Search

Living donation challenges the ethical principle of non-maleficence in that it exposes healthy persons to risks for the benefit of someone else. This makes safety, informed consent (IC) and education a priority. Living kidney donation has multiple benefits for the potential donor, but there are also several known short- and long-term risks. Although complete standardization of IC is likely to be unattainable, studies have emphasized the need for a standardized IC process to enable equitable educational and decision-making prospects for the prevention of inequities across transplant centers. Based on the Three-Talk Model of shared decision-making by Elwyn et al. we propose a model, named 3-Step (S) Model, where each step coincides with the three ideal timings of the process leading the living donor to the decision to pursue living donation: prior to the need for kidney replacement therapy (team talk); at the local nephrology unit or transplant center, with transplant clinicians and surgeons prior to evaluations start (option talk); and throughout evaluation, after having learned about the different aspects of donation, especially if there are second thoughts or doubts (decision talk). Based on the 3-S Model, to deliver conceptual and practical guidance to nephrologists and transplant clinicians, we provide recommendations for standardization of the timing, content, modalities for communicating risks and assessment of understanding prior to donation. The 3-S Model successfully allows an integration between standardization and individualization of IC, enabling a person-centered approach to potential donors. Studies will assess the effectiveness of the 3-S Model in kidney transplant clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Early reports on the pandemic nature of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) directed the nephrology community to develop infection prevention and control (IPC) guidance. We aimed to make an inventory of strategies that dialysis centres followed to prevent infection with COVID-19 in the first pandemic wave. Methods We analyzed IPC measures taken by hemodialysis centres treating patients presenting with COVID-19 between 1 March 2020 and 31 July 2020 and that completed the European Renal Association COVID-19 Database centre questionnaire. Additionally, we made an inventory of guidelines published in European countries to prevent spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in dialysis centres. Results Data from 73 dialysis units located in and bordering Europe were analyzed. All participating centres implemented IPC measures to mitigate the impact of SARS-CoV-2 during the first pandemic wave. Measures mentioned most often included triage with questions before entering the dialysis ward, measuring body temperature, hand disinfection, masking for all patients and staff, and personal protective equipment for staff members. These measures were also recommended in most of the 14 guidelines that were identified in the inventory of national guidelines and were also scored as being among the most important measures by the authors of this paper. Heterogeneity existed between centres and national guidelines regarding the minimal distance between dialysis chairs and recommendations regarding isolation and cohorting. Conclusions Although variation existed, measures to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 were relatively similar across centres and national guidelines. Further research is needed to assess causal relationships between measures taken and spread of SARS-CoV-2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mass disasters are characterized by a disparity between healthcare demand and supply, which hampers complex therapies like kidney transplantation. Considering the scarcity of publications on previous disasters, we reviewed transplantation practice during the recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and dwelled upon this experience to guide transplantation strategies in the future pandemic and non-pandemic catastrophes. We strongly suggest continuing transplantation programs during mass disasters, if medical and logistic operational circumstances are appropriate. Postponing transplantations from living donors and referral of urgent cases to safe regions or hospitals are justified. Specific preventative measures in anticipated disasters (such as vaccination programs during pandemics or evacuation in case of hurricanes or wars) may be useful to minimize risks. Immunosuppressive therapies should consider stratifying risk status and avoiding heavy immune suppression in patients with a low probability of therapeutic success. Discharging patients at the earliest convenience is justified during pandemics, whereas delaying discharge is reasonable in other disasters, if infrastructural damage results in unhygienic living environments for the patients. In the outpatient setting, telemedicine is a useful approach to reduce the patient load to hospitals, to minimize the risk of nosocomial transmission in pandemics and the need for transport in destructive disasters. If it comes down to saving as many lives as possible, some ethical principles may vary in function of disaster circumstances, but elementary ethical rules are non-negotiable. Patient education is essential to minimize disaster-related complications and to allow for an efficient use of healthcare resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Omicron variant, which has become the dominant strain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) worldwide, brings new challenges to preventing and controlling the infection. Moreover, the widespread implementation of vaccination policies before and after transplantation, and the development of new prophylactic and treatment strategies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) over the past 12–18 months, has raised several new issues concerning kidney transplant recipients. In this special report, the ERA DESCARTES (Developing Education Science and Care for Renal Transplantation in European States) Working Group addresses several questions related to everyday clinical practice concerning kidney transplant recipients and to the assessment of deceased and live kidney donors: what is the current risk of severe disease and of breakthrough infection, the optimal management of immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19, the role of passive immunization and the efficacy of antiviral drugs in ambulatory patients, the management of drug-to-drug interactions, safety criteria for the use of SARS-CoV-2-positive donors, issues related to the use of T cell depleting agents as induction treatment, and current recommendations for shielding practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]