• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Association for Academic Surgery (AAS)

  • Home
  • About
    • AAS Staff
    • Contact Us
    • Foundation
  • Membership
    • Apply For Membership
    • New Member List
    • Membership Directory
    • Check Dues Balance / Pay Dues
  • Jobs
    • AAS Job Board
    • Post a Job
  • Resources
    • Assistant Professor Playbook
    • Partners
    • AAS Resources
    • Resident Research Funding Primer
  • Grants/Awards
    • AAS/AASF Fall Courses Award
    • AAS/AASF Research Awards
      • Basic Science/Translational Research Award
      • Clinical Outcomes/Health Services Research Award
      • Trainee Research Fellowship Award in Education
      • Global Surgery Research Fellowship Award
      • Joel J. Roslyn Faculty Research Award
    • Travel Awards
      • AAS/AASF Student Diversity Travel Award
      • Senior Medical Student Travel Award
      • Visiting Professorships
    • Awards FAQ’s
  • Meetings
    • Academic Surgical Congress
    • Surgical Investigators’ Course
    • AAS Fall Courses
    • International Courses
      • Fundamentals of Surgical Research Course and Scientific Writing Workshop
    • Resident Research Funding Primer
  • Publications
  • Webinars
    • Fireside Chat – Maintaining Balance & Control
    • Diversity, Inclusion & Equity Series
      • Allyship
      • PRIDE: The LGBTQ+ Community in Academic Surgery
      • Racial Discrimination in Academic Surgery
    • Academic Surgery in the Time of COVID-19 Series
      • How to Optimize your Research During the Pandemic
      • How to Optimize Educational Experiences During the Pandemic
      • Virtual Interviews
    • The Transition to Practice – Presented by Intuitive
  • Leadership
    • Current AAS Leadership
    • AAS Past Presidents
    • How to Chair
    • Committee Missions & Objectives
    • AAS Officer Descriptions
  • Blog
    • Submit a Post
  • Log In

October 1, 2018 by Jared White

Ethical Dilemmas and Organ Transplantation

As a transplant community, we have experienced record high organ transplant volumes for the past 5 years, surpassing 30,000 organs transplanted annually.  However, the grossly mismatched supply-and-demand issue has forced transplant professionals to ‘push the envelope’ of innovation in efforts to transplant more patients with the same or less donors.  This includes the use of organs from live donation, donation after cardiac death (DCD), “marginal” or extended criteria donors, extremes of age, increased risk donors, organ preservation pumps, and active research into xenotransplantation.

However, we are currently facing considerable external challenges and conflicting ethical dilemmas as a result of our success.  One of the hottest topics in organ transplant is geographic disparity, or the disconnect between supply and demand of organs to transplant centers.

There are a multitude of reasons why geographic disparity exists.  Death rates are not equal throughout the country. Type II diabetes rates are not equal throughout the country.  End-stage renal disease is not equal throughout the country.  Obesity rates are not equal throughout the country. Organ donation rates are not equal throughout the country.  New York is not Alabama, Colorado is not Florida.  There are considerable geographic differences in virtually every aspect of life throughout our country whether comparing race, religion, sex, socioeconomic status, financial compensation, etc.  Yet, the overarching theme in organ transplantation is geographic disparity and how to “equalize” it.  Ongoing debate has been aimed at rearranging the current system such that livers from one part of the country be shipped or shared to other parts of the country in order to ‘normalize’ the disparity at the expense of increased costs associated with travel, potentially higher organ discards, and even the prediction of a lower number of liver transplant performed overall.  There has been much debate with little compromise.

In addition to geographical disparities, the punitive use of outcomes data in organ transplant have become a double-edged sword, both on the organ procurement organization (OPO) side and the transplant program side.  This distinction is crucial to understand as summarized below:

  • An OPO’s primary responsibility is placing the most organs possible from as many donors as possible, regardless of the quality of the organ(s)
  • Current metrics that determine OPO performance are based on numerous factors such as age, race, comorbidity, mechanism of death, number of eligible donors converted to actual donors, number of organs procured/transplanted per donor, etc.
  • Transplant outcomes are monitored for graft survival and patient survival (or graft loss, patient death) for 1, 3, and 5 years. Centers are expected to maintain “acceptable” outcomes, which typically must exceed 90+% 1-year survival to be considered a “good program”, based on risk-adjusted models that determine observed to expected outcomes.  These models carry a c-statistic slightly higher than 0.6, which equates to slightly better than the flip-of-a-coin.  Deaths before 1 year that are unrelated to complications of the transplant (i.e. fatal car wreck, brain hemorrhage, lightning strike, etc.) are still included in adverse graft/patient outcomes
  • Transplant surgeons are charged to “do more transplants, discard less organs, save more lives” per the local hospital administrators, OPOs, and regulatory organizations.

Herein lies the crucial dilemma.  The metrics by which the OPO’s performance is graded are mal-aligned with that of the transplant center.  For example, OPO metrics suffer if the 21-year-old donor with a gun-shot wound to the head doesn’t have several organs recovered and transplanted such as kidneys, liver, pancreas, heart, lungs.  However, the disseminated intravascular coagulation, aspiration event, multiple pressors, and renal thrombotic microangiopathy with elevated terminal creatinine may decrease the transplant surgeon(s) enthusiasm to use those organs, regardless of what the models and metrics might predict.  The transplant surgeon has to decide if the risk of graft non-function, or worse, death of the recipient is worth pushing the envelope to get one more transplant done, rather than the OPO ‘taking a hit’ with a discarded organ from a “good” donor.  The OPO is pushing to optimize their conversion rates, organs per donor, and discard metrics, and yet the transplant center is bound punitively by the outcomes of placing those organs that are “on the fringes” for risk of adverse outcomes.  Too many graft failures and/or recipient deaths than what is predicted (by the previously mentioned flip-of-a-coin models) and that center can end up on probation or even terminated from a CMS Medicare/Medicaid standpoint.

I loathe the fact that when a post-transplant patient dies, I immediately check the date of transplant and the date of death, selfishly hoping that it exceeds 1 year so our program’s survival outcomes don’t take a hit.  We must reach a compromise between our administrators, regulatory organizations, insurance companies, lawyers, and OPOs to critically evaluate the challenges associated with optimizing organ donation, allocation, transplantation and the punitive use of outcomes data, or suffer the unintended consequences.

  • Bio
  • Latest Posts

Jared White

Jared White is a liver transplant and hepatobiliary surgeon at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and a member of the AAS Ethics Committee. As Associate Program Director of the general surgery program at UAB, Dr. Whites research interests include: innovation in surgical education, management of primary and secondary hepatic neoplasms, and complex repair of iatrogenic bile duct injuries.

Latest posts by Jared White (see all)

  • Ethical Dilemmas and Organ Transplantation - October 1, 2018

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Print

Other Posts from The Academic Surgeon:

The AAS Aspiring Leaders Development Program – 2018 Inaugural Class
Street Education

Primary Sidebar

Log In

  • Lost your password?

AAS Commitment to Diversity in Academic Surgery

Save the Date: 2023 Academic Surgical Congress

Save the date for the 18th ASC!
February 7-9, 2023
Hilton Americas-Houston
Houston, TX
More information coming soon.  Learn more>>

2023 AAS Fall Courses

Save the Date! Saturday, October 21, 2023 Boston , MA Courses will take place immediately prior to the ACS Clinical … More Information » about Fall Courses

Footer

Association for Academic Surgery
11300 W. Olympic Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (310) 437-1606
Email: [email protected]

Follow Us

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram

© 2023 · AAS - Association for Academic Surgery