4.5 Article

How Large is the Potential of Brain Dead Donors and what Prevents Utilization? A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis at Seven University Hospitals in North Rhine-Westphalia

期刊

TRANSPLANT INTERNATIONAL
卷 36, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/ti.2023.11186

关键词

organ donation; brain death; consent; opt-in; decision-maker

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Organ donation after brain death is less common in Germany compared to other countries, despite a positive attitude shown in surveys. The study found that potential donors with a known attitude towards donation had a higher consent rate than those decided by family members.
Organ donation after brain death is constantly lower in Germany compared to other countries. Instead, representative surveys show a positive attitude towards donation. Why this does not translate into more donations remains questionable. We retrospectively analyzed all potential brain dead donors treated in the university hospitals of Aachen, Bielefeld, Bonn, Essen, Dusseldorf, Cologne and Munster between June 2020 and July 2021. 300 potential brain dead donors were identified. Donation was utilized in 69 cases (23%). Refused consent (n = 190), and failed utilization despite consent (n = 41) were reasons for a donation not realized. Consent was significantly higher in potential donors with a known attitude towards donation (n = 94) compared to a decision by family members (n = 195) (49% vs. 33%, p = 0.012). The potential donor ' s age, status of interviewer, and the timing of the interview with decision-makers had no influence on consent rates, and it was comparable between hospitals. Refused consent was the predominant reason for a donation not utilized. Consent rate was lower than in surveys, only a known attitude towards donation had a significant positive influence. This indicates that survey results do not translate well into everyday clinical practice and promoting a previously documented decision on organ donation is important.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据