Snoopy & y'all,
To my knowledge, there is still only 1 study reported about dual donations. It was an Abstract of a Poster in the annual American Transplant Congress, late spring 2012. Abstract of the Poster is below.
Liver-Kidney ‘Double’ Donation by Living Donor Good Samaritans: Kindness or Craziness?Background: Donating two organs (liver lobe and kidney) during one’s life-time is an act of extreme selflessness. Donor profiles and outcomes after such ‘double’ donations have never been reported before.
Methods: All potential living liver donors evaluated at our center from 1998 to 2010 were studied retrospectively. Donors who had donated both a liver lobe and a kidney were analyzed.
Results: We evaluated 345 potential living liver donors. There were 27 potential Good Samaritan donors and 12/27 donated a liver lobe successfully. There were 5 liver lobe-kidney ‘double’ donors (4/5 Good Samaritans and one directed donation).
Conclusions: All the Good Samaritan living liver-kidney ‘double donors’ at our center were well-educated, successfully employed Caucasians, with previous charitable acts of donation. All donors had excellent surgical and psychological outcomes after donation with return to their previous occupations. Donation of liver lobe-kidney by Good Samaritans, after thorough medical and psychological evaluation, is ethical and is facilitated by the extremely motivated donors themselves.
SUMMARY OF TABLE in Abstract:“
Outcomes Of Liver Lobe And Kidney Living Donors”
Liver lobe donated: Right lobe (5/5).
Kidney donated: Left (5/5).
Operative procedure of kidney donation: Laparotomy (2/5); Open (3/5).
Time interval between donations: 4 yrs (1/5); 3 yrs (1/5); 2 yrs (2/5); 5 mo (1/5)
Liver Donation type: Non-directed (4/5); Directed (1/5)
Age/Sex/Race: Age range 30-52; Female (3/5), Male (2/5); White (5/5.
Profession: Info-technology (2/5/); Financial officer or Accountant (2/5); Horse trainer 1/5)
Reason for donation: Wanted to help (3/5); Coworker died (1/5); To help husband (1/5).
Previous donations: Blood donor & Bone marrow donor list (2/5); Blood donor only (2/5); No previous donation (1/5).
Hospital stay for liver donation: 6 days (1/5); 5 (4/5).
Complications liver donation: None (4/5); Cut-surface bile leak (1/5).
Change in serum creatinine from pre-op liver to 1-yr after: Decreased (4/5); post-op not yet obtained (1/5).
Liver function tests 1-yr post-op:
AST: less than 30 (3/5); 42 (1/5); not yet obtained (1/5).
ALT: less than 25 (3/5); 36 (1/5); not yet obtained (1/5).
Bilirubin: less than 0.9 (3/5); 1.1 (1/5); not yet obtained (1/5).
Returned to work after liver donation: Yes (5/5).
Donor satisfaction after liver donation: Feels good (3/5); No regrets (2/5).
Recipient outcome: Alive (3/5) as of 4 yrs, 3 yrs, & 3 mo; Died (2/5) at 8 yrs & 2 yrs.
My added notes: As I recall, the Poster itself had more information about the mental and emotional health of the five people than the Abstract did. My impression is that the acceptance by transplant centers of the
legitimacy of the idea of dual donations is about where acceptance of the
legitimacy of the idea of non-directed donations was about 20 to 25 years ago. It was a long process of acceptance of non-directed (single-organ) donations back then, starting with just one center, with most centers assuming that EVERYONE with a desire to be a non-directed donor must be crazy -- yes, "
crazy," by virtue of that desire. (As I recall, that Brown University was the first report doing a non-directed donation -- only after a long LONG evaluation and discussion -- of am unmarried Buddhist woman whose desire, Brown University concluded, fit her strong Buddhist faith and was not a sign she was "crazy." Note the title of the Abstract above.)
Editorial comment: some people have difficulty "wrapping their head around" altruism.
Bill