Search

Background: Social media platforms are increasingly used in surgery and have shown promise as effective tools to promote deceased donation and expand living donor transplantation. There is a growing need to understand how social media-driven communication is perceived by providers in the field of transplantation., Methods: We surveyed 299 members of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons about their use of, attitudes toward, and perceptions of social media and analyzed relationships between responses and participant characteristics., Results: Respondents used social media to communicate with: family and friends (76%), surgeons (59%), transplant professionals (57%), transplant recipients (21%), living donors (16%), and waitlisted candidates (15%). Most respondents (83%) reported using social media for at least 1 purpose. Although most (61%) supported sharing information with transplant recipients via social media, 42% believed it should not be used to facilitate living donor-recipient matching. Younger age (P = 0.02) and fewer years of experience in the field of transplantation (P = 0.03) were associated with stronger belief that social media can be influential in living organ donation. Respondents at transplant centers with higher reported use of social media had more favorable views about sharing information with transplant recipients (P < 0.01), increasing awareness about deceased organ donation (P < 0.01), and advertising for transplant centers (P < 0.01). Individual characteristics influence opinions about the role and clinical usefulness of social media., Conclusions: Transplant center involvement and support for social media may influence clinician perceptions and practices. Increasing use of social media among transplant professionals may provide an opportunity to deliver high-quality information to patients.

Background: As transplant centers start leveraging Twitter for information dissemination and public engagement, it is important to understand current living solid organ donation-related Twitter use., Methods: We identified public Twitter profiles available in 01/2017 that referenced living organ donation and analyzed the use of donation-related Twitter handles, names, or profile information. Tweets were manually abstracted and qualitatively analyzed for common themes. Social media influence of those tweeting about living donation was evaluated using Klout score., Results: We identified 93 donors, 61 professionals, 12 hospitals, and 19 organizations that met eligibility criteria. Social media influence was similar across these groups (P = 0.4). Donors (16%) and organizations (23%) were more likely than professionals (7%) or hospitals (0%) to include transplant-related educational information in their profiles (P = 0.007). Living donation-related tweets were most commonly donation stories (33%), news reports (20%), reports about new transplant research (15%), and sharing transplant candidates' searches for donors (14%)., Conclusions: This exploratory study of living donors and transplant professionals, hospitals, and organizations on Twitter provides insight into how the social media platform may be used to communicate about and disseminate information about living donation., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The donation of multiple allografts from a single living donor is a rare practice, and the patient characteristics and outcomes associated with these procedures are not well described., Methods: Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we identified 101 living multiorgan donors and their 133 recipients., Results: The 49 sequential (donations during separate procedures) multiorgan donors provided grafts to 81 recipients: 21 kidney-then-liver, 15 liver-then-kidney, 5 lung-then-kidney, 3 liver-then-intestine, 3 kidney-then-pancreas, 1 lung-then-liver, and 1 pancreas-then-kidney. Of these donors, 38% donated 2 grafts to the same recipient and 15% donated 2 grafts as non-directed donors. Compared to recipients from first-time, single organ living donors, recipients from second-time living donors had similar graft and patient survival. The 52 simultaneous (multiple donations during one procedure) multiorgan donors provided 2 grafts to 1 recipient each: 48 kidney-pancreas and 4 liver-intestine. Donors had median of 13.4 years (interquartile range, 8.3-18.5 years) of follow-up. There was one reported death of a sequential donor (2.5 years after second donation). Few postdonation complications were reported over a median of 116 days (interquartile range, 0-295 days) of follow-up; however, routine living donor follow-up data were sparse. Recipients of kidneys from second-time living donors had similar graft (P = 0.2) and patient survival (P = 0.4) when compared with recipients from first-time living donors. Similarly, recipients of livers from second-time living donors had similar graft survival (P = 0.9) and patient survival (P = 0.7) when compared with recipients from first-time living donors., Conclusions: Careful documentation of outcomes is needed to ensure ethical practices in selection, informed consent, and postdonation care of this unique donor community.