Advertisement

Principles for allocation of cadaver organs to transplant recipients in Italy

  • M. Cardillo
  • M. Scalamogna
  • F. Poli
  • G. Sirchia
Part of the Transplantation and Clinical Immunology book series (TRAC, volume 30)

Abstract

The attention devoted by professionals, patients and media to organ allocation is enhanced by organ shortage [1]; such a problem is particularly severe in Italy, where organ donation rates are lower than the European mean (Figure 1). The main question is: who (and by which criteria) has the right to decide how organs must be allocated [2–5]. A debate on this problem continues among the transplantation community [1, 6, 7].

Keywords

Transplant Center Organ Procurement Organ Shortage Organ Allocation Cadaver Organ 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Council of Europe. Meeting the organ shortage. Current situation and strategies for improvement. Transpl. Newsl. December 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guttmann RD. Cadaver kidneys: the rules of rationing. Lancet. 1996; 348: 456–457.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Karlberg I. Allocation of kidneys for renal transplantation (letter). Lancet. 1996; 348; 194.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Majeske RA. Transforming objectivity to promote equity in transplant candidate selection. Theor. Med. 1996; 17: 45–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sunman OS, Cosimi AB. Ethical dichotomies in organ transplantation. A time for bridge building. Gen. Hosp. Psychiatry. 18(6): 1996; 18: 13–19s.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hunt SA. Heart transplantation: candidate selection to maximize benefit. International Conference. Congestive heart failure: the issue in the treatment of the advanced disease. 1997: 287–298.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koch T. Normative and prescriptive criteria: the efficacy of organ transplantation allocation protocols. Theor. Med. 1996; 17: 75–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    North Italy Transplant Program. 1996 Activity Report. Milan: Centro Trasfusionale e di Immunologia dei Trapianti Editore, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sirchia G, Cardillo M. Problemi e prospettive del trapianto in Italia. Nuove tendenze. 29–33, I trimestre 1997.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Matesanz R, Miranda B, Felipe C, Naya MT. Continuous improvement in organ donation. Transplantation. 1996; 61: 1119–1121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Organizacion Nacional de Trasplantes. Organ donation for transplantation. The Spanish model 1996; 175–177.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hauptman PJ, O’Connor KJ. Procurement and allocation of solid organs for transplantation. N. Engl. J. Med. 1997; 336: 422–431.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lazda VA. Access to the kidney donor pool for racial minority population is maximized by a variance of the UNOS point system - a regional experience. Clin. Transplant. 1993; 30: 325–333.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Opelz G. Five year results of renal transplantation in highly sensitized recipients. Collaborative transplant Study. Transpl. Int. 1996; 9: 16–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Persijn GG, De Meester JMJ. Demand, supply and allocation in Eurotransplant. Ann Transplant. 1997; 2: 26–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Poli F, Mascaretti L, Sirchia G. HLA- DRBI compatibility in cadaver kidney transplantation: correlation with graft survival and function. Transpl. Int. 1995; 8: 91–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rosenberg JC, Beyersdorf TM, Derbyshire N. Retrieval and allocation of organs for transplantation: the Michigan experience. Clin Transplant. 1993; 31: 335–344.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tardif GN, McCalmon RT. SEOPF high-grade HLA match algorithm: effective kidney sharing using ROP trays with HLA matching for highly sensitized patients. Transplant. Proc. 1997; 29: 1406–1407.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Terasaki PI, Gjertson DW, Cecka JM. HLA matching for improved cadaver kidney allocation. Curr. Opin. Nephrol. Hypertens. 1994; 3: 585–588.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Van Renterghem Y, Persijn GG. The implementation of the new Eurotransplant kidney allocation system. Eurotransplant News. March 1996.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wujciak T, Opelz G. Matchability as an important factor for kidney allocation according to the HLA match. Transplant. Proc. 1997; 29: 1403–1405.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cardillo M, Scalamogna M, Poli F, Pizzi C, Sirchia G. Aspetti immunologici del trapianto di organi. Syllabus di Nefrologia. Wichtig Editore. 1997; 3–11.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sirchia G, Mascaretti L, Poli F, Scalamogna M, Pappalettera M, Pizzi C. Cadaver kidney transplantation in the North Italy Transplant Program in the nineties. Clin. Transplant. 1995; 20: 241.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chang RWS. How should cadaver kidneys be allocated? Lancet. 1996; 348: 453–454.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Starzl TE, Demetris AJ, Trucco M. HLA matching and the point system. Clin. Transplant. 1993; 7: 353–356.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Starzl TE, Fung M. The politics of grafting cadaver kidneys. Lancet. 1996; 348: 454–455.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Cardillo
  • M. Scalamogna
  • F. Poli
  • G. Sirchia

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations