessments to identify risk of infectious transmission through transplantation have been criticized as unnecessarily discriminatory for sexual and gender minorities. Little is known about how increased infectious risk donor (IIRD) patients transition through the deceased donation system. We sought to evaluate how IIRD status and other equity-relevant identities impacted the likelihood of a caregiver of a deceased donor being approached for organ donation and the likelihood of caregiver consent.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We conducted a retrospective, observational cohort study of potential deceased donors referred to a Canadian provincial organ donation organization (ODO) from 2015 to 2021. Our primary outcome is the difference in the likelihood of being approached by the ODO for organ donation for IIRDs compared to baseline risk donors, amongst referred potential deceased organ donors. Secondary outcomes include the difference in caregiver consent for donation for IIRDs compared to baseline risk donors, amongst approached deceased organ donors. We built multivariable logistic regression models to evaluate these outcomes.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Amongst all referred potential deceased organ donors, IIRD status did not impact the likelihood of being approached by our ODO for deceased organ donation compared to baseline risk donors (OR 1.695, 95% CI 0.902–3.197). Amongst approached deceased organ donors, there was no significant difference in caregiver consent for donation between IIRD and baseline risk donors (OR 1.854, 95% CI 0.902–3.929). Approached eligible IIRDs were younger with fewer comorbidities, lower KDPI scores, were more likely to have died from anoxic brain injuries and have death determined by neurologic criteria, and more likely to have non-medical injection drug use than baseline risk donors. There were no cases of donor-derived human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), or hepatitis B virus (HBV) reported for any donors included, regardless of IIRD status, during the study period.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>We found no significant difference in the likelihood of ODO approach in IIRDs compared to baseline risk donors. There was no difference in caregiver consent for donation in IIRDs compared to baseline risk donors. A greater proportion of IIRDs became successful donors compared to baseline risk donors.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10467,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Transplantation\",\"volume\":\"38 12\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ctr.70058\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Transplantation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ctr.70058\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Transplantation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ctr.70058","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景 目前对捐献者进行风险评估,以确定通过移植进行感染传播的风险,但这种评估被批评为对性少数群体和性别少数群体存在不必要的歧视。人们对传染性风险增加的捐献者(IIRD)患者如何通过死者捐献系统进行过渡知之甚少。我们试图评估 IIRD 身份和其他与公平相关的身份如何影响已故捐献者的照顾者被要求捐献器官的可能性以及照顾者同意捐献的可能性。 方法 我们对 2015 年至 2021 年期间转介至加拿大省级器官捐献组织(ODO)的潜在已故捐献者进行了一项回顾性观察队列研究。我们的主要结果是,在转介的潜在死亡器官捐献者中,与基线风险捐献者相比,IIRDs器官捐献者被ODO接洽的可能性存在差异。次要结果包括与基线风险捐献者相比,在接触的已故器官捐献者中,IIRDs 的护理者同意捐献的差异。我们建立了多变量逻辑回归模型来评估这些结果。 结果 在所有转介的潜在已故器官捐献者中,与基线风险捐献者相比,IIRD 状态并不影响本组织器官捐献办公室接触已故器官捐献者的可能性(OR 1.695,95% CI 0.902-3.197)。在被接洽的已故器官捐献者中,IIRD 和基线风险捐献者的护理人员同意捐献的程度没有显著差异(OR 1.854,95% CI 0.902-3.929)。与基线风险捐献者相比,接近合格的IIRD捐献者更年轻,合并症更少,KDPI评分更低,更有可能死于缺氧性脑损伤和根据神经学标准确定的死亡,更有可能使用非医疗注射毒品。在研究期间,无论是否处于 IIRD 状态,所纳入的供体均未报告过供体源性人类免疫缺陷病毒 (HIV)、丙型肝炎病毒 (HCV) 或乙型肝炎病毒 (HBV) 感染病例。 结论 我们发现,与基线风险供体相比,IIRD 供体采用 ODO 方法的可能性没有明显差异。与基线风险捐献者相比,IIRD 患者的护理人员在同意捐献方面没有差异。与基线风险捐献者相比,更多的 IIRD 成功捐献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Increased Infectious Risk Donor Status and Equity-Relevant Predictors of Organ Donation Organization Approach and Caregiver Consent for Deceased Organ Donation in a Canadian Province (2015–2021)

Background

Current donor risk assessments to identify risk of infectious transmission through transplantation have been criticized as unnecessarily discriminatory for sexual and gender minorities. Little is known about how increased infectious risk donor (IIRD) patients transition through the deceased donation system. We sought to evaluate how IIRD status and other equity-relevant identities impacted the likelihood of a caregiver of a deceased donor being approached for organ donation and the likelihood of caregiver consent.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective, observational cohort study of potential deceased donors referred to a Canadian provincial organ donation organization (ODO) from 2015 to 2021. Our primary outcome is the difference in the likelihood of being approached by the ODO for organ donation for IIRDs compared to baseline risk donors, amongst referred potential deceased organ donors. Secondary outcomes include the difference in caregiver consent for donation for IIRDs compared to baseline risk donors, amongst approached deceased organ donors. We built multivariable logistic regression models to evaluate these outcomes.

Results

Amongst all referred potential deceased organ donors, IIRD status did not impact the likelihood of being approached by our ODO for deceased organ donation compared to baseline risk donors (OR 1.695, 95% CI 0.902–3.197). Amongst approached deceased organ donors, there was no significant difference in caregiver consent for donation between IIRD and baseline risk donors (OR 1.854, 95% CI 0.902–3.929). Approached eligible IIRDs were younger with fewer comorbidities, lower KDPI scores, were more likely to have died from anoxic brain injuries and have death determined by neurologic criteria, and more likely to have non-medical injection drug use than baseline risk donors. There were no cases of donor-derived human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), or hepatitis B virus (HBV) reported for any donors included, regardless of IIRD status, during the study period.

Conclusions

We found no significant difference in the likelihood of ODO approach in IIRDs compared to baseline risk donors. There was no difference in caregiver consent for donation in IIRDs compared to baseline risk donors. A greater proportion of IIRDs became successful donors compared to baseline risk donors.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Transplantation
Clinical Transplantation 医学-外科
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
286
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Transplantation: The Journal of Clinical and Translational Research aims to serve as a channel of rapid communication for all those involved in the care of patients who require, or have had, organ or tissue transplants, including: kidney, intestine, liver, pancreas, islets, heart, heart valves, lung, bone marrow, cornea, skin, bone, and cartilage, viable or stored. Published monthly, Clinical Transplantation’s scope is focused on the complete spectrum of present transplant therapies, as well as also those that are experimental or may become possible in future. Topics include: Immunology and immunosuppression; Patient preparation; Social, ethical, and psychological issues; Complications, short- and long-term results; Artificial organs; Donation and preservation of organ and tissue; Translational studies; Advances in tissue typing; Updates on transplant pathology;. Clinical and translational studies are particularly welcome, as well as focused reviews. Full-length papers and short communications are invited. Clinical reviews are encouraged, as well as seminal papers in basic science which might lead to immediate clinical application. Prominence is regularly given to the results of cooperative surveys conducted by the organ and tissue transplant registries. Clinical Transplantation: The Journal of Clinical and Translational Research is essential reading for clinicians and researchers in the diverse field of transplantation: surgeons; clinical immunologists; cryobiologists; hematologists; gastroenterologists; hepatologists; pulmonologists; nephrologists; cardiologists; and endocrinologists. It will also be of interest to sociologists, psychologists, research workers, and to all health professionals whose combined efforts will improve the prognosis of transplant recipients.
期刊最新文献
Flying Kidneys or Flying Donors: What Do Prior Canadian Living Kidney Donors Think? Individual Association of Predicted Left and Right Ventricular Mass Ratios With Survival After Heart Transplantation: A UNOS Database Analysis Liver Transplant Fast-Track With an Emphasis on Reduced Delirium: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Reducing Length of Stay Hybrid Telemedicine and In-Person Care for Kidney Transplant Follow-Up: A Qualitative Study Is Survival Impacted by One or Several Successive Cancers After Liver Transplantation? A French National Study
×
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:481959085
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