Donation After Circulatory Death Recipients Research Articles

Donor-derived cell-free DNA, gene expression profile, and acute rejection in donation after circulatory death (DCD) heart transplant recipients

BackgroundAcute rejection (AR) is a leading cause of early morbidity and mortality in heart transplant (HTx) recipients. There is limited data in donor after circulatory death (DCD) HTx recipients where ischemia reperfusion injury may contribute to development of AR and may be detected early with non-invasive biomarkers such as donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) and gene expression profile (GEP). The goal of this study is to compare dd-cfDNA, GEP and rejection outcomes in DCD and donor after brain death (DBD) HTx recipients. MethodsThis single-center, retrospective study included DCD and DBD HTx recipients from January 2020 to September 2022. Patients were excluded from the study if dd-cfDNA and GEP were not available. The CareDx HeartCare platform was used to obtain dd-cfDNA (AlloSure-Heart) and GEP (AlloMap) with the highest values for each patient recorded at 6 and 12 months. The mean values for these non-invasive markers were compared between DCD and DBD groups. Patients were followed for clinical outcomes, including treated AR, coronary allograft vasculopathy (CAV) and death, through September 2023. ResultsA total of 156 HTx patients were included with 50 DCD and 106 DBD recipients. Baseline characteristics were similar between DCD and DBD recipients including mean age (58.5 years vs 56.9 years, p = 0.48), male sex (82% vs 76%, p = 0.56) and Caucasian race (46% vs 43%, p = 0.78). There were no significant differences in mean AlloSure-Heart at 6 and 12 months between DCD and DBD recipients. AlloMap was significantly lower at 6 months (p = 0.04), but not at 12 months between DCD and DBD recipients. With respect to clinical outcomes at 1 year, there were no significant differences in treated AR (22% vs 14%, p = 0.32), ISHLT grade ≥ 2 CAV (0 vs 4%, p = 0.44) or mortality (2% vs 0%, p = 0.69) between DCD and DBD recipients. ConclusionsIn this single center study, there were no significant differences in mean dd-cfDNA and treated AR at 1 year between DCD and DBD HTx recipients. There was a significant increase in mean GEP at 6 months, but not at 12 months in the DBD cohort. Overall, there does not appear to be clinically significant cardiac allograft injury related to DCD as measured by non-invasive markers. Further work is needed to confirm these findings.

Abstract 13887: Longitudinal Trends in Donor and Recipient Risk Profile, and Clinical Outcomes, for Donation After Circulatory Death Heart Transplantation

Background: The US rate of Donation after Circulatory Death (DCD) Heart Transplant (HT) increased threefold from 2020 to 2022. While early analyses of DCD HT have suggested similar outcomes compared to donation after brain death HT, this may be the result of a restrictive DCD donor and recipient selection process, intended to minimize risk in the first US DCD HT cohorts. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that risk profiles for DCD HT donors and recipients have increased over time, as DCD HT has rapidly expanded. We sought to identify longitudinal changes in risk profiles for DCD donors and recipients from 2019-2023, and determine if such changes have impacted post-DCD HT clinical outcomes. Methods: We analyzed the UNOS thoracic organ database from December 2019 to March 2023. DCD HT donor and recipient risk characteristics were evaluated over time for significant trend. One-year recipient survival was compared over time. Results: During the study period, 716 DCD HT were performed. Recipients were mostly male (79%), Caucasian (68%), and had mean age of 54 years. Over time, several donor and recipient characteristics were significantly different (Table, Figure). Donors were older, and had increased BMI, creatinine, and agonal phase to cross-clamp time, although overall lower ischemic time. Recipients were more likely to be status 1 or 2, and had increased BMI, waitlist time, creatinine, and CPRA. Donor and recipient comorbidities and mechanical support use were unchanged. Post-HT survival over time was unchanged. Conclusions: Since the first US DCD HT, several donor and recipient risk-factors have increased. These increased risk profiles have not translated into reduced one-year survival.

Donation after circulatory death significantly reduces waitlist times while not changing post–heart transplant outcomes: A United Network for Organ Sharing Analysis

ObjectiveRecently, several centers in the US have begun performing donation after circulatory death (DCD) heart transplants (HT) in adults. We sought to characterize the recent use of DCD HT, waitlist-time, and outcomes compared to donation after brain death (DBD). MethodsUsing the UNOS database, 10,402 adult (>18yo) HT recipients from January 2019-June 2022 were identified: 425(4%) were DCD and 9,977(96%) were DBD recipients. Post-transplant outcomes in matched and unmatched cohorts, and waitlist-times were compared between groups. ResultsDCD and DBD recipients had similar age [57y for both, p=0.791]. DCD recipients were more likely white (67% vs. 60%,p=0.002), on LVAD (40% vs. 32%,p<0.001) & listed as status 4-6 (60% vs. 24%,p<0.001); however, less likely to require inotropes (22% vs. 40%,p<0.001), & preoperative ECMO (0.9% vs. 6%,p<0.001). DCD donors were younger (29 vs. 32y,p<0.001), had less renal dysfunction (15% vs. 39%,p<0.001), diabetes (1.9% vs. 3.8%,p=0.050) or hypertension (9.9% vs. 16%,p=0.001). In matched & unmatched cohorts, early survival was similar (p=0.22). Adjusted waitlist-time was shorter in DCD group (21d vs. 31d,p<0.001) compared to DBD cohort and 5-fold shorter (DCD-22d vs DBD-115d,p<0.001) for candidates in status 4-6 which was 60% of DCD cohort. ConclusionsThe community is using DCD mostly for those recipients who are expected to have extended wait list times (e.g., Durable LVADs, Status >4). DCD recipients had similar post-transplant early survival, and shorter adjusted waitlist-time compared to DBD group. Given this early success, efforts should be made to expand the donor pool using DCD, especially for traditionally disadvantaged recipients on the waitlist.

Outcomes of Heart Transplant Donation After Circulatory Death

BackgroundHeart transplantation using donation after circulatory death (DCD) allografts is increasingly common, expanding the donor pool and reducing transplant wait times. However, data remain limited on clinical outcomes. ObjectivesWe sought to compare 6-month and 1-year clinical outcomes between recipients of DCD hearts, most of them recovered with the use of normothermic regional perfusion (NRP), and recipients of donation after brain death (DBD) hearts. MethodsWe conducted a single-center retrospective observational study of all adult heart-only transplants from January 2020 to January 2023. Recipient and donor data were abstracted from medical records and the United Network for Organ Sharing registry, respectively. Survival analysis and Cox regression were used to compare the groups. ResultsDuring the study period, 385 adults (median age 57.4 years [IQR: 48.0-63.7 years]) underwent heart-only transplantation, including 122 (32%) from DCD donors, 83% of which were recovered with the use of NRP. DCD donors were younger and had fewer comorbidities than DBD donors. DCD recipients were less often hospitalized before transplantation and less likely to require pretransplantation temporary mechanical circulatory support compared with DBD recipients. There were no significant differences between groups in 1-year survival, incidence of severe primary graft dysfunction, treated rejection during the first year, or likelihood of cardiac allograft vasculopathy at 1 year after transplantation. ConclusionsIn the largest single-center comparison of DCD and DBD heart transplantations to date, outcomes among DCD recipients are noninferior to those of DBD recipients. This study adds to the published data supporting DCD donors as a safe means to expand the heart donor pool.

Acute rejection in donation after circulatory death (DCD) heart transplants

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) heart transplantation has promising early survival, but the effects on rejection remain unclear. The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried for adult heart transplants from December 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021. Multiorgan transplants and loss to follow-up were excluded. The primary outcome was acute rejection, comparing DCD and donation after brain death (DBD) transplants. A total of 292 DCD and 5,582 DBD transplants met study criteria. Most DCD transplants were transplanted at status 3-4 (61.0%) compared to 58.6% of DBD recipients at status 1-2. DCD recipients were less likely to be hospitalized at transplant (26.7% vs 58.3%, p<0.001) and to require intra-aortic balloon pumping (IABP; 9.6% vs 28.9%, p<0.001), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO; 0.3% vs 5.9%, p<0.001) or temporary left ventricular assist device (LVAD; 1.0% vs 2.7%, p<0.001). DCD recipients were more likely to have acute rejection prior to discharge (23.3% vs 18.4%, p=0.044) and to be hospitalized for rejection (23.4% vs 11.4%, p=0.003) at a median follow-up of 15months; the latter remained significant after propensity matching. On multivariable logistic regression, DCD donation was an independent predictor of acute rejection (odds ratio [OR] 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-2.15, p=0.048) and hospitalization for rejection (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.06-3.70, p=0.026). On center-specific subgroup analysis, DCD recipients continued to have higher rates of hospitalization for rejection (23.4% vs 13.8%, p=0.043). DCD recipients are more likely to experience acute rejection. Early survival is similar between DCD and DBD recipients, but long-term implications of increased early rejection in DCD recipients require further investigation.

DCD liver transplant in patients with a MELD over 35.

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT) makes up well less than 1% of all LTs with a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD)≥35 in the United States. We hypothesized DCD-LT yields acceptable ischemia-reperfusion and reasonable outcomes for recipients with MELD≥35. We analyzed recipients with lab-MELD≥35 at transplant within the UCSF (n=41) and the UNOS (n=375) cohorts using multivariate Cox regression and propensity score matching. In the UCSF cohort, five-year patient survival was 85% for DCD-LTs and 86% for matched-Donation after Brain Death donors-(DBD) LTs (p=0.843). Multivariate analyses showed that younger donor/recipient age and more recent transplants (2011-2021 versus 1999-2010) were associated with better survival. DCD vs. DBD graft use did not significantly impact survival (HR: 1.2, 95%CI 0.6-2.7). The transaminase peak was approximately doubled, indicating suggesting an increased ischemia-reperfusion hit. DCD-LTs had a median post-LT length of stay of 11 days, and 34% (14/41) were on dialysis at discharge versus 12 days and 22% (9/41) for DBD-LTs. 27% (11/41) DCD-LTs versus 12% (5/41) DBD-LTs developed a biliary complication (p=0.095). UNOS cohort analysis confirmed patient survival predictors, but DCD graft emerged as a risk factor (HR: 1.5, 95%CI 1.3-1.9) with five-year patient survival of 65% versus 75% for DBD-LTs (p=0.016). This difference became non-significant in a sub-analysis focusing on MELD 35-36 recipients. Analysis of MELD≥35 DCD recipients showed that donor age of <30yo independently reduced the risk of graft loss by 30% (HR, 95%CI: 0.7 (0.9-0.5), p=0.019). Retransplant status was associated with a doubled risk of adverse event (HR, 95%CI: 2.1 (1.4-3.3), p=0.001). The rejection rates at 1y were similar between DCD- and DBD-LTs, (9.3% (35/375) versus 1,541 (8.7% (1,541/17,677), respectively). In highly selected recipient/donor pair, DCD transplantation is feasible and can achieve comparable survival to DBD transplantation. Biliary complications occurred at the expected rates. In the absence of selection, DCD-LTs outcomes remain worse than those of DBD-LTs.

Donation after circulatory death improves probability of heart transplantation in waitlisted candidates and results in post-transplant outcomes similar to those achieved with brain-dead donors

ObjectiveTo quantitate the impact of heart donation after circulatory death (DCD) donor utilization on both waitlist and post-transplant outcomes in the United States. MethodsThe United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried to identify all adult waitlisted and transplanted candidates between October 18, 2018, and December 31, 2022. Waitlisted candidates were stratified according to whether they had been approved for donation after brain death (DBD) offers only or also approved for DCD offers. The cumulative incidence of transplantation was compared between the 2 cohorts. In a post-transplant analysis, 1-year post-transplant survival was compared between unmatched and propensity-score-matched cohorts of DBD and DCD recipients. ResultsA total of 14,803 candidates were waitlisted, including 12,287 approved for DBD donors only and 2516 approved for DCD donors. Overall, DCD approval was associated with an increased sub-hazard ratio (HR) for transplantation and a lower sub-HR for delisting owing to death/deterioration after risk adjustment. In a subgroup analysis, candidates with blood type B and status 4 designation received the greatest benefit from DCD approval. A total of 12,238 recipients underwent transplantation, 11,636 with DBD hearts and 602 with DCD hearts. Median waitlist times were significantly shorter for status 3 and status 4 recipients receiving DCD hearts. One-year post-transplant survival was comparable between unmatched and propensity score–matched cohorts of DBD and DCD recipients. ConclusionsThe use of DCD hearts confers a higher probability of transplantation and a lower incidence of death/deterioration while on the waitlist, particularly among certain subpopulations such as status 4 candidates. Importantly, the use of DCD donors results in similar post-transplant survival as DBD donors.

Reality of DCD donor use in pediatric thoracic transplantation in the United States

In the US, the first pediatric donation after circulatory death (DCD) thoracic transplant was done in 2004; however, ethical controversy led to minimal utilization of these donors. The present study was performed to characterize the current state of pediatric DCD heart and lung transplantation (HTx, LTx). Children (<18year old) who underwent HTx or LTx using DCD donors from June 2004 to June 2022 were identified in the United Network for Organ Sharing registry. A total of 14 DCD recipients were identified: 7 (50%) HTx and 7 (50%) LTx. Donor and recipient demographics are described in Table 1. One and 5-year post-transplant survival were as follows: HTx recipients (64% for each) and LTx recipients (86%, 55%). Although often discussed, the national experience with DCD donors for pediatric HTx and LTx remains limited and not being practiced consistently by any pediatric program. Given the critical organ shortage, DCD use in the field of pediatric thoracic transplantation should be strongly considered.

Waitlist and Transplant Outcomes in Organ Donation After Circulatory Death: Trends in the United States.

To summarize waitlist and transplant outcomes in kidney, liver, lung, and heart transplantation using organ donation after circulatory death (DCD). DCD has expanded the donor pool for solid organ transplantation, most recently for heart transplantation. The United Network for Organ Sharing registry was used to identify adult transplant candidates and recipients in the most recent allocation policy eras for kidney, liver, lung, and heart transplantation. Transplant candidates and recipients were grouped by acceptance criteria for DCD versus brain-dead donors [donation after brain death (DBD)] only and DCD versus DBD transplant, respectively. Propensity matching and competing-risks regression was used to model waitlist outcomes. Survival was modeled using propensity matching and Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis. DCD transplant volumes have increased significantly across all organs. Liver candidates listed for DCD organs were more likely to undergo transplantation compared with propensity-matched candidates listed for DBD only, and heart and liver transplant candidates listed for DCD were less likely to experience death or clinical deterioration requiring waitlist inactivation. Propensity-matched DCD recipients demonstrated an increased mortality risk up to 5 years after liver and kidney transplantation and up to 3 years after lung transplantation compared with DBD. There was no difference in 1-year mortality between DCD and DBD heart transplantation. DCD continues to expand access to transplantation and improves waitlist outcomes for liver and heart transplant candidates. Despite an increased risk for mortality with DCD kidney, liver, and lung transplantation, survival with DCD transplant remains acceptable.

Metabolic Outcomes After Pancreas Transplant Alone From Donation After Circulatory Death Donors-The UK Transplant Registry Analysis.

Extrapolating data from early DCD (donation after circulatory death) kidney transplantation, pancreas transplants from DCD grafts were feared to have worse metabolic outcomes. Hence, we aimed to address the question of pancreas transplant alone (PTA) from DCD donors-are our concerns justified? A UK transplant registry analysis of 185 PTA performed between 2005 and 2018 was done. All early graft losses (<3months) were excluded to allow focus on the metabolic outcomes (HbA1c, weight gain and incidence of secondary diabetic macrovascular complications). The aim was to compare the metabolic outcomes, rejection rates (including the need for steroids), patient and graft survival between DBD (Donation after brainstem death) and DCD groups. After excluding early graft losses, data from 162 PTA (DBD = 114 and DCD = 48) were analyzed. Body mass index of the donor was less in DCD group (DBD = 23.40 vs. DCD = 22.25, p = 0.006) and the rest of the baseline transplant characteristics were comparable. There were no significant differences in the HbA1c, weight gain, rejection rate, and incidence of secondary diabetic macrovascular complications post-transplant between DBD and DCD recipients. The 1-, 5-, and 10-year patient and graft survival were similar in both the groups. PTA from DCD donors have equivalent metabolic outcomes and survival (patient/graft) as that of DBD donors.

Six-month abdominal transplant recipient outcomes from donation after circulatory death heart donors: A retrospective analysis by procurement technique

Standard US practice for donation after circulatory death (DCD) abdominal organ procurement is superrapid recovery (SRR). A newer approach using thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion (TA-NRP) shows promise for better recipient outcomes for all organs, but there are few reports of abdominal recipient outcomes from TA-NRP donors. We used the United Network for Organ Sharing data to identify all cardiac DCD donors from October 1, 2020, to May 20, 2022, and categorized them by recovery procedure (SRR vs TA-NRP). We then identified all liver, kidney, and pancreas recipients of these donors for whom 6-month outcome data were available and compared patient and graft survival, kidney delayed graft function (DGF), and biliary complications between TA-NRP DCD and SRR DCD organ recipients. Patient and graft survival did not differ significantly between groups for either kidney or liver recipients. Significantly fewer TA-NRP kidney recipients developed DGF (12.7% [15/118] vs 42.0% [84/200], P <.001), and TA-NRP and pumped kidneys had lower odds for DGF on multivariate analysis. No liver recipients in either group had biliary complications or were relisted for transplantation for ischemic cholangiopathy. Although long-term outcomes need to be investigated, our early results show similar outcomes for recipients of TA-NRP DCD abdominal organs versus recipients of SRR DCD abdominal organs. We believe that TA-NRP is an effective approach to expand the use of DCD organs.

Selecting DCD Recipients Using Predictive Indices.

Using the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database, we performed univariate and multivariate retrospective analyses on 4228 DCD liver allograft recipients. We identified 8 significant factors and incorporated them into the weighted RSI to predict 3-mo survival following DCD liver transplantation with a C-statistic of 0.6971. The most significant recipient risk factors were recipient serum sodium levels >150 mEq/L at transplant, recipient albumin <2.0 g/dL at transplant, and a history of portal vein thrombosis. Because Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score components were included as individual predictors, the DCD RSI predicts survival independently of MELD. Upon comparison with 3 previous recipient risk scores-Balance of Risk, Renal Risk Index, Patient-Survival Outcomes Following Liver Transplantation-the DCD RSI was determined to be superior at selecting optimal candidates pre-DCD transplantation, yielding a C-statistic of 0.6971. After verifying the performance of predictive indices for selection of DCD recipients, the DCD RSI is best used to preselect patients for optimized outcomes after DCD transplantation. This can increase utilization of DCD donors by improving outcomes.

Center expansion of liver transplants using donation after circulatory death organs is associated with reduced overall waitlist mortality.

Waitlist outcomes in liver transplantation (LT) for individual recipients are improved by use of allografts procured through donation after circulatory death (DCD). However, the impact of increased DCD acceptance on overall center outcomes is unknown. Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, 88 centers performing an average of ≥10 LTs/year between 1/2004 and 12/2019 were compared by percent DCD use quartile and categorized into four phenotypes according to temporal usage trends. Overall center median Model for End-stage Liver Disease at LT (MMaT), waitlist mortality, and waiting time were evaluated. The overall DCD rate was 6.1% (N=4906/80,709), ranging from 0% to 25.5%. Centers in the top DCD use quartile had lower MMaT (24 vs. 26; p<.001) and shorter overall waiting times (median 66 days vs. 90 days; p<.001) compared to bottom quartile centers. MMaT increased less over time at centers with increasing DCD use and was lower than at centers with declining DCD use (27 vs. 32; p=.017). Overall waitlist mortality between 2016 and 2019 was lower at increasing DCD use centers (17.8% vs. 22.5%, p=.034), yet did not affect 1-year mortality (p=.747). The improved waitlist outcomes at centers with expanded DCD use extend beyond DCD recipients alone without negative consequences to overall post-LT center metrics.

Abstract 11945: Improved Outcomes in Severe Primary Graft Dysfunction Following Heart Transplantation With Donation After Circulatory Death Compared to Donation After Brain Death

Introduction: Primary graft dysfunction (PGD), the leading cause of early mortality after heart transplant, is more common following heart donation after circulatory death (DCD) than following donation after brain death (DBD). We conducted a single-center, retrospective cohort study to compare the incidence, severity, and outcomes of patients experiencing PGD after DCD compared to DBD heart transplant. Methods: We reviewed the medical records of all adult heart transplant recipients at our institution between March 2016 and December 2021. Patients undergoing multi-organ transplant were excluded. PGD was diagnosed within 24 hours after transplant according to modified ISHLT criteria and was classified by severity and ventricles involved. Results: A total of 459 qualifying patients underwent heart transplant during the study period, of whom 65 (14%) were DCD recipients and 394 (86%) were DBD recipients. The incidence of PGD in DCD and DBD recipients was 34% and 23%, respectively (p = 0.070). DCD recipients were more likely to experience severe, biventricular PGD than DBD recipients (19% vs. 7.3%, p = 0.004). Among patients with severe PGD, DCD recipients experienced shorter duration of mechanical circulatory support (ECMO, VAD, or balloon pump; mean 6.0 ± 2.5 vs. 12.1 ± 11.3 days, p = 0.039; Figure), shorter post-transplant hospital length of stay (32.4 ± 41.1 vs. 61.9 ± 47.7 days, p = 0.004), and a trend toward improved 60-day survival (100% vs. 80%, p = 0.170) and one-year survival (92% [95% CI: 76%-100%] vs. 69% [53%-84%]). Conclusions: DCD heart transplant recipients were more likely to experience severe, biventricular PGD than DBD recipients. Despite this, short- and medium-term outcomes among patients with severe PGD were improved in DCD compared to DBD recipients. These data suggest different mechanisms of graft dysfunction and recovery following DCD compared to DBD and support the expansion of the heart donor pool with DCD in most potential recipients.

Improved Outcomes in Severe Primary Graft Dysfunction After Heart Transplantation Following Donation After Circulatory Death Compared With Donation After Brain Death

Primary graft dysfunction (PGD), the leading cause of early mortality after heart transplantation, is more common following donation after circulatory death (DCD) than donation after brain death (DBD). We conducted a single-center, retrospective cohort study to compare the incidence, severity and outcomes of patients experiencing PGD after DCD compared to DBD heart transplantation. Medical records were reviewed for all adult heart transplant recipients at our institution between March 2016 and December 2021. PGD was diagnosed within 24 hours after transplant according to modified International Society for Heart and Lung Transplant criteria. A total of 459 patients underwent isolated heart transplantation during the study period, 65 (14%) following DCD and 394 (86%) following DBD. The incidence of moderate or severe PGD in DCD and DBD recipients was 34% and 23%, respectively (P = 0.070). DCD recipients were more likely to experience severe biventricular PGD than DBD recipients (19% vs 7.4%; P = 0.004). Among patients with severe PGD, DCD recipients experienced shorter median (Q1, Q3) duration of post-transplant mechanical circulatory support (6 [4, 7] vs 9 [5, 14] days; P = 0.039), shorter median post-transplant hospital length of stay (17 [15, 29] vs 52 [26, 83] days; P = 0.004), and similar 60-day survival rates (100% [95% CI: 76.8%-100%] vs 80.0% [63.1%-91.6%]; P = 0.17) and overall survival (log-rank; P = 0.078) compared with DBD recipients. DCD heart transplant recipients were more likely to experience severe, biventricular PGD than DBD recipients. Despite this, DCD recipients with severe PGD spent fewer days on mechanical circulatory support and in the hospital than similar DBD patients. These findings suggest that patterns of graft dysfunction and recovery may differ between donor types, and they support the expansion of the heart-donor pool with DCD.

Hemodynamic and Clinical Performance of Hearts Donated After Circulatory Death

BackgroundDonor organ demand continues to outpace supply in heart transplantation. Utilization of donation after circulatory death (DCD) hearts could significantly increase heart donor availability for patients with advanced heart failure. ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to describe hemodynamic and clinical profiles of DCD hearts in comparison to standard of care (SOC) hearts donated after brain death (DBD). MethodsThis single-center retrospective cohort study of consecutive heart transplant recipients analyzed right heart catheterization measurements, inotrope scores, echocardiograms, and clinical outcomes between DCD and DBD heart recipients. ResultsBetween April 2016 and February 2022, 47 DCD and 166 SOC hearts were transplanted. Median time from DCD consent to transplant was significantly shorter compared with SOC waiting list time (17 days [6-28 days] vs 70 days [23-240 days]; P < 0.001). Right heart function was significantly impaired in DCD recipients compared with SOC recipients 1 week post-transplant (higher median right atrial pressure (10 mm Hg [8-13 mm Hg] vs 7 mm Hg [5-11 mm Hg]; P < 0.001), higher right atrial pressure to pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ratio (0.64 [0.54-0.82] vs 0.57 [0.43-0.73]; P = 0.016), and lower pulmonary arterial pulsatility index (1.66 [1.27-2.50] vs 2.52 [1.63-3.82]; P < 0.001), but was similar between groups by 3 weeks post-transplant. DCD and SOC recipient mortality was similar at 30 days (DCD 0 vs SOC 2%; P = 0.29) and 1 year post-transplant (DCD 3% vs SOC 8%; P = 0.16). ConclusionsDCD heart utilization is associated with transient post-transplant right heart dysfunction and short-term clinical outcomes otherwise similar to transplantation using DBD hearts.

Post-Kidney Transplantation Results After Circulatory or Brain Death Without Pre-Mortem Heparin Administration.

BackgroundKidney donation after circulatory death (DCD) follows confirmation of death using cardiorespiratory criteria, while donation after brain death (DBD) uses neurological criteria. DBD and DCD donors are the main sources of grafts for transplantation. This retrospective cohort study from a single center in the Czech Republic aimed to compare 5-year post-transplantation outcomes after DCD and DBD transplantation without pre-mortem heparin administration.Material/MethodsA total of 227 recipients with matched donors enrolled in the transplantation program at our institution between 2015 and 2019 were analyzed. Following the application of the inclusion criteria, 99 recipients and 94 matched donors were finally included in the study.ResultsThe duration of cold ischemia (median 961 vs 1100 min, P=0.028) and the perfusion with the preservation solution (median 11 vs 22 min, P<0.001) was statistically significantly shorter in DBD than in DCD grafts. The 1-year survival rates were 97.5% (95% CI 94.1–100.0%) and 90.0% (95% CI: 77.8–100.0%) for DBD and DCD recipients, respectively. The 3-year survival rates were 91.9 (95% CI: 86.0–98.4) and 90.0 (95% CI: 77.8–100.0) for the DBD and DCD groups, respectively. The overall difference in survival between the 2 groups of patients was not statistically significant (P=0.750) nor was disease-free survival (P=0.370).ConclusionsThis retrospective study from a single center showed similar 5-year results after kidney transplantation for DCD and DBD donors without pre-mortem heparin administration, including the time to graft failure and patient survival.

Results of Heart Transplants from Donation After Circulatory Death (DCD) Donors Using Thoraco-Abdominal Normothermic Regional Perfusion (TA-NRP) Compared to Donation After Brain Death (DBD)

<h3>Purpose</h3> In the U.S., heart transplantation from donation after circulatory death (DCD) is increasing. We present our institutional experience of DCD transplantation by using a thoracoabdominal-normothermic regional perfusion (TA-NRP) protocol and compare the results to a cohort concomitantly transplanted, from standard brain death (DBD) donation. <h3>Methods</h3> For TA-NRP protocol, suitable local DCD donors were transferred to our institution and co-located with the recipient in proximate operating rooms. Standard DCD procurement involved resuscitation of the donor on cardiopulmonary bypass after declaration of death and assessment for suitability by echocardiogram and hemodynamic data. Heart transplant from DBD was performed per standard protocol. Immunosuppression and management followed the same standardized protocol for all recipients. <h3>Results</h3> Between January 2020 and October 2021, we performed 10 DCD transplantations with TA-NRP protocol (7 isolated heart, 2 heart-lung and 1 heart-kidney). The median age was 54 years (44-72), and 70% were male. One heart-lung transplant recipient required VA ECMO post-op, for 3 days. During the same period, 70 patients received heart transplant from a DBD donor (71.4% isolated heart, 7.1% heart-lung, 21.4% heart-kidney). The median age was 56 years (24-77) - p=0.916, 84.% were male p=0.27. At mean follow-up of 397.6 days (DCD recipients) and 305.9 days (DBD recipients), there were no significant differences in acute cellular, antibody mediated rejection, cardiac allograft vasculopathy, heart graft function, and survival. Compared to DBD recipients, DCD recipients received transplant at lower listed statuses. <h3>Conclusion</h3> Short-term results suggest that transplant outcomes from DCD TA-NRP are comparable to recipients from DBD. Expanding heart transplantation by using DCD is a viable option for lower-status listed patients and wide adoption should be considered.

Adult Lung Transplantation from Donation After Circulatory Death Donors: Safety and Outcomes Utilizing the UNOS / OPTN Registry

<h3>Purpose</h3> Donation after circulatory death (DCD) has been described in abdominal transplantation but has not been thoroughly evaluated in lung transplantation. The aim of this retrospective study was to describe and compare DCD utilization with donation after brain death (DBD). <h3>Methods</h3> The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database was reviewed for all adult patients who underwent lung transplant between 2016 and 2020. Baseline features and post-transplant outcomes were reviewed using descriptive and survival analyses by the Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression method. <h3>Results</h3> A total of 11,837 isolated lung transplant recipients met criteria for analysis. DCD utilization increased over time, from 92/2198 (14.7%) in 2016 to 180/2376 (28.8%) recipients in 2020 (p<0.001 for trend). DCD patients were more likely double lung recipients (79.9 vs 74.6%), had longer ischemia times (7.6 vs. 5.5 h), and were more commonly intubated (42.8 vs. 29.9%) and required extracorporeal support (12.5 vs 7.2%) up to 72 h following surgery (Table 1). Unadjusted overall survival was worse for DCD vs DBD patients (log rank, p<0.001). When stratified by transplant type, there was no survival difference between DCD and DBD single lung recipients (log rank, p=0.322); however, survival among double lung recipients was worse for DCD vs DBD patients (log rank, p<0.001). After adjustment for statistically significant covariates (Table 1), DCD status was not associated with mortality for double lung recipients (HR: 1.189, 95% CI [0.985 - 1.435]; p=0.071). Ischemia time (HR: 1.029, 95% CI [1.007 - 1.052]; p=0.010) and extracorporeal support (HR: 2.862, 95% CI [2.512 - 3.260]; p<0.001) after transplant were more common in DCD patients and strongly associated with mortality up to 5 years. <h3>Conclusion</h3> DCD status was associated with worse survival in double lung transplant recipients, which may be attributed to longer ischemia times. Additional efforts will be required to characterize and mitigate these effects.

Heart Transplantation from Donation After Circulatory Death Donors: An Update on the Australian Experience

<h3>Purpose</h3> With an expanding end-stage heart failure population the demand for donor hearts is increasing. Donation after circulatory death (DCD) is a pathway that could help address this; we explore the impact of DCD over the last 8-years on our unit and compare our early vs contemporary outcomes. <h3>Methods</h3> All DCD heart transplants at our unit were included. Inclusion criteria for DCD donors are: normal transthoracic echo, age <55yrs & nil previous cardiac history. DCD heart retrievals are subject to varying functional (when systolic blood pressure drops <90mmHg) and asystolic warm ischemic times (aWIT) prior to administration of cardioplegia - this warrants an assessment of viability through visual inspection and monitoring of lactate levels. Donor hearts are cannulated onto an ex-vivo normothermic machine perfusion device where 1.2-1.5L of donor blood is circulated in a Langendorff fashion. <h3>Results</h3> Since 2014 we have performed 69 DCD heart transplants. Since 2020, DCD donors account for 32% of our heart transplant activity (32/100). Overall 1yr & 5yr survival for DCD vs BD donor heart transplant recipients was not significantly different (p=0.27). In the early experience, 12/34 patients (35.3%) required immediate post-operative ECMO or mechanical support. Recent recipients have a significantly lower rate with 3/35 (8.57%) requiring ECMO/mechanical support post-transplant (p=0.009). Mean DCD donor & recipient age was 32.6yrs(+/-10.5yrs) & 53.6yrs(+/-12.7yrs) respectively. Mean donor aWIT was 12.3mins (+/-2.8mins). Recipients of donors with an aWIT >15mins had significantly higher post-transplant ECMO/mechanical support requirement compared to those with an aWIT <=15mins (66.17% vs 17.46%, p=0.0177, OR 9.455). Median hospital length of stay was 17.5days (11-27.5days). <h3>Conclusion</h3> DCD donors can contribute to heart transplantation activity with survival comparable to BD pathways. Donor hearts subject to an aWIT >15mins are more likely to require post-operative ECMO/mechanical support.