Optimal donation of kidney transplants after controlled circulatory death

Controlled donation after circulatory death (cDCD) is used for “extended criteria” donors with poorer kidney transplant outcomes. The French cDCD program started in 2015 and is characterized by normothermic regional perfusion, hypothermic machine perfusion, and short cold ischemia time. We compared the outcomes of kidney transplantation from cDCD and brain-dead (DBD) donors, matching cDCD and DBD kidney transplants by propensity scoring for donor and recipient characteristics. The matching process retained 442 of 499 cDCD and 809 of 6185 DBD transplantations. The DGF rate was 20% in cDCD recipients compared with 28% in DBD recipients (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12–1.82). When DBD transplants were ranked by cold ischemia time and machine perfusion use and compared with cDCD transplants, the aRR of DGF was higher for DBD transplants without machine perfusion, regardless of the cold ischemia time (aRR with cold ischemia time <18 h, 1.57; 95% CI 1.20–2.03, vs aRR with cold ischemia time ≥18 h, 1.79; 95% CI 1.31–2.44). The 1-year graft survival rate was similar in both groups. Early outcome was better for kidney transplants from cDCD than from matched DBD transplants with this French protocol.     

Improving the Outcomes of Organs Obtained From Controlled Donation After Circulatory Death Donors Using Abdominal Normothermic Regional Perfusion

The use of donation after circulatory death (DCD) has increased significantly during the past decade. However, warm ischemia results in a greater risk for transplantation. Indeed, controlled DCD (cDCD) was associated with inferior outcomes compared with donation after brain death. The use of abdominal normothermic regional perfusion (nRP) to restore blood flow before organ recovery in cDCD has been proposed as better than rapid recovery to reverse the effect of ischemia and improve recipients’ outcome. Here, the first Spanish series using abdominal nRP as an in situ conditioning method is reported. A specific methodology to avoid restoring circulation to the brain after death determination is described. Twenty‐seven cDCD donors underwent abdominal nRP during at least 60 min. Thirty‐seven kidneys, 11 livers, six bilateral lungs, and one pancreas were transplanted. The 1‐year death‐censored kidney survival was 91%, and delayed graft function rate was 27%. The 1‐year liver survival rate was 90.1% with no cases of ischemic cholangiopathy. Transplanted lungs and pancreas exhibited primary function. The use of nRP may represent an advance to increase the number and quality of grafts in cDCD. Poor results in cDCD livers could be reversed with nRP. Concerns about restoring brain circulation after death are easily solved.     

Excellent long‐term outcome with lungs obtained from uncontrolled donation after circulatory death

We aimed to propose a simple and effective preservation method in lungs procured for transplantation from uncontrolled donation after circulatory death (uDCD) associated with excellent long‐term results. Outcome measures for lung recipients were survival and primary graft dysfunction (PGD) grade 3. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. A total of 9 lung uDCDs were evaluated and 8 lung transplants were performed. Mean no‐flow time was 9.8 minutes (standard deviation [SD] 8.6). Mean time from cardiac arrest to topical cooling was 96.8 minutes (SD 16.8). Preservation time was 159 minutes (SD 31). Ex vivo lung perfusion was used to assess lung function prior to transplantation in 2 cases. Mean recipient age was 60.8 years (SD 3.1), and mean total ischemic time was 678 minutes (SD 132). PGD grade 3 was observed in 2 cases (25%). The 1‐month, 1‐year, and 5‐year survival rates were 100%, 87.5%, and 87.5%, respectively. Mean follow‐up was 52 months. The logistic complexity of procuring lungs from uDCDs for transplantation requires the development of new strategies designed to facilitate this type of donation. A program based on strict selection criteria, using a simple and effective preservation technique, may recover lung grafts with excellent long‐term posttransplant outcomes.     

Outcomes of organ transplants when the donor is a prior recipient

Organ shortage continues to challenge the field of transplantation. One potential group of donors are those who have been transplant recipients themselves, or Organ Donation After Transplant (ODAT) donors. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to describe ODAT donors and to compare outcomes of ODAT grafts versus conventional grafts. From October 1, 1987 to June 30, 2015, 517 former recipients successfully donated 803 organs for transplant. Former kidney recipients generally survived a median of approximately 4 years before becoming an ODAT donor whereas liver, lung, and heart recipients generally survived less than a month prior to donation. In the period June 1, 2005 to December 31, 2014, liver grafts from ODAT donors had a significantly higher risk of graft failure compared to non‐ODAT liver transplants (P = .008). Kidney grafts donated by ODAT donors whose initial transplant occurred >1 year prior were associated with significantly increased graft failure (P = .012). Despite increased risk of graft failure amongst certain ODAT grafts, 5‐year survival was still high. ODAT donors should be considered another form of expanded criteria donor under these circumstances.     

Kidney transplant from uncontrolled donation after circulatory death donors maintained by nECMO has long‐term outcomes comparable to standard criteria donation after brain death

Uncontrolled donation after circulatory death (uDCD) increases organ availability for kidney transplant (KT) with short‐term outcomes similar to those obtained from donation after brain death (DBD) donors. However, heterogeneous results in the long term have been reported. We compared 10‐year outcomes between 237 KT recipients from uDCD donors maintained by normothermic extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (nECMO) and 237 patients undergoing KT from standard criteria DBD donors during the same period at our institution. We further analyzed risk factors for death‐censored graft survival in the uDCD group. Delayed graft function (DGF) was more common in the uDCD group (73.4% vs 46.4%; P < .01), although glomerular filtration rates at the end of follow‐up were similar in the 2 groups. uDCD and DBD groups had similar rates for 10‐year death‐censored graft (82.1% vs 80.4%; P = .623) and recipient survival (86.2% vs 87.6%; P = .454). Donor age >50 years was associated with graft loss in the uDCD group (hazard ratio: 1.91; P = .058), whereas the occurrence of DGF showed no significant effect. uDCD KT under nECMO support resulted in similar graft function and long‐term outcomes compared with KT from standard criteria DBD donors. Increased donor age could negatively affect graft survival after uDCD donation.     

The duration of asystolic ischemia determines the risk of graft failure after circulatory‐dead donor kidney transplantation: A Eurotransplant cohort study

Circulatory death donor (DCD) kidney transplantations are steadily increasing. Consensus reports recommend limiting donor warm ischemia time (DWIT) in DCD donation, although an independent effect on graft outcome has not been demonstrated. We investigated death‐censored graft survival in 18 065 recipients of deceased‐donor kidney transplants in the Eurotransplant region: 1059 DCD and 17 006 brain‐dead donor (DBD) kidney recipients. DWIT was defined as time from circulatory arrest until cold flush. DCD donation was an independent risk factor for graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.28, 95% CI 1.10‐1.46), due to an increased risk of primary nonfunction (62/1059 vs 560/17 006; P < .0001). With DWIT in the model, DCD donation was no longer a risk factor, demonstrating that DWIT explains the inferior graft survival of DCD kidneys. Indeed, DCD transplants with short DWIT have graft survival comparable to that of standard‐criteria DBD transplants (P = .59). DWIT also associated with graft failure in DCDs (adjusted HR 1.20 per 10‐minute increase, 95% CI 1.03‐1.42). At 5 years after transplantation, graft failure occurred in 14 of 133 recipients (10.5%) with DWIT <10 minutes, 139 of 555 recipients (25.0%) with DWIT between 10 and 19 minutes, and 117 of 371 recipients (31.5%) with DWIT ≥20 minutes. These findings support the expert opinion–based guidelines to limit DWIT.     

Improved short-term outcomes of kidney transplants in controlled donation after the circulatory determination of death with the use of normothermic regional perfusion

Normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) allows the in situ perfusion of organs with oxygenated blood in donation after the circulatory determination of death (DCDD). We aimed at evaluating the impact of NRP on the short-term outcomes of kidney transplants in controlled DCDD (cDCDD). This is a multicenter, nationwide, retrospective study comparing cDCDD kidneys obtained with NRP versus the standard rapid recovery (RR) technique. During 2012–2018, 2302 cDCDD adult kidney transplants were performed in Spain using NRP (n = 865) or RR (n = 1437). The study groups differed in donor and recipient age, warm, and cold ischemic time and use of ex situ machine perfusion. Transplants in the NRP group were more frequently performed in high-volume centers (≥90 transplants/year). Through matching by propensity score, two cohorts with a total of 770 patients were obtained. After the matching, no statistically significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of primary nonfunction (p = .261) and mortality at 1 year (p =  .111). However, the RR of kidneys was associated with a significantly increased odds of delayed graft function (OR 1.97 [95% CI 1.43–2.72]; p < .001) and 1-year graft loss (OR 1.77 [95% CI 1.01–3.17]; p = .034). In conclusion, compared with RR, NRP appears to improve the short-term outcomes of cDCDD kidney transplants.     

Outcome of Liver Transplants Using Donors After Cardiac Death With Normothermic Regional Perfusion

Background and AimsThe incorporation of normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) to donors after cardiac death (DCD) allows the recovery of liver grafts without the deleterious effects on graft survival the super-rapid technique may cause. The aim of the present report is to determine if the use of NRP in Maastricht type III DCD donors achieves short- and medium-term results comparable to donors after brain death (DBD).Patients and MethodsThis is an observational cohort study including 117 liver transplants executed between November 2016 and April 2021, divided into NRP (n = 39) and DBD (n = 78).ResultsDonors were younger in the NRP group (NRP 52 vs DBD 59.4 years; P < .005). Liver recipients in each study group were of similar age and severity of liver disease, although the predominant transplant indication in the NRP group was hepatocellular carcinoma. No differences in ischemia times were found. The incidence of early allograft disfunction and primary nonfunction was balanced between NRP and DBD. Eight patients required retransplant, all of them in the DBD group. No differences were found in biliary complications (NRP 12% vs DBD 5%; P = .104). Ischemic cholangiopathy affected a single DBD patient. Graft survival's Kaplan Meier curve shows a better outcome in the NRP group, although the difference did not reach significance (P = .075).ConclusionsThe incorporation of perfusion machines, and specifically the NPR in situ, converts suboptimal liver grafts such as DCD into organs comparable to DBDs.     

In Situ Normothermic Regional Perfusion for Controlled Donation After Circulatory Death—The United Kingdom Experience

Organs recovered from donors after circulatory death (DCD) suffer warm ischemia before cold storage which may prejudice graft survival and result in a greater risk of complications after transplant. A period of normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) in the donor may reverse these effects and improve organ function. Twenty‐one NRP retrievals from Maastricht category III DCD donors were performed at three UK centers. NRP was established postasystole via aortic and caval cannulation and maintained for 2 h. Blood gases and biochemistry were monitored to assess organ function. Sixty‐three organs were recovered. Forty‐nine patients were transplanted. The median time from asystole to NRP was 16 min (range 10–23 min). Thirty‐two patients received a kidney transplant. The median cold ischemia time was 12 h 30 min (range 5 h 25 min–18 h 22 min). The median creatinine at 3 and 12 months was 107 µmol/L (range 72–222) and 121 µmol/L (range 63–157), respectively. Thirteen (40%) recipients had delayed graft function and four lost the grafts. Eleven patients received a liver transplant. The first week median peak ALT was 389 IU/L (range 58–3043). One patient had primary nonfunction. Two combined pancreas–kidney transplants, one islet transplant and three double lung transplants were performed with primary function. NRP in DCD donation facilitates organ recovery and may improve short‐term outcomes.     

Use of ex vivo normothermic machine perfusion after normothermic regional perfusion to salvage a poorly perfused DCD kidney

Normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) and normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) have both been used in the procurement and conditioning of abdominal organs from donation after circulatory death donors with reported improved outcomes for the recipients. Here, we describe an unusual case of a kidney that underwent NMP after NRP. After 2 hours of abdominal NRP, the intra‐abdominal organs were cold flushed in situ. The liver and right kidney were well flushed, but the left kidney was poorly flushed. Further attempts to clear the left kidney by flushing on the backtable were unsuccessful, and the kidney was thought to be unsuitable for transplant. The left kidney then underwent a 1‐hour period of NMP using a red cell–based perfusate. During NMP, the kidney met previously described quality assurance criteria for transplant with good global perfusion and adequate renal blood flow and urine production. The kidney was transplanted into a suitable recipient who had slow early graft function but did not require dialysis posttransplant. The recipient was discharged 6 days posttransplant, and the serum creatinine level was 160 μmol/L (1.8 mg/dL) at 2 months posttransplant.     

Uncontrolled donation after circulatory death: A cohort study of data from a long‐standing deceased‐donor kidney transplantation program

Despite good long‐term outcomes of kidney transplants from controlled donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors, there are few uncontrolled DCD (uDCD) programs. This longitudinal study compares outcomes for all uDCD (N = 774) and all donation after brain death (DBD) (N = 613) kidney transplants performed from 1996 to 2015 at our center. DBD transplants were divided into those from standard‐criteria (SCD) (N = 366) and expanded‐criteria (N = 247) brain‐dead donors (ECD). One‐, 5‐, and 10‐year graft survival rates were 91.7%, 85.7%, and 80.6% for SCD; 86.0%, 75.8%, and 61.4% for ECD; and 85.1%, 78.1%, and 72.2% for uDCD, respectively. Graft survival was worse in recipients of uDCD kidneys than of SCD (P = .004) but better than in transplants from ECD (P = .021). The main cause of graft loss in the uDCD transplants was primary nonfunction. Through logistic regression, donor death due to pulmonary embolism (OR 4.31, 95% CI 1.65‐11.23), extrahospital CPR time ≥75 minutes (OR1.94, 95%CI 1.18‐3.22), and in‐hospital CPR time ≥50 minutes (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.09‐2.93) emerged as predictive factors of primary nonunction. According to the outcomes of our long‐standing kidney transplantation program, uDCD could help expand the kidney donor pool.     

Safety and Outcomes in 100 Consecutive Donation After Circulatory Death Liver Transplants Using a Protocol That Includes Thrombolytic Therapy

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT) reportedly yields inferior survival and increased complication rates compared with donation after brain death (DBD). We compare 100 consecutive DCD LT using a protocol that includes thrombolytic therapy (late DCD group) to an historical DCD group (early DCD group n = 38) and a cohort of DBD LT recipients (DBD group n = 435). Late DCD LT recipients had better 1‐ and 3‐year graft survival rates than early DCD LT recipients (92% vs. 76.3%, p = 0.03 and 91.4% vs. 73.7%, p = 0.01). Late DCD graft survival rates were comparable to those of the DBD group (92% vs. 93.3%, p = 0.24 and 91.4% vs. 88.2%, p = 0.62). Re‐transplantation occurred in 18.4% versus 1% for the early and late DCD groups, respectively (p = 0.001). Patient survival was similar in all three groups. Ischemic‐type biliary lesions (ITBL) occurred in 5%, 3%, and 0.2% for early DCD, late DCD, and DBD groups, respectively, but unlike in the early DCD group, in the late DCD group ITBL was endoscopically managed and resolved in each case. Using a protocol that includes a thrombolytic therapy, DCD LT yielded patient and graft survival rates comparable to DBD LT.     

Lung transplantation from uncontrolled and controlled donation after circulatory death: similar outcomes to brain death donors

Controlled donation after circulatory death donors (cDCD) are becoming a frequent source of lungs grafts worldwide. Conversely, lung transplantations (LTx) from uncontrolled donors (uDCD) are sporadically reported. We aimed to review our institutional experience using both uDCD and cDCD and compare to LTx from brain death donors (DBD). This is a retrospective analysis of all LTx performed between January 2013 and December 2019 in our institution. Donor and recipient characteristics were collected and univariate, multivariate and survival analyses were carried out comparing the three cohorts of donors. A total of 239 (84.7%) LTx were performed from DBD, 29 (10.3%) from cDCD and 14 (5%) from uDCD. There were no statistically significant differences in primary graft dysfunction grade 3 at 72 h, 30- and 90-day mortality, need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation after procedure, ICU and hospital length of stay, airway complications, CLAD incidence or survival at 1 and 3 years after transplant (DBD: 87.1% and 78.1%; cDCD: 89.7% and 89.7%; uDCD: 85.7% and 85.7% respectively; P = 0.42). Short- and mid-term outcomes are comparable between the three types of donors. These findings may encourage and reinforce all types of donation after circulatory death programmes as a valid and growing source of suitable organs for transplantation.     

Utilization of high donor sequence number grafts in cardiac transplantation

Donor sequence number (DSN) represents the number of candidates to whom a graft was offered and declined prior to acceptance for transplantation. We sought to investigate the outcomes of patients receiving high DSN grafts. Consecutive isolated adult cardiac transplantations performed at a single‐center were reviewed. Recipients were grouped into standard (≤75th percentile) DSN and high (>75th percentile) DSN. A previously validated donor risk index was used to quantify the risk associated with donor grafts, and recipient outcomes were assessed. Overall, 254 patients were included: 194 standard DSN (range 1‐79) and 60 high DSN (range 82‐1723). High DSN grafts were harvested at greater distance (P < .001) with increased ischemia time (P < .001), resulting in a modest increase in donor risk index (1 point median difference, P = .014). High DSN recipients were less frequently listed as UNOS status 1A (P < .001). Despite a nonsignificant trend toward increased in‐hospital/30‐day mortality in high DSN recipients, there were no differences in primary graft dysfunction or 1‐year survival (high DSN 89% vs standard DSN 88%, P = .82). After adjustment for risk factors, high DSN was not associated with increased 1‐year mortality (hazard ratio 1.18, 95%‐CI 0.54‐2.58, P = .68).     

Pediatric living donor liver transplantation with large‐for‐size left lateral segment grafts

Usage of “large‐for‐size” left lateral segment (LLS) liver grafts in children with high graft to recipient weight ratio (GRWR) is controversial due to concerns about increased recipient complications. During the study period, 77 pediatric living donor liver transplantations (LDLTs) with LLS grafts were performed. We compared recipients with GRWR ≥2.5% (GR‐High = 50) vs GRWR <2.5% (GR‐Low = 27). Median age was higher in the GR‐Low group (40 vs 8 months, P> .0001). Graft (GR‐High: 98%, 98%, 98% vs GR‐Low: 96%, 93%, 93%) and patient (GR‐High: 98%, 98%, 98% vs GR‐Low: 100%, 96%, 96%) survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was similar between groups (P = NS). Overall complications were also similar (34% vs 30%; P = .8). Hepatic artery and portal vein thrombosis following transplantation was not different (P = NS). Delayed abdominal fascia closure was more common in GR‐High patients (17 vs 1; P = .002). Subgroup analysis comparing recipients with GRWR ≥4% (GR‐XL = 20) to GRWR <2.5% (GRWR‐Low = 27) revealed that delayed abdominal fascia closure was more common in the GR‐XL group, but postoperative complications and graft and patient survival were similar. We conclude that pediatric LDLT with large‐for‐size LLS grafts is associated with excellent clinical outcomes. There is an increased need for delayed abdominal closure with no compromise of long‐term outcomes. The use of high GRWR expands the donor pool and improves timely access to the benefits of transplantation without extra risks.     

Long‐term outcome of renal transplantation from octogenarian donors: A multicenter controlled study

To assess whether biopsy‐guided selection of kidneys from very old brain‐dead donors enables more successful transplantations, the authors of this multicenter, observational study compared graft survival between 37 recipients of 1 or 2 histologically evaluated kidneys from donors older than 80 years and 198 reference‐recipients of non–histologically evaluated single grafts from donors aged 60 years and younger (transplantation period: 2006‐2013 at 3 Italian centers). During a median (interquartile range) of 25 (13‐42) months, 2 recipients (5.4%) and 10 reference‐recipients (5.1%) required dialysis (crude and donor age‐ and sex‐adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.55 [0.34‐7.12], P = .576 and 1.41 [0.10‐19.54], P = .798, respectively). Shared frailty analyses confirmed similar outcomes in a 1:2 propensity score study comparing recipients with 74 reference‐recipients matched by center, year, donor, and recipient sex and age. Serum creatinine was similar across groups during 84‐month follow‐up. Recipients had remarkably shorter waiting times than did reference‐recipients and matched reference‐recipients (7.5 [4.0‐19.5] vs 36 [19‐56] and 40 [24‐56] months, respectively, P < .0001 for both comparisons). Mean (± SD) kidney donor risk index was 2.57 ± 0.32 in recipients vs 1.09 ± 0.24 and 1.14 ± 0.24 in reference‐recipients and matched reference‐recipients (P < .0001 for both comparisons). Adverse events were similar across groups. Biopsy‐guided allocation of kidneys from octogenarian donors permits further expansion of the donor organ pool and faster access to a kidney transplant, without increasing the risk of premature graft failure.     

In situ normothermic perfusion of livers in controlled circulatory death donation may prevent ischemic cholangiopathy and improve graft survival

Livers from controlled donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors suffer a higher incidence of nonfunction, poor function, and ischemic cholangiopathy. In situ normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) restores a blood supply to the abdominal organs after death using an extracorporeal circulation for a limited period before organ recovery. We undertook a retrospective analysis to evaluate whether NRP was associated with improved outcomes of livers from DCD donors. NRP was performed on 70 DCD donors from whom 43 livers were transplanted. These were compared with 187 non‐NRP DCD donor livers transplanted at the same two UK centers in the same period. The use of NRP was associated with a reduction in early allograft dysfunction (12% for NRP vs. 32% for non‐NRP livers, P = .0076), 30‐day graft loss (2% NRP livers vs. 12% non‐NRP livers, P = .0559), freedom from ischemic cholangiopathy (0% vs. 27% for non‐NRP livers, P < .0001), and fewer anastomotic strictures (7% vs. 27% non‐NRP, P = .0041). After adjusting for other factors in a multivariable analysis, NRP remained significantly associated with freedom from ischemic cholangiopathy (P < .0001). These data suggest that NRP during organ recovery from DCD donors leads to superior liver outcomes compared to conventional organ recovery.     

Steroid pretreatment of organ donors does not impact on early rejection and long‐term kidney allograft survival: Results from a multicenter randomized,controlled trial

Steroid pretreatment of deceased donors reduces inflammation in allografts and is recommended by organ procurement guidelines. The impact on long‐term graft outcome, however, remains elusive. In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, 306 deceased donors providing organs for 455 renal transplant recipients were randomized to 1000 mg of methylprednisolone or placebo prior to organ procurement (ISRCTN78828338). The incidence of biopsy‐confirmed rejection (Banff>1) at 3 months was 23 (10%) in the steroid group and 26 (12%) in the placebo group (P = .468). Five‐year functional graft survival was 84% and 82% for the steroid group and placebo group, respectively (P‐value = .941). The hazard ratio of functional graft loss was 0.90 (95% confidence interval 0.57‐1.42, P = .638) for steroid vs placebo in a multivariate Cox model. We did not observe effect modification by any of the predictors of graft survival and treatment modality. A robust sandwich estimate was used to account for paired grafts of some donors. The mean estimated GFR at 5 years was 47 mL/min per 1.73 m² in the steroid group and 48 mL/min per 1.73 m² in the placebo group (P = .756). We conclude that steroid pretreatment does not impact on long‐term graft survival. In a donor population with higher risk of delayed graft function, however, repetitive and higher doses of steroid treatment may result in different findings.     

A Multicenter Study on Long‐Term Outcomes After Lung Transplantation Comparing Donation After Circulatory Death and Donation After Brain Death

The implementation of donation after circulatory death category 3 (DCD3) was one of the attempts to reduce the gap between supply and demand of donor lungs. In the Netherlands, the total number of potential lung donors was greatly increased by the availability of DCD3 lungs in addition to the initial standard use of donation after brain death (DBD) lungs. From the three lung transplant centers in the Netherlands, 130 DCD3 recipients were one‐to‐one nearest neighbor propensity score matched with 130 DBD recipients. The primary end points were primary graft dysfunction (PGD), posttransplant lung function, freedom from chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD), and overall survival. PGD did not differ between the groups. Posttransplant lung function was comparable after bilateral lung transplantation, but seemed worse after DCD3 single lung transplantation. The incidence of CLAD (p = 0.17) nor the freedom from CLAD (p = 0.36) nor the overall survival (p = 0.40) were significantly different between both groups. The presented multicenter results are derived from a national context where one third of the lung transplantations are performed with DCD3 lungs. We conclude that the long‐term outcome after lung transplantation with DCD3 donors is similar to that of DBD donors and that DCD3 donation can substantially enlarge the donor pool.     

Local Expansion of Donation After Circulatory Death Kidney Transplant Activity Improves Waitlisted Outcomes and Addresses Inequities of Access to Transplantation

In the United Kingdom, donation after circulatory death (DCD) kidney transplant activity has increased rapidly, but marked regional variation persists. We report how increased DCD kidney transplant activity influenced waitlisted outcomes for a single center. Between 2002–2003 and 2011–2012, 430 (54%) DCD and 361 (46%) donation after brain death (DBD) kidney‐only transplants were performed at the Cambridge Transplant Centre, with a higher proportion of DCD donors fulfilling expanded criteria status (41% DCD vs. 32% DBD; p = 0.01). Compared with U.K. outcomes, for which the proportion of DCD:DBD kidney transplants performed is lower (25%; p < 0.0001), listed patients at our center waited less time for transplantation (645 vs. 1045 days; p < 0.0001), and our center had higher transplantation rates and lower numbers of waiting list deaths. This was most apparent for older patients (aged >65 years; waiting time 730 vs. 1357 days nationally; p < 0.001), who received predominantly DCD kidneys from older donors (mean donor age 64 years), whereas younger recipients received equal proportions of living donor, DBD and DCD kidney transplants. Death‐censored kidney graft survival was nevertheless comparable for younger and older recipients, although transplantation conferred a survival benefit from listing for only younger recipients. Local expansion in DCD kidney transplant activity improves survival outcomes for younger patients and addresses inequity of access to transplantation for older recipients.