E.M.M. van Leeuwen

Decision making by relatives about brain death organ donation: an integrative review.

Background Deciding about the organ donation of one’s brain-dead beloved often occurs in an unexpected and delicate situation. We explored the decision making of the relatives of potential brain-dead donors, its evaluation, and the factors influencing decision making. Methods We used the integrative review method. Our search included 10 databases. Inclusion criteria were presence of the donation request or the subsequent decision process. Three authors independently assessed the eligibility of identified articles. Results Content analysis of 70 included articles led to three themes: decision, evaluation, and support. We extracted results and recommendations concerning these three themes. The timing of the request and understandable information influence the decision. The relatives evaluate their decision differently: in case of refusal, approximately one third regret their decision, and in case of consent, approximately one tenth mention regret. The relatives are often ambivalent about their values (protection, altruism, and respect) and the deceased’s wishes, not wanting additional suffering either for their beloved or for themselves. Support is mainly focused on increasing consent rates and less on satisfaction with the decision. Conclusions Evaluation of decision making by the relatives of potential brain-dead donors reveals possibilities for improving the decision process. Special skills of the requester, attention to the circumstances, and unconditional support for the relatives might prevent the relatives’ regret about refusal and unnecessary loss of organs. We hypothesize that support in exploring the relatives’ values and the deceased’s wishes can lead to stable decisions. This hypothesis deserves further investigation.

Antibody Response to a T-Cell-Independent Antigen Is Preserved after Splenic Artery Embolization for Trauma

ABSTRACT Splenic artery embolization (SAE) is increasingly being used as a nonoperative management strategy for patients with blunt splenic injury following trauma. The aim of this study was to assess the splenic function of patients who were embolized. A clinical study was performed, with splenic function assessed by examining the antibody response to polysaccharide antigens (pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine), B-cell subsets, and the presence of Howell-Jolly bodies (HJB). The data were compared to those obtained from splenectomized patients and healthy controls (HC) who had been included in a previously conducted study. A total of 30 patients were studied: 5 who had proximal SAE, 7 who had distal SAE, 8 who had a splenectomy, and 10 HC. The median vaccine-specific antibody response of the SAE patients (fold increase, 3.97) did not differ significantly from that of the HC (5.29; P = 0.90); however, the median response of the splenectomized patients (2.30) did differ (P = 0.003). In 2 of the proximally embolized patients and none of the distally embolized patients, the ratio of the IgG antibody level postvaccination compared to that prevaccination was <2. There were no significant differences in the absolute numbers of lymphocytes or B-cell subsets between the SAE patients and the HC. HJB were not observed in the SAE patients. The splenic immune function of embolized patients was preserved, and therefore routine vaccination appears not to be indicated. Although the median antibody responses did not differ between the patients who underwent proximal SAE and those who underwent distal SAE, 2 of the 5 proximally embolized patients had insufficient responses to vaccination, whereas none of the distally embolized patients exhibited an insufficient response. Further research should be done to confirm this finding.