Use of neurodevelopmental delay in pediatric solid organ transplant listing decisions: Inconsistencies in standards across major pediatric transplant centers

Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Pediatric Transplantation (Impact Factor: 1.44). 12/2008; 13(7):843-50. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-3046.2008.01072.x
Source: PubMed


Children with NDD present for organ transplant evaluation, but the role of NDD as a listing criterion itself is poorly described. Therefore, we sought to investigate how major pediatric solid organ transplant programs use NDD as a criterion in their listing decisions. We developed a survey that was sent via post to active pediatric solid organ transplant programs across the United States investigating transplant listing decision-making for neurodevelopmentally delayed children. Respondents were medical/surgical directors and transplant coordinators. Descriptive statistics summarize the findings. Programs inconsistently use NDD in listing decisions. Thirty-nine percent of programs stated that they "rarely" or "never" consider NDD in their decisions, whereas 43% of programs "always" or "usually" do. Sixty-two percent of programs report that informal processes guide their use of NDD, and no programs describe their process as "formal, explicit, and uniform." The degree of delay is an additional source of discordance among programs, with 14% of programs reporting mild or moderate NDD as a relative contraindication to listing and 22% reporting that NDD was "irrelevant" to the listing decision. The use of NDD in pediatric solid organ transplant listing decisions is varied and inconsistent across active programs.

20 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Selection criteria guidelines list mental retardation as a relative contraindication to heart transplantation, but not to kidney transplantation. The authors present a case series of adults with mental retardation or comparable acquired intellectual disability who underwent heart transplantation. They discuss the literature on heart and kidney transplantation in people with mental retardation and the ethical reasoning that guides how recipients of solid organ grafts are chosen. Literature review and retrospective review of long-term outcomes for five adult patients with mental retardation or comparable disability who received heart transplants. Among these cases, survival times to date ranged from 4 to 16 years, with a median survival of greater than 12 years. Medical non-adherence was a significant factor in only 1 of the 5 cases. In that case, the patient's medical non-adherence was due to a functional decline in the primary caretaker. People with mental retardation can receive long-term benefit from heart transplantation when they have the cognitive and social support necessary to ensure adherence to post-transplant regimens. There is no ethical or medical reason for guidelines to consider mental retardation, in and of itself, a contraindication to heart transplantation. The totality of the individual patient's circumstances should be considered in assessing transplant candidacy.
    Psychosomatics 03/2012; 53(2):133-8. DOI:10.1016/j.psym.2011.12.011 · 1.86 Impact Factor
  • Source

    Pediatric Annals 04/2012; 41(4):135-6. DOI:10.3928/00904481-20120307-03 · 0.61 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many professional societies and research studies recommend complete vaccination before pediatric solid organ transplantation. Nevertheless, incompletely vaccinated children often receive transplants. As the number of parents refusing to vaccinate children for nonmedical reasons increases, pediatric transplantation programs face difficult listing decisions. Given the importance of psychosocial criteria in listing decisions, this study explores how parental refusal of vaccination affects those listing decisions. Surveys were emailed to individuals at 195 pediatric solid organ transplantation programs in the United States, with a 71% response rate. Forty-four respondents (39%) reported that their programs have had cases involving parental refusal of vaccination. In response to hypothetical scenarios, 93 respondents (82%) would list a child not vaccinated for medical reasons, whereas only 54 respondents (47%) would list a child whose parents refused vaccination. Only five respondents (4%) reported that their programs had written policies regarding parental refusal of vaccination. These data reveal inconsistencies across pediatric transplantation programs regarding how parental refusal of vaccination affects listing decisions and raise the issue of whether and how the reason for incomplete vaccination should be factored into listing decisions. We recommend further discussion and the development of written guidelines to unify programs' assessments of incompletely vaccinated pediatric transplantation candidates.
    Pediatric Transplantation 01/2013; 17(3). DOI:10.1111/petr.12046 · 1.44 Impact Factor
Show more