Lloyd E. Ratner

Race and Trust in the Health Care System

Objective. A legacy of racial discrimination in medical research and the health care system has been linked to a low level of trust in medical research and medical care among African Americans. While racial differences in trust in physicians have been demonstrated, little is known about racial variation in trust of health insurance plans and hospitals. For the present study, the authors analyzed responses to a cross-sectional telephone survey to assess the independent relationship of self-reported race (non-Hispanic black or non-Hispanic white) with trust in physicians, hospitals, and health insurance plans. Methods. Respondents ages 18–75 years were asked to rate their level of trust in physicians, health insurance plans, and hospitals. Items from the Medical Mistrust Index were used to assess fear and suspicion of hospitals. Results. Responses were analyzed for 49 (42%) non-Hispanic black and 69 (58%) non-Hispanic white respondents (N=118; 94% of total survey population). A majority of respondents trusted physicians (71%) and hospitals (70%), but fewer trusted their health insurance plans (28%). After adjustment for potential confounders, non-Hispanic black respondents were less likely to trust their physicians than non-Hispanic white respondents (adjusted absolute difference 37%; p=0.01) and more likely to trust their health insurance plans (adjusted absolute difference 28%; p=0.04). The difference in trust of hospitals (adjusted absolute difference 13%) was not statistically significant. Non-Hispanic black respondents were more likely than non-Hispanic white respondents to be concerned about personal privacy and the potential for harmful experimentation in hospitals. Conclusions. Patterns of trust in components of our health care system differ by race. Differences in trust may reflect divergent cultural experiences of blacks and whites as well as differences in expectations for care. Improved understanding of these factors is needed if efforts to enhance patient access to and satisfaction with care are to be effective.

PLASMAPHERESIS AND INTRAVENOUS IMMUNE GLOBULIN PROVIDES EFFECTIVE RESCUE THERAPY FOR REFRACTORY HUMORAL REJECTION AND ALLOWS KIDNEYS TO BE SUCCESSFULLY TRANSPLANTED INTO CROSS-MATCH-POSITIVE RECIPIENTS

Background. Hyperacute rejection (HAR) and acute humoral rejection (AHR) remain recalcitrant conditions without effective treatments, and usually result in graft loss.Plasmapheresis (PP) has been shown to remove HLA- specific antibody (Ab) in many different clinical settings. Intravenous gamma globulin (IVIG) has been used to suppress alloantibody and modulate immune responses. Our hypothesis was that a combination of PP and IVIG could effectively and durably remove donor-specific, anti-HLA antibody (Ab), rescuing patients with established AHR and preemptively desensitizing recipients who had positive cross-matches with a potential live donor. Methods. The study patients consisted of seven live donor kidney transplant recipients who experienced AHR and had donor-specific Ab (DSA) for one or more mismatched donor HLA antigens. The patients segregated into two groups: three patients were treated for established AHR (rescue group) and four cross-match-positive patients received therapy before transplantation (preemptive group). Results. Using PP/IVIG we have successfully reversed established AHR in three patients. Four patients who were cross-match-positive (3 by flow cytometry and 1 by cytotoxic assay) and had DSA before treatment underwent successful renal transplantation utilizing their live donor. The overall mean creatinine for both treatment groups is 1.4±0.8 with a mean follow up of 58±40 weeks (range 17–116 weeks). Conclusions. In this study, we present seven patients for whom the combined therapies of PP/IVIG were successful in reversing AHR mediated by Ab specific for donor HLA antigens. Furthermore, this protocol shows promise for eliminating DSA preemptively among patients with low-titer positive antihuman globulin-enhanced, complement-dependent cytotoxicity (AHG-CDC) cross-matches, allowing the successful transplantation of these patients using a live donor without any cases of HAR.

LAPAROSCOPIC ASSISTED LIVE DONOR NEPHRECTOMY - A COMPARISON WITH THE OPEN APPROACH1

Live donor renal transplantation provides significant advantages when compared with cadaveric donor renal transplantation in terms of improved patient and graft survival, a lower incidence of delayed function, and a shorter waiting time. Yet despite these advantages, live donors continue to be an under utilized source of kidneys for transplantation. Disincentives to live donation include the length of hospitalization, postoperative pain, cosmetic concerns, and the prolonged convalescence associated with the donor operation. In many instances minimally invasive video-assisted techniques have proven more efficacious than standard open procedures in terms of patient discomfort, length of hospital stay, cost, and length of time until the patient can return to full activity. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomies are being performed at our institution in an attempt to make live donation more attractive to the potential donor. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively review the results of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LapNx) and to compare them with those obtained using the standard open approach (OpenNx). Ten consecutive LapNx were performed from February 1995 through April 1996. The control group consisted of the 20 consecutive OpenNx performed at the same institution from January 1991 through January 1995 immediately before the initiation of the LapNx program. Live donors were considered candidates for LapNx if they possessed at least one kidney with normal renal anatomy with single renal vessels and a single ureter. LapNx was safely performed in all cases. No patients required open conversion or blood transfusions. The allograft warm ischemic time for the laparoscopic cases was 4.2+/-1.3 min. All kidneys harvested laparoscopically produced urine on the table immediately upon revascularization. Presently nine of the ten recipients have functioning allografts. At three months posttransplant the calculated recipient creatinine clearances were 67.0+/-11.5 ml/min and 64.8+/-21.4 ml/min for the LapNx and OpenNx groups, respectively (P=NS). The LapNx donors had a significantly decreased estimated blood loss, shorter time until resumption of oral intake, decreased postoperative pain (in terms of decreased analgesic requirements), shorter hospitalization, and a shorter interval until the resumption of full activities (P<0.05 for all). In addition, the LapNx group donors returned to work sooner than the OpenNx group (3.9+/-1.6 wk vs. 6.4+/-3.1 wk, respectively) (P=0.024). Four individuals agreed to donate a kidney only after learning of the availability of the laparoscopic approach. We conclude that laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is technically feasible. In addition, it may offer significant advantages over the standard open approach in terms of patient comfort and convenience. These advantages may make live donor renal transplantation more attractive to prospective donors. The potential decrease in hospitalization and convalescence may also prove to be financially advantageous. We believe that further careful study of this procedure is warranted.

Should The Indications For Laparascopic Live Donor Nephrectomy Of The Right Kidney Be The Same As For The Open Procedure? Anomalous Left Renal Vasculature Is Not A Contraindication To Laparoscopic Left Donor Nephrectomy1

Background. The left kidney is preferred for live donation. In open live donor nephrectomy, the right kidney is selected if the left kidney has multiple renal arteries or anomalous venous drainage. With laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LLDN), there is reluctance to procure the right kidney because of the more difficult exposure and further shortening of the right renal vein (RRV) after a stapled transection. An experience with LLDN is reviewed to determine whether the right kidney should be procured laparoscopically. Methods. From February 1995 to November 1999, 227 patients underwent live donor renal transplants with allografts procured by LLDN. The results of these transplants were analyzed. Results. Of the 227 kidneys transplanted, 17 (7.5%) were right kidneys. In the early experience, three (37.5%) of the eight right renal allografts developed venous thrombosis, two of which had duplicated RRV. Based on these initially unacceptable results, donor evaluation and LLDN techniques were modified. Spiral computerized tomography (CT) replaced conventional angiography to define better the venous anatomy. LLDN was modified in one of three ways: (1) changing the stapler port placement such that the RRV was transected in a plane parallel to the inferior vena cava, (2) relocation of the incision for open division of RRV, or (3) lengthening of the donor RRV with a panel graft constructed of recipient greater saphenous vein. Finally, the recipient operation enjoined complete mobilization of the left iliac vein with transposition lateral to the iliac artery. With these modifications, there were no vascular complications with the subsequent nine right renal allografts (P <0.05). Of the left kidneys transplanted, 31 had multiple renal arteries, 14 had retroaortic or circumaortic veins, 4 had both multiple arteries and venous anomalies, and 1 had a duplicated IVC draining the left renal vein. There were no vascular complications with left renal allografts that had multiple arteries or venous anomalies. Conclusions. LLDN of the left kidney is technically easier. Left kidneys with multiple arteries or anomalous venous drainage are not problematic. The right kidney can be procured with LLDN; however, a rational approach to preoperative angiographic imaging, donor operation, and recipient operation is crucial.

Determinants of willingness to donate living related and cadaveric organs: Identifying opportunities for intervention

Background. Although low rates of cadaveric organ donation have been attributed to potential cadaveric donors’ concerns regarding their religious beliefs and mistrust of the health care system, it is unclear whether similar concerns are important to potential living related donors. It is also not known which factors might be most responsible for low rates of cadaveric and living related donation among the general public. Methods. We conducted a cross-sectional study of households in Maryland, using a standardized telephone questionnaire, to assess factors associated with willingness to donate cadaveric and living related organs. We compared factors (demographic, cultural, attitudinal, and clinical) related to willingness to donate cadaveric organs with factors related to willingness to donate living related organs. In multivariate analyses, we assessed the independent relation of factors to willingness to donate cadaveric and living related organs, and we assessed the relative importance of these factors in explaining variation in the general public’s willingness to donate. Results. Of 385 participants (84% of randomized homes), 254 (66%) were extremely willing to donate to a sibling but only 179 (47%) had designated themselves a cadaveric donor on their drivers’ licenses. In bivariate analysis, older age, comorbid conditions, mistrust in hospitals, and concerns about discrimination in hospitals were statistically significantly associated with less willingness to donate living related organs, although African-Americans, older age, lower education, lack of insurance, unemployment, comorbid conditions, and religion/spirituality were associated with less willingness to donate cadaveric organs. After adjusting for potential confounders, only mistrust in hospitals and concerns about discrimination remained strongly and independently associated with 50 to 60% less odds of willingness to donate living related organs [[relative odds [95% confidence intervals (CI)]: 0.4 (0.2–0.7) to 0.5 (0.3–1.0) and 0.4 (0.2–0.9), respectively]] although presence of dependents was associated with 70% higher odds of willingness to donate living related organs [relative odds (95% CI): 1.7 (1.0–3.0)]. In contrast, older age, employment status, religion/spirituality, and mistrust in hospitals were associated with 50 to 90% less odds of willingness to donate living related organs cadaveric organs [relative odds (95% CI): 0.3 (0.1–0.8), 0.4(0.2–0.8), 0.1 (0.1- 0.5) to 0.5 (0.2–0.9), and 0.3 (0.2–0.6), respectively]. Mistrust in hospitals and concerns about the surgical donation procedure contributed most to the variation in willingness to be a living related donor, although race contributed most to the variation in willingness to be a cadaveric donor. Conclusions. Many factors affect the general public’s willingness to donate organs, but their relative contribution is different for living related versus cadaveric donation. Efforts to improve organ donation rates should be directed toward factors that are most important in explaining the existing variation in willingness to donate.

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: the recipient

BACKGROUND Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy offers advantages to the donor in terms of decreased pain and shorter recuperation. Heretofore no detailed analysis of the recipient of laparoscopically procured kidneys has been performed. The purpose of this study was to determine whether laparoscopic donor nephrectomy had any deleterious effect on the recipient. METHODS A retrospective review was conducted of all live donor renal transplantations performed from January 1995 through April 1998. The control group received kidneys procured via a standard flank approach (Open). Rejection was diagnosed histologically. Creatinine clearance was calculated using the Cockroft-Gault formula. RESULTS A total of 110 patients received kidneys from laparoscopic (Lap) and 48 from open donors. One-year recipient (100% vs. 97.0%) and graft (93.5% vs. 91.1%) survival rates were similar for the Open and Lap groups, respectively. A similar incidence of vascular thrombosis (3.4% vs. 2.1%, P=NS) and ureteral complications (9.1% vs. 6.3%, P=NS) were seen in the Lap and Open groups, respectively. The incidence of acute rejection for the first month was 30.1% for the Lap group and 31.9% for the Open group (P=NS). The rate of decline of serum creatinine level in the early posttransplantation period was initially greater in the Open group, but by postoperative day 4 no significant difference existed. No difference was observed in allograft function long-term. The median length of hospital stay was 7.0 days for both groups. CONCLUSIONS Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy does not adversely effect recipient outcome. The previously demonstrated benefits to the donor, and the increased willingness of individuals to undergo live kidney donation, coupled with the acceptable outcomes experienced by recipients of laparoscopically procured kidneys justifies the continued development and adoption of this operation.

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: Trends in donor and recipient morbidity following 381 consecutive cases

Objective:To review a single-institution 6-year experience with laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy detailing the technical modifications, clinical results, as well as the trends in donor and recipient morbidity. Summary Background Data:Since 1995, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has had a significant impact on the field of renal transplantation, resulting in decreased donor morbidity, without jeopardizing procurement of a high-quality renal allograft. This technique has become the preferred method of allograft procurement for many transplantation centers worldwide but still remains technically challenging with a steep learning curve. Methods:Records from 381 consecutive laparoscopic donor nephrectomies were reviewed with evaluation of both donor and recipient outcomes. Trends in donor and recipient complications were assessed over time by comparing the outcomes between four equally divided groups. Results:All 381 kidneys were procured and transplanted successfully with only 8 (2.1%) open conversions. Mean operative time was 252.9 ± 55.7 minutes, estimated blood loss 344.2 ± 690.3 mL, warm ischemia time 4.9 ± 3.4 minutes, and donor length of stay was 3.3 ± 4.5 days. There was a significant decline in total donor complications, allograft loss, and rate of vascular thrombosis with experience. The rate of ureteral complications declined significantly when comparing our early (Group A) versus later (Groups B–D) experience. Conclusion:Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has remained a safe, less invasive, and effective technique for renal allograft procurement. Over our 6-year experience and with specific refinements in surgical technique, we have observed a decline in both donor and recipient morbidity following laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy.

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: A review of the first 5 years

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy is technically feasible. The operation has evolved over the last 5 years and is greatly improved compared with the procedure originally described. Advantages to the donor when compared with the standard open operation are decreased postoperative pain, shorter hospitalization, a quicker recuperation, an earlier return to driving, and an earlier return to employment. These improvements have resulted in fewer lost wages and a lower financial burden for donors. Live donor nephrectomy also provides improved cosmetic results. It successfully removes many of the disincentives to live kidney donation and has resulted in an increased willingness of individuals to donate their kidneys. The operative risk seems to be equivalent to that of the open donor operation performed through a flank approach. Although there is no financial advantage of the laparoscopic operation in terms of hospital costs, the increase seen in live donor transplantation may result in long-term cost savings overall. Kidneys procured laparoscopically function well in recipents in the short and long term. There is no increased risk for rejection or technical complications, and the recipents length of hospitalization is unaffected. The laparoscopic donor operation does not have any apparent deleterious effect on the recipient. The procedure is being adopted rapidly by transplant centers around the world and has been performed at more than 100 centers on five continents. The authors believe that laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy will become the standard of care in the not too distant future.

The contribution of sociodemographic, medical, and attitudinal factors to blood donation among the general public

BACKGROUND : Few studies have simultaneously assessed the relative importance of sociodemographic, medical, and attitudinal factors in explaining which individuals are more likely to donate blood.

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy.

Live donor renal transplantation has many advantages including greater graft and patient survival, shorter waiting periods, improved human leukocyte antigen matching, and less cold ischemia. Until recently, disincentives from the operation, such as prolonged hospitalization, postoperative pain, and significant convalescence, have deterred live donor renal transplantation. This article describes the technique of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy and briefly reports the results. The procedure has resulted in improved postoperative recovery and shorter convalescence, with no effect on recipient renal function.