experience in organ donation in austria and vienna

Post on 14-Jan-2016

41 Views

Category:

Documents

0 Downloads

Preview:

Click to see full reader

DESCRIPTION

Experience in Organ Donation in Austria and Vienna. Ferdinand Mühlbacher Department of Surgery Visit to Kopenhagen 3.3.2010. Basic Structure of Austrian Transplant System. Center based System with little national authority. 3 Medical Universities with Transplant Programs for all Organs - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Experience in

Organ Donation in

Austria and Vienna

Ferdinand MühlbacherDepartment of Surgery

Visit to Kopenhagen3.3.2010

Basic Structure of Austrian Transplant System

InnsbruckGraz

ViennaLinz

• 3 Medical Universities with Transplant Programs for all Organs

• 2 Renal Transplant Program in non academic institutions (One City)

• 4 Donor Regions

• Donor regions and patient service regions match fairly well

Center based System with little national authority

# of Tx Centers/ Mill PopVs

Cadaveric Renal Transplantation

Transplantation Center

H

H

H

H

LabHLANeurologyEEGSurgLogisticTransport

Decentralized Donor Procurement

Manpower (fte)

Donors 2009

Regional

Coordinator

Center Coordinator

Off hour coordination

North 50 0,5 1 MDOn call doctors

on demand

East 76 1,0 2 MD+2 Secr.

West 36 0,5 3 NursesOn call doctors

on demand

South 50 0,5 2 Students

National 212 3 economists

17,5 fte

Budget (Federal Gonvernment)

Budget calculated for Organs 2 .460 .000

Budget effectuated for Organs 24D/M/Y

1.947.000

Returned to Fed. Gov. in 2007 513.000

Budget Expences %

Transport costs 26%

Coodination fee 8%

Brain death fee 6%

Man power 20%

Education 11%

Donor Hosp. reimbursement 29%

Potential of Organ Donors

Estimation between 20 und 80 Donors / Mio /Year• Schuster et al Öbig 1995:

– 85 potential d/mio/year realised 21only• Barber K et al Transplant Proc 2005 37:568

– Out of 22668 ICU death: 1387 (6%) brain death (23/mio/year?)

• Person N Lak 2005– Out of 3114 ICU death; 174 (5,6%)brain death

Critical Steps in Organ Donation

• 1. Donor detection

• 2. Viability / Safety

• 3. Donor management

• 4. Consent / Authorisation

• 5. Organ retrieval / Logistics

The „Donor Chain of Events“

Donor Age

0

25

50

75

100

125

0

25

50

75

100

125

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

≥6045-5930-4415-29<15

1998 - 2007

Achilles´s Heel of Organ Donation

Donor Detection

Enthusiasm

Information

Legislation

Infrastructure

Kooperation

“Singel Person effect”Trauma UnitLBK spender 1883-1990

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1983- 1984- 1985- 1986- 1987- 1988- 1989- 1990-

Jahrgang

Spender

“Single Person effect”6 month periods

Regional Donor distribution

Inhabitants 2007 2008 2009

North 1.936.648 29,43 22,7 25,8

South 1.757.638 19,91 26,6 28,44

West 1.063.871 33,84 12,5 33,8

East 3.523.137 14,48 18,0 21,57

Austria 8,2 24,7 20,4 25,8

Authorisation

Explicit consent(Japan)

Pure presumed consent(Mandatory autopsy)

No statement available:Include next of kin in the decision making process

There is still an advantage to "presumed consent version", both for doctors and for next of kin

presumed non consentopt in

presumed consentopt out

"Since Henry VIII's time, the sole legal source for corpses for dissectionhad been the gallows - bodies of murderers handed over to the anatomists asa post-mortem punishment."(Introduction, xv)

UK Autopsy Tradition

Ruth Richardson: "Death, Dissection and the Destitute" (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987)

Gerard van Svieten

1700-1772

-

KAG § 25(1) and Wr. KAG §40(1)

Austrian Autopsy Law

Corpses of patients, who died in public hospitals have to undergo autopsy in case of

• Public health concerns

• Forensic matters and

• Public or scientific interest

Transplantationsgesetz ÖsterreichKAG §62a BGBL Nr. 273/182

(2) Die Entnahme darf erst durchgeführt werden, wenn ein zur selbständigen Berufsausübung berechtigter Arzt den eingetretenen Tod festgestellt hat. Dieser Arzt darf weder die Entnahme noch die Transplantation durchführen. Er darf an diesen Eingriffen auch sonst nicht beteiligt oder durch sie betroffen sein.(3) Die Entnahme darf nur in Krankenhäusern vorgenommen werden, die die Voraussetzungen des § 16 Abs.1 lit. A und c bis g erfüllen.(4) organe und Organteile Verstorbener dürfen nicht Gegenstand von Rechtsgeschäften sein, die auf Gewinn gerichtet sind.

Transplantationsgesetz Österreich

KAG §62b+c BGBL Nr. 273/182

§ 62b. Angaben über die Person von Spender bzw. Empfänger sind vom Auskunftsrecht gemäß § 11 Datenschutzgesetz, BGBl. Nr. 565/1978, ausgeommen.

§ 62c. Wer dem § 62a zuwiderhandelt, begeht, sofern nicht eine gerichtlich strafbara Tat vorliegt, eine Verwaltungsübertretung und ist mit Geldstrafe bis 30.000,- ATS zu bestrafen.

Transplantationsgesetz Österreich

KAG §62a BGBL Nr. 273/182

§ 62a (1) es ist zulässig, Verstorbenen einzelne Organe oder Organteile zu entnehmen, um durch deren

Transplantation das Leben eines anderen Menschen zu retten oder dessen Gesundheit wiederherzustellen. Die

Entnahme ist unzulässig, wenn den Ärzten eine Erklärung vorliegt, mit der der Verstorbene oder, vor

dessen Tod, sein gesetzlicher Vertreter eine Organspende ausdrücklich abgelehnt hat. Die Entnahme darf nicht zu einer die Pietät verletzenden Verunstaltung

der Leiche führen.

Essentials of Austrian TX Law

• Removal of organs from deseased persons allowed– For the purpose transplantation– No personal objection (presumed consent)– Death certified by licensed independent doctor– In public hospitals only– No commercial interest allowed– Piety has to be respected

What is not regulated in Austrian TX Law

• Living Donation

• Organ Allocation

Advantages of Presumed Consent Regulation

• Long tradition in Austria (Autopsy law)

• Personal - not family- decision

• Balances public vs personal interests

• No written decision by relatives necessary

• In favour of transplantation

% Agreement

1. Forensic Criteria: 100Cold, Stiff,Spots, Fermentation

2. Clinical Criteria:Unconscious, No Breathing, No Heart Beat,

3. Brain Death Criteria: 96 / 92 *)No Brainstem Function +Flat EEG

Death Criteria

*) Wamser et al. Transplant.proc. 1992

Controversy About Brain Death

Very dangerous!!

Brain Death vs Brain Stem Death

Pragmatic solution:

„Irreversible loss of all intracranial functions“

Allocation

Basic requirements for Organ allocation

TransparencyEgalitarian Principle -- Utilitarian Principle

Simple

Trust

Leiden

6666

3737

44

3939

2525

3838

ET transplant programsET transplant programs

Total population: 120 Mill.

Allocation:XCOMB (ET)Points Weight Maximum

HLA - A,B,DR Missmatch 100 4 400

Missmatch Probability 100 1 100

Waiting Time 100 2 200

Distance: Donor-Recipient Center

100 3 300

National Balances 100 2 200

1989-2009

Donor- und Transplant-Frequencies in Austria

Deseased Donor Frequencies in Europa*)

Transplant Newsletter Vol 9:1 2008 Council of Europe *)Donors per mill population

Country Inhab 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Spain 44,7 32,5 33,7 33,8 34,6 35,1 33,8 34,6 34,8

Austria 8,2 23,7 24,3 23,9 22,6 24,8 25,2 24,7 20,4 25,8

Belgium 10 21,6 21,7 24,8 21,8 20,0 27,1 29,8 25,5

Portugal 10 20,2 21,7 19,0 22,2 19,0 20,1 26,1 26,7

France 60 17,8 20,0 18,3 21,0 22,2 23,2 24,8

Czech.R. 10,3 16,7 18,6 20,5 20,3 18,8 21,1 19,2

Swiss 7 13,2 10,4 13,2 12,6 12,1 10,7 10,7 11,8

Italy 57,7 17,1 18,1 18,5 21,1 20,9 21,7 20,5 21,2

GB 62,9 13,1 13,0 12,1 13,8 10,7 12,9 13,2 13,4

Germany 83 13,1 12.2 13,8 13,0 14,1 15,3 16,5 14,6

Greece 4,5 5,9 8,1 6,5 6,0 8,1 7,1 5,8 8,9

Slovenia 2,0 11,5 17,5 14,0 18,0 10,2 15,0 11,4 19,5

Renal Transplantation in AKH Vienna1965 - 2009

Efficiency of RT in ESRD 49%

48% 48% 49% 50% 50%

49% 48% 48% 46% 45% 46% 45% 46% 45% 44% 45% 44% 40% 37% 35%

51%52%52%51%50% 50%51%52%52%54%55%54%55%54%55%56%55%56%60%63%65%

Ethical Issues in Transplant Legislation

- Cadaveric Source for Transplant Organs- Brain Death Criteria /Determination- Safety / Quality Control- Authorisation- Allocation- Live Donation- Non Profit Rule- Logistics

1.Paar 2.Paar

Empfänger 58 m B 56 m A

Spender 54 w A 36 w B

„Über Kreuz Transplantation“

„Domino“ Transplantation

Empfänger 27 m B

Spender 53 w AB

ET-Spenderpool

Lokale Warteliste

LRD vs LURD vs CAD

Terasaki P. et al: NEJM 333:6, 333-6, 1995

•a) dead upon arrival •b) unsuccessful resuscitation

•c) awaiting cardiac arrest•d) circulatory arrest after brain death confirmation

NHBD Categories (Maastricht)

Targets of Promotion

• >>> ICU Personnel (Communication Courses)

• >> Medical staff at large (Lectures, meetings, Courses, „Medical lay journals“

• > Public. (Donation days, „Media culture“-Information)

Folie 57

top related