Donation After Brain Death Donors Research Articles

A critical analysis of liver allograft utilization from the US deceased donor pool

A critical analysis of liver allograft utilization from the US deceased donor pool

Liver transplantation using controlled donation after cardiac death donors: An analysis of a large single-center experience

The use of donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors may provide a valuable source of organs for liver transplantation. Concerns regarding primary nonfunction (PNF) and intrahepatic biliary stricture (IHBSs) have limited the enthusiasm for their use. A retrospective analysis of 1436 consecutive deceased donor liver transplants performed between December 1998 and October 2006 was conducted. These included 108 DCD liver transplants, which were compared to 1328 transplants performed with organs from donors meeting the criteria for donation after brain death (DBD). The median follow-up was 48 months. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year patient survival and graft survival for DCD donors were 91.5%, 88.1%, and 88.1% and 79.3%, 74.5%, and 71.0%, respectively. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year patient survival and graft survival for DBD donors were 87.3%, 81.1%, and 77.2% and 81.6%, 74.7%, and 69.1%, respectively. Patient survival and graft survival were not significantly different between DCD donors less than 60 years old, DCD donors greater than 60 years old, and DBD donors. Causes of graft loss included IHBSs (n = 9), PNF (n = 4), recurrent hepatitis C virus (n = 4), hepatic artery thrombosis (n = 1), rejection (n = 2), and patient death (n = 13). Contrary to previously published data, excellent long-term patient survival and graft survival can be obtained with DCD allografts, and in our experience, they are equivalent to those obtained from DBD allografts.

Experience in Renal and Extrarenal Transplantation with Donation after Cardiac Death Donors with Selective Use of Extracorporeal Support

Most reports of donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors are exclusive to kidney transplantation and report high rates of delayed graft function (DGF). From April 1, 2003, to October 3, 2007, we performed 53 kidney transplantations and 4 simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplantations from DCD donors. All DCD donor kidneys were managed with pulsatile perfusion preservation, and all simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplantation donors were managed with extracorporeal support. Of 53 DCD kidney transplantations, 44 (83%) were from standard criteria donors (SCD) and 9 (17%) from expanded criteria donors (ECD). With a mean followup of 12 months, actual patient and kidney graft survival rates were 94% and 87%, respectively. Patient and graft survival rates were 100% in the 4 simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplantations. Incidence of DGF was 57% (60% without versus 20% with extracorporeal support, p = 0.036). Comparison of the 53 DCD donor kidney transplantations with 316 concurrent donation after brain death (DBD) donor adult kidney transplantations (178 SCD, 138 ECD) revealed no differences in demographics or outcomes, except that the DCD donor group had fewer ECDs (17% DCD versus 44% DBD; p = 0.0002), fewer 0-antigen mismatch kidney transplantations (7.5% DCD versus 19% DBD; p = 0.05), and more kidneys preserved with pulsatile perfusion (100% DCD versus 52% DBD; p < 0.0001). Incidences of DGF (57% DCD versus 19% DBD; p < 0.0001) and acute rejection (19% DCD versus 10% DBD; p = 0.10) were higher in the DCD donor group, which resulted in a longer initial length of stay (mean 11 days DCD versus 8.0 days DBD; p = 0.006). Despite a high incidence of DGF in the absence of extracorporeal support and greater initial resource use, comparable short-term results can be achieved with DCD and DBD donor kidney transplantations.

Ischemic cholangiopathy following liver transplantation from donation after cardiac death donors

The use of donation after cardiac death (DCD) donor hepatic allografts is becoming more widespread; however, there have been published reports of increased graft failure from specific complications associated with this type of allograft. The complication of ischemic cholangiopathy (IC) has been reported to occur more frequently after the use of DCD hepatic allografts. We report the results of 52 liver transplants from DCD donors and the factors that influenced the development of IC. We conducted a retrospective review of all DCD and donation after brain death (DBD) donor liver recipients from September 2003 through December 2006 at a single institution. Survival and complication rates were compared between the 2 groups. The Cox proportional hazards model was then used to identify recipient and donor factors that predict the development of IC in the DCD group. There was no difference in 1-year patient or graft survival rates between the 2 groups. There was no incidence of primary nonfunction from the DCD allografts. Hepatic artery complications and anastomotic bile duct complications were comparable in the 2 groups. There was, however, an increased risk for the development of IC in the DCD group (13.7% versus 1%, P = 0.001). Donor weight >100 kg and total ischemia times > or =9 hours, in donors older than 50 years of age, predicted the development of IC in the DCD group. In conclusion, there is a higher incidence of IC in recipients receiving DCD donor livers; however, patient and graft outcomes with DCD donors remain comparable to those with DBD donors. Careful donor selection may improve utilization of these grafts.

Using livers from donation after cardiac death donors—A proposal to protect the true Achilles heel

As the waiting list for organ transplant continues to increase (over 90,000 candidates as of May 30, 2007), the pressure to increase the number of donor organs is the impetus to expand the use of organs from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors. The focus on DCD, previously referred to as non–heart-beating donor (NHBD), has led to significant increases in its utilization (Table 1), although the contribution to the donor pool remains only 7% in the United States and is disproportionately reflected in increased kidney transplants (Table 2). Prior to the acceptance of brain death, donors were required to have cessation of heart function in order to procure organs for transplantation. In some areas where brain death legislation has not been widely adopted, such as Asia, DCD represents a significant source of organs for transplantation. Although the Maastricht Conference on DCD in 1994 identified 4 categories of DCD [Category I: dead on arrival; Category II: unsuccessful resuscitation; Category III: waiting cardiac death; and Category IV: cardiac death in a braindead donor], it is easier to envision DCD based on two distinct populations, one following uncontrolled cardiopulmonary arrest (Categories I and II) and the other under conditions of controlled removal from life support, without the criteria for brain death being fulfilled. In 1995, the University of Pittsburgh provided one of the earliest comparisons between controlled and uncontrolled DCD. There were 24 DCD livers, 14 in the uncontrolled group (Group 1) and 10 in the group in which controlled termination of life support was performed in the operating room (Group 2). Of the liver grafts that were used, the immediate graft function rate was 50% (3/6) in Group 1 and 100% (6/6) in Group 2; however, the overall 2-year patient and graft survival was only 58% and 33%, respectively. In order to improve outcomes with DCD donors, the decision was made to avoid using uncontrolled DCD livers and, with further experience, to more carefully control risk factors [e.g., avoidance of old ( 60 year old) DCD donors, avoidance of donors with long ( 60 minutes) warm ischemic times during procurement, avoidance of confounding factors in the DCD donors, and minimization of cold ischemic times]. While patient survival and graft survival have improved in more recent eras, the impact of DCD on liver transplantation, as assessed from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) database, shows that DCD graft survival was significantly lower than that of donation after brain death (DBD) grafts, with 1and 3-year graft survival of 70.2% and 63.3% for DCD recipients versus 80.4% and 72.1% for recipients of livers from conventional DBD donors. Recipients of a DCD graft had a greater incidence of primary nonfunction (11.8 versus 6.4%) and retransplantation (13.9% versus 8.3%) compared with DBD recipients. Similar findings have also been reported at single centers 12,13 The mandated period of warm ischemia imposed during the process of certifying death in controlled DCD leads to stagnation of blood in the microcirculation.

Expanding the Donor Kidney Pool: Utility of Renal Allografts Procured in a Setting of Uncontrolled Cardiac Death

The chronic shortage of deceased kidney donors has led to increased utilization of donation after cardiac death (DCD) kidneys, the majority of which are procured in a controlled setting. The objective of this study is to evaluate transplantation outcomes from uncontrolled DCD (uDCD) donors and evaluate their utility as a source of donor kidneys. From January 1995 to December 2004, 75,865 kidney-alone transplants from donation after brain death (DBD) donors and 2136 transplants from DCD donors were reported to the United Network for Organ Sharing. Among the DCD transplants, 1814 were from controlled and 216 from uncontrolled DCD donors. The log-rank test was used to compare survival curves. The incidence of delayed graft function in controlled DCD (cDCD) was 42% and in uDCD kidneys was 51%, compared to only 24% in kidneys from DBD donors (p < 0.001). The overall graft and patient survival of DCD donors was similar to that of DBD donor kidneys (p = 0.66; p = 0.88). Despite longer donor warm and cold ischemic times, overall graft and patient survival of uDCD donors was comparable to that of cDCD donors (p = 0.65, p = 0.99). Concerted efforts should be focused on procurement of uDCD donors, which can provide another source of quality deceased donor kidneys.

Outcomes of Pancreas Transplantation in the United States Using Cardiac-Death Donors

Organs donated after cardiac death (DCD) are used to expand the donor pool. We analyzed the outcomes in the United States of pancreatic transplantation of organs from DCD donors performed between 1993 and 2003. We used the OPTN/UNOS Registry to compare outcomes of primary pancreas allografts from DCD donors and donors after brain death (DBD). The primary endpoints were graft failure and patient death. A national survey regarding the use of DCD donors in pancreas transplantation was conducted among the directors of pancreas transplant centers. Data were obtained on 47 simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants (SPK) and 10 solitary pancreas transplants from DCD donors and on 2431 SPK and 1607 solitary pancreas transplants from DBD donors. Recipients of a SPK transplants from DCD and DBD donors had equivalent patient and graft survival rates at 1, 3 and 5 years. For recipients of SPK transplants, the wait for organs from DCD donors was significantly shorter than that for organs from DBD donors. SPK recipients of organs from DCD donors had longer hospital stays than did recipients of organs from DBD donors. With renal allografts, the incidence of delayed graft function was almost four times higher with organs from DCD donors than with organs from DBD donors. Selective use of organs from DCD donors is safe for pancreas transplantation.

Risk Factors for Graft Survival After Liver Transplantation from Donation After Cardiac Death Donors: An Analysis of OPTN/UNOS Data

Due to increasing use of allografts from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors, we evaluated DCD liver transplants and impact of recipient and donor factors on graft survival. Liver transplants from DCD donors reported to UNOS were analyzed against donation after brain death (DBD) donor liver transplants performed between 1996 and 2003. We defined a recipient cumulative relative risk (RCRR) using significant risk factors identified from a Cox regression analysis: age; medical condition at transplantation; regraft status; dialysis received and serum creatinine. Graft survival from DCD donors (71% at 1 year and 60% at 3 years) were significantly inferior to DBD donors (80% at 1 year and 72% at 3 years, p < 0.001). Low-risk recipients (RCRR < or = 1.5) with low-risk DCD livers (DWIT < 30 min and CIT < 10 h, n = 226) achieved graft survival rates (81% and 67% at 1 and 3 years, respectively) not significantly different from recipients with DBD allografts (80% and 72% at 1 and 3 years, respectively, log-rank p = 0.23). Liver allografts from DCD donors may be used to increase the cadaveric donor pool, with favorable graft survival rates achieved when low-risk grafts are transplanted in a low-risk setting. Whether transplantation of these organs in low-risk recipients provides a survival benefit compared to the waiting list is unknown.

Donation After Cardiac Death

To determine whether the outcomes of liver transplantation (LTx) from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors are equivalent to those from donation after brain death (DBD) donors. Because of the significant donor organ shortage, more transplant centers are using livers recovered from DCD donors. However, long-term, single-center outcomes of liver transplantation from DCD donors are limited. From January 1, 1993, to July 31, 2002, 553 liver transplants were performed from DBD donors and 36 were performed from DCD donors. Differences in event rates between the groups were compared with Kaplan-Meier estimates and the log-rank test. Differences in proportion and differences of means between the groups were compared with Fisher exact test and the Wilcoxon rank sum test, respectively. Mean warm ischemic time at recovery in the DCD group was 17.8 +/- 10.6 minutes. The overall rate of biliary strictures was greater in the DCD group at 1 year (33% versus 10%) and 3 years (37% versus 12%; P = 0.0001). The incidence of hepatic artery thrombosis, portal vein stenosis/thrombosis, ischemic-type biliary stricture (ITBS), and primary nonfunction were similar between groups. However, the incidence of both hepatic artery stenosis (16.6% versus 5.4%; P = 0.001) and hepatic abscess and biloma formation (16.7% versus 8.3%; P = 0.04) were greater in the DCD group. Trends toward worse patient and graft survival and increased incidence of ITBS were seen in DCD donors greater than 40 years compared with DCD donors less than 40 years. Overall patient survival at 1 year (DCD, 80%; versus DBD, 91%) and 3 years (DCD, 68%; versus DBD, 84%) was significantly less in the DCD group (P = 0.002). Similarly, graft survival at 1 year (DCD, 67%; versus DBD, 86%) and 3 years (DCD, 56%; versus DBD, 80%) were significantly less in the DCD group (P = 0.0001). Despite similar rates of primary nonfunction, LTx after controlled DCD resulted in worse patient and graft survival compared with LTx after DBD and increased incidence of biliary complications and hepatic artery stenosis. However, overall results of LTx after controlled DCD are encouraging; and with careful donor and recipient selection, LTx after DCD may successfully increase the donor liver pool.

Extracorporeal Support for Organ Donation after Cardiac Death Effectively Expands the Donor Pool

We sought to evaluate the effect on short-term outcomes of normothermic, extracorporeal perfusion (ECMO) for donation of abdominal organs for transplantation after cardiac death (DCD). Study parameters included increase in number of donors and organs, types of organs procured, and viability of kidneys transplanted. We retrospectively reviewed medical record data for all patients enrolled in our ECMO-supported DCD donor protocol between 10/1/2000 to 2/01/2004. We also reviewed the records for all patients undergoing organ donation after brain-death (DBD) during the study period at our institution. Recipient data were obtained and analyzed for all kidneys procured from both groups. Twenty patients were enrolled in our DCD protocol and underwent attempted organ donation. Fifteen patients completed the protocol; 3 maintained cardiac function throughout the prescribed 60 minutes after withdrawal of life support, and two patients' organs were deemed unsuitable for transplantation. Fourteen (70%) of the DCD donor patients originated on the trauma service and six (30%) were from other clinical services. The DCD program increased the potential donor pool by 33% (61 versus 81 patients) and the number of kidneys transplanted by 24% (100 versus 124). A total of 24 kidney, 5 liver, and 1 pancreas transplants were performed with these organs. Two of 24 (8.3%) DCD kidneys had delayed graft function. There were no perioperative rejection episodes or deaths. The implementation of a DCD protocol using extracorporeal perfusion increased the potential organ donor pool at our institution by 33%. This was accomplished without short term adverse effect on organ function compared with kidneys transplanted from DBD donors.

Donation After Cardiac Death: The University of Wisconsin Experience with Renal Transplantation

Owing to the shortage of organ donors, there is renewed interest in donation after cardiac death (DCD), formerly referred to as nonheart-beating donation. From January 1984 until August 2000, 382 renal transplants were performed from DCD donors. These were compared with 1089 renal transplants performed from donation after brain death (DBD) donors. The mean warm ischemic time in DCD donors was 16.5 min. There was no statistical difference in cold ischemic time, rate of primary nonfunction, or graft loss in the first 30 days after transplantation. The rate of delayed graft function (DGF) was higher for DCD donors (27.5% vs. 21.3%; p = 0.016) and discharge creatinine was higher in DCD donors (1.92 mg/dL vs. 1.71 mg/dL; p = 0.001). There was no statistical difference in the 5-, 10-, or 15-year allograft survival when DCD donors were compared with DBD donors (64.8%, 44.8%, 27.8% vs. 71.3%, 48.3%, 33.8%; p = 0.054). Likewise, no statistical difference in the rate of technical complications was seen. Our long-term data indicate that the results of renal transplantation from DCD donors are equivalent to long-term allograft survival from DBD donors despite an increase in the rate of DGF. Organ procurement organizations, transplant centers, and hospitals should work to expand the implementation of DCD policies.