An international multicenter study of protocols for liver transplantation during a pandemic: A case for quadripartite equipoise.
Betacoronavirus
COVID-19
Coronavirus Infections
/ epidemiology
End Stage Liver Disease
/ mortality
Health Resources
/ trends
Humans
International Cooperation
Liver Transplantation
/ ethics
Organizational Innovation
Pandemics
/ ethics
Patient Selection
/ ethics
Pneumonia, Viral
/ epidemiology
SARS-CoV-2
Surveys and Questionnaires
Tissue and Organ Procurement
/ ethics
Waiting Lists
/ mortality
COVID-19
Equipoise
Ethics
Liver transplantation
Journal
Journal of hepatology
ISSN: 1600-0641
Titre abrégé: J Hepatol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8503886
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2020
10 2020
Historique:
received:
09
04
2020
revised:
19
04
2020
accepted:
08
05
2020
pubmed:
27
5
2020
medline:
2
10
2020
entrez:
27
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The outbreak of COVID-19 has vastly increased the operational burden on healthcare systems worldwide. For patients with end-stage liver failure, liver transplantation is the only option. However, the strain on intensive care facilities caused by the pandemic is a major concern. There is an urgent need for ethical frameworks to balance the need for liver transplantation against the availability of national resources. We performed an international multicenter study of transplant centers to understand the evolution of policies for transplant prioritization in response to the pandemic in March 2020. To describe the ethical tension arising in this setting, we propose a novel ethical framework, the quadripartite equipoise (QE) score, that is applicable to liver transplantation in the context of limited national resources. Seventeen large- and medium-sized liver transplant centers from 12 countries across 4 continents participated. Ten centers opted to limit transplant activity in response to the pandemic, favoring a "sickest-first" approach. Conversely, some larger centers opted to continue routine transplant activity in order to balance waiting list mortality. To model these and other ethical tensions, we computed a QE score using 4 factors - recipient outcome, donor/graft safety, waiting list mortality and healthcare resources - for 7 countries. The fluctuation of the QE score over time accurately reflects the dynamic changes in the ethical tensions surrounding transplant activity in a pandemic. This four-dimensional model of quadripartite equipoise addresses the ethical tensions in the current pandemic. It serves as a universally applicable framework to guide regulation of transplant activity in response to the increasing burden on healthcare systems. There is an urgent need for ethical frameworks to balance the need for liver transplantation against the availability of national resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. We describe a four-dimensional model of quadripartite equipoise that models these ethical tensions and can guide the regulation of transplant activity in response to the increasing burden on healthcare systems.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND & AIMS
The outbreak of COVID-19 has vastly increased the operational burden on healthcare systems worldwide. For patients with end-stage liver failure, liver transplantation is the only option. However, the strain on intensive care facilities caused by the pandemic is a major concern. There is an urgent need for ethical frameworks to balance the need for liver transplantation against the availability of national resources.
METHODS
We performed an international multicenter study of transplant centers to understand the evolution of policies for transplant prioritization in response to the pandemic in March 2020. To describe the ethical tension arising in this setting, we propose a novel ethical framework, the quadripartite equipoise (QE) score, that is applicable to liver transplantation in the context of limited national resources.
RESULTS
Seventeen large- and medium-sized liver transplant centers from 12 countries across 4 continents participated. Ten centers opted to limit transplant activity in response to the pandemic, favoring a "sickest-first" approach. Conversely, some larger centers opted to continue routine transplant activity in order to balance waiting list mortality. To model these and other ethical tensions, we computed a QE score using 4 factors - recipient outcome, donor/graft safety, waiting list mortality and healthcare resources - for 7 countries. The fluctuation of the QE score over time accurately reflects the dynamic changes in the ethical tensions surrounding transplant activity in a pandemic.
CONCLUSIONS
This four-dimensional model of quadripartite equipoise addresses the ethical tensions in the current pandemic. It serves as a universally applicable framework to guide regulation of transplant activity in response to the increasing burden on healthcare systems.
LAY SUMMARY
There is an urgent need for ethical frameworks to balance the need for liver transplantation against the availability of national resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. We describe a four-dimensional model of quadripartite equipoise that models these ethical tensions and can guide the regulation of transplant activity in response to the increasing burden on healthcare systems.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32454041
pii: S0168-8278(20)30342-1
doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2020.05.023
pmc: PMC7245234
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
873-881Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest that pertain to this work. Please refer to the accompanying ICMJE disclosure forms for further details.
Références
N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 20;382(8):727-733
pubmed: 31978945
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 21;382(21):2049-2055
pubmed: 32202722
Transplantation. 2009 Feb 15;87(3):419-23
pubmed: 19202449
Am J Transplant. 2020 Jul;20(7):1785-1786
pubmed: 32233055
Am J Transplant. 2020 Jul;20(7):1773-1779
pubmed: 32202064
Ann Surg. 2011 Nov;254(5):745-53; discussion 753
pubmed: 22042468
Transplant Rev (Orlando). 2008 Jul;22(3):206-9
pubmed: 18631880
Am J Transplant. 2020 Jul;20(7):1768-1772
pubmed: 32090448
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012 Mar;31(3):266-73
pubmed: 22093382
PLoS One. 2017 Mar 20;12(3):e0174173
pubmed: 28319169
Intensive Care Med. 2012 Oct;38(10):1647-53
pubmed: 22777516
J Hepatol. 2019 Oct;71(4):707-718
pubmed: 31199941
Ann Acad Med Singap. 2006 May;35(5):345-9
pubmed: 16830002
N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 30;382(18):e41
pubmed: 32212516
JAMA. 2020 Apr 7;323(13):1243-1244
pubmed: 32077901
Transplantation. 2009 Jul 27;88(2):231-6
pubmed: 19623019
J Med Internet Res. 2004 Sep 29;6(3):e34
pubmed: 15471760
Health Secur. 2020 Mar/Apr;18(2):69-74
pubmed: 32196387
Am J Transplant. 2009 Apr;9(4 Pt 2):970-81
pubmed: 19341419
Crit Care Clin. 2016 Jul;32(3):453-73
pubmed: 27339683
Transplantation. 2009 Jun 27;87(12):1858-63
pubmed: 19543065
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 21;382(21):1973-1975
pubmed: 32202721
Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013 Dec;10(12):746-51
pubmed: 24100300
J Clin Exp Hepatol. 2013 Sep;3(3):243-53
pubmed: 25755506
Liver Transpl. 2017 Aug;23(8):999-1006
pubmed: 28431203
Crit Care Med. 2020 May;48(5):654-662
pubmed: 31923030
Mt Sinai J Med. 2012 Mar-Apr;79(2):214-22
pubmed: 22499492