Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Sep;52(5):32-42.
doi: 10.1002/hast.1419.

Reevaluating the Ethical Issues in Porcine-to-Human Heart Xenotransplantation

Reevaluating the Ethical Issues in Porcine-to-Human Heart Xenotransplantation

Henry Silverman et al. Hastings Cent Rep. 2022 Sep.

Abstract

A major limiting factor with heart allotransplantation remains the availability of organs from deceased donors. Porcine heart xenotransplantation could serve as an alternative source of organs for patients with terminal heart failure. A first-in-human porcine xenotransplantation that occurred in January 2022 at the University of Maryland Medical Center provided an opportunity to examine several ethical issues to guide selection criteria for future xenotransplantation clinical trials. In this article, the authors, who are clinicians at UMMC, discuss the appropriate balancing of risks and benefits and the significance, if any, of clinical equipoise. The authors also review the alleged role of the psychosocial evaluation in identifying patients at an elevated risk of posttransplant noncompliance, and they consider how the evaluation's implementation might enhance inequities among diverse populations. The authors argue that, based on the principle of reciprocity, psychosocial criteria should be used, not to exclude patients, but instead to identify patients who need additional support. Finally, the authors discuss the requirements for and the proper assessment of informed and voluntary consent from patients being considered for xenotransplantation.

Keywords: bioethics; ethics; informed consent; pig-to-human heart transplant; psychosocial criteria; risks and benefits; selection criteria; xenotransplantation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Kittleson M. M. and Kobashigawa J. A., “Cardiac Transplantation: Current Outcomes and Contemporary Controversies,” JACC: Heart Failure 5, no. 12 (2017): 857–68. - PubMed
    1. Adams E. E. and Wrightson M. L.. “Quality of Life with an LVAD: A Misunderstood Concept,” Heart & Lung 47, no. 3 (2018): 177–83. - PubMed
    1. Ekser B., Cooper D. K. C., and Tector A. J., “The Need for Xenotransplantation as a Source of Organs and Cells for Clinical Transplantation,” International Journal of Surgery 23, (2015): 199–204. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Griffith B. P. et al., “Genetically Modified Porcine‐to‐Human Cardiac Xenotransplantation,” New England Journal of Medicine (2022): doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2201422. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cooper D. K. C. et al., “Selection of Patients for Initial Clinical Trials of Solid Organ Xenotransplantation,” Transplantation 101, (2017): 1551–58; L. R. Garcia et al., “Clinical Trials in Cardiac Xenotransplantation: Are We Ready to Overcome Barriers?,” Journal of Cardiology and Surgery 36, no. 10 (2021): 3796‐3801; R. N. Pierson et al., “Pig‐to‐Human Heart Transplantation: Who Goes First?,” American Journal of Transplantation 20, no. 10 (2020): 2669‐74. - PMC - PubMed