Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40960602›Full record

SynthesisIntensive care medicine2025

Ethical tensions and professional attitudes toward circulatory death organ donation in the ICU: a systematic review.

Alessandra Agnese Grossi, Martina Baiardo Redaelli, Francesco Procaccio, Mario Picozzi, Giuseppe Citerio, Luca Cabrini

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Intensive care medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The INTEGRITY guidelines - ethical guidance for research involving deceased donation and transplantation.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Alessandra Agnese GrossiDepartment of Human Sciences, Innovation and Territory, University of Insubria, Varese-Como, Italy. aa.grossi@uninsubria.it.ORCID 0000-0002-2352-6756
Martina Baiardo RedaelliGeneral and Neurosurgical Intensive Care Units, Ospedale Di Circolo, ASST Sette Laghi, Varese, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4232-1713
Francesco ProcaccioFondazione Trapianti Onlus, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6737-0482
Mario PicozziCenter for Clinical Ethics, Department of Biotechnologies and Life Sciences, University of Insubria, Via O. Rossi 9, 21100, Varese, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5327-4441
Giuseppe CiterioSchool of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano - Bicocca, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5374-3161
Luca CabriniGeneral and Neurosurgical Intensive Care Units, Ospedale Di Circolo, ASST Sette Laghi, Varese, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8927-1197

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDonation after circulatory death (DCD) represents a valuable opportunity to expand the organ donor pool. However, its implementation in intensive care units (ICUs) remains ethically and emotionally complex. ICU healthcare professionals (HCPs) play a pivotal role in this process, yet their attitudes, knowledge, and perceived challenges are not fully understood. This systematic review aimed to explore ICU HCPs' attitudes (as defined by Rosenberg and Hovland) toward controlled DCD (cDCD).

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of studies published until March 2025 in four databases. Eligible studies included original research reporting ICU-specific data on HCPs' attitudes toward DCD. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A structured narrative synthesis was performed.

resultsTwenty-five studies involving 3,878 HCPs were included. Overall, support for DCD was evident though it remained lower than for donation after brain death. Ethical concerns focused on potential conflicts of interest between the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment and the pursuit of organ donation, the timing of withdrawal, the urgency of organ retrieval, and the challenge of balancing compassionate end-of-life care with procedural imperatives. Common barriers included the lack of standardized protocols, insufficient training, and uncertainty surrounding death determination.

conclusionsWhile ICU HCPs generally support DCD, significant ethical tensions and systemic barriers persist. Institutional efforts should focus on implementing clear protocols, promoting interprofessional education, and providing emotional support to ensure ethical integrity and staff well-being. Future research should explore differences in attitudes between uDCD and cDCD and work toward the development of validated tools to assess professional attitudes.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelTissue and Organ ProcurementHumansIntensive Care UnitsDonation after circulatory deathEthical challengesHealthcare professionalsIntensive care unitMoral distressOrgan donation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.