The impact of donor variables on the outcome of orthotopic liver transplantation for hepatitis C

Morphologic characteristics of the graft have been proposed as a major contributor to the long-term outcomes in orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). Our objective was to determine the impact of donor variables, including donor age, donor-recipient HLA match, and type of donation (DCD vs donation after brain death [DBD]), on the outcome of OLT in 192 patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV). Fourteen patients underwent OLT from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors and 188 from DBD donors. Mean donor age, warm ischemia time at recovery, and cold ischemia time were similar between the groups. Overall graft survival rate at 1 year (55% DCD vs 85% DBD) and 5 years (46% DCD vs 78% DBD) was significantly lower in the DCD group (P = .0003). Similarly, patient survival rate at 1 year (62% DCD vs 93% DBD) and 5 years (62% DCD vs 82% DBD) was significantly lower in the DCD group (P = .0295). Incidences of hepatic artery thrombosis, portal vein thrombosis, and primary nonfunction were similar between the DCD and DBD groups. The incidence of liver abscess with ischemic-type biliary stricture was higher in recipients from DCD as compared with DBD (42% vs 2%). A trend toward lower graft survival was noted in recipients from donors older than 60 years of age in the HCV population (P = .07), with statistically lower patient survival (P = .02). Donor- recipient HLA matching did not appear to correlate with OLT outcome in patients with HCV. DCD donors and donors older than 60 years of age significantly impact patient and graft survival. Lower graft and patient survival in recipients from DCD donors does not appear to be related to early disease recurrence.     

Donation after cardiac death: the University of Wisconsin experience with liver transplantation

OBJECTIVE: 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. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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.     

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.     

Kidney transplantation from donation after cardiac death donors: lack of impact of delayed graft function on post‐transplant outcomes

Singh RP, Farney AC, Rogers J, Zuckerman J, Reeves‐Daniel A, Hartmann E, Iskandar S, Adams P, Stratta RJ. Kidney transplantation from donation after cardiac death donors: lack of impact of delayed graft function on post‐transplant outcomes.
Clin Transplant 2011: 25: 255–264. © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Abstract: Introduction: Delayed graft function (DGF) is more common in recipients of kidney transplants from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors compared to donation after brain death (DBD) donors. Methods: Single‐center retrospective study to evaluate the impact of DGF on controlled (Maastricht category III) DCD donor kidney transplant outcomes. Results: From 10/01 to 6/08, 578 adult deceased donor kidney transplants were performed including 70 (12%) from DCD and 508 (88%) from DBD donors. Mean follow‐up was 36 months. DCD donor kidney transplants had significantly greater rates of DGF (57% DCD vs. 21% DBD, p < 0.0001)) and acute rejection (29% DCD vs. 16% DBD, p = 0.018) compared to DBD donor kidney transplants, but patient and graft survival rates were similar. DBD donor kidney transplants with DGF (n = 109) had significantly greater rates of death‐censored graft loss (12.5% DCD vs. 31% DBD), primary non‐function (0 DCD vs. 10% DBD) and higher 2 year mean serum creatinine levels (1.4 DCD vs. 2.7 mg/dL DBD) compared to DCD donor kidney transplants with DGF (n = 40, all p < 0.04). On univariate analysis, the presence of acute rejection and older donor age were the only significant risk factors for death‐censored graft loss in DCD donor kidney transplants, whereas DGF was not a risk factor. Conclusion: Despite higher rates of DGF and acute rejection in DCD donor kidney transplants, subsequent outcomes in DCD donor kidney transplants with DGF are better than in DBD donor kidney transplants experiencing DGF, and similar to outcomes in DCD donor kidney transplants without DGF.     

Similar liver transplantation survival with selected cardiac death donors and brain death donors

Background:

The outcome of orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) with controlled graft donation after cardiac death (DCD) is usually inferior to that with graft donation after brain death (DBD). This study compared outcomes from OLT with DBD versus controlled DCD donors with predefined restrictive acceptance criteria.

Methods:

All adult recipients in the Netherlands in 2001–2006 with full‐size OLT from DCD (n = 55) and DBD (n = 471) donors were included. Kaplan–Meier, log rank and Cox regression analyses were used.

Results:

One‐ and 3‐year patient survival rates were similar for DCD (85 and 80 per cent) and DBD (86·3 and 80·8 per cent) transplants (P = 0·763), as were graft survival rates (74 and 68 per cent versus 80·4 and 74·5 per cent; P = 0·212). The 3‐year cumulative percentage of surviving grafts developing non‐anastomotic biliary strictures was 31 per cent after DCD and 9·7 per cent after DBD transplantation (P < 0·001). The retransplantation rate was similar overall (P = 0·081), but that for biliary stricture was higher in the DCD group (P < 0·001). Risk factors for 1‐year graft loss after DBD OLT were transplant centre, recipient warm ischaemia time and donor with severe head trauma. After DCD OLT they were transplant centre, donor warm ischaemia time and cold ischaemia time. DCD graft was a risk factor for non‐anastomotic biliary stricture.

Conclusion:

OLT using controlled DCD grafts and restrictive criteria can result in patient and graft survival rates similar to those of DBD OLT, despite a higher risk of biliary stricture. Copyright © 2010 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Liver Transplantation Using Donation After Cardiac Death Donors: Long-Term Follow-Up from a Single Center

There is a lack of universally accepted clinical parameters to guide the utilization of donation after cardiac death (DCD) donor livers and it is unclear as to which patients would benefit most from these organs. We reviewed our experience in 141 patients who underwent liver transplantation using DCD allografts from 1993 to 2007. Patient outcomes were analyzed in comparison to a matched cohort of 282 patients who received livers from donation after brain death (DBD) donors. Patient survival was similar, but 1-, 5- and 10-year graft survival was significantly lower in DCD (69%, 56%, 44%) versus DBD (82%, 73%, 63%) subjects (p < 0.0001). Primary nonfunction and biliary complications were more common in DCD patients, accounting for 67% of early graft failures. A donor warm ischemia time >20 min, cold ischemia time >8 h and donor age >60 were associated with poorer DCD outcomes. There was a lack of survival benefit in DCD livers utilized in patients with model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) ≤30 or those not on organ-perfusion support, as graft survival was significantly lower compared to DBD patients. However, DCD and DBD subjects transplanted with MELD >30 or on organ-perfusion support had similar graft survival, suggesting a potentially greater benefit of DCD livers in critically ill patients.     

Experience in renal and extrarenal transplantation with donation after cardiac death donors with selective use of extracorporeal support

BACKGROUND: Most reports of donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors are exclusive to kidney transplantation and report high rates of delayed graft function (DGF). STUDY DESIGN: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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.     

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes with the Use of Kidneys and Livers Donated after Cardiac Death

The shortage of deceased donor kidneys and livers for transplantation has prompted the use of organs from donors deceased after cardiac death (DCD). We used the UNOS database to examine patient and graft survival following transplantation of DCD organs compared to those following grafts from donors deceased after brain death (DBD; for livers, grafts from donors < 60 years old were labeled '< 60 yrs'). Of 44035 deceased donor kidney transplant recipients, 1177 (3%) received a DCD kidney. There was no difference in patient or graft survival at 5 years (DCD vs. DBD: 81.3% vs. 80.8% and 66.9% vs. 66.5%; p = 0.70 and p = 0.52 respectively). Of 24688-deceased donor liver transplant recipients, 345 (1.4%) were from DCD donors and 20289 (82%) were from '< 60 yrs' DBD donors. Three-year patient and graft survival were inferior in the DCD group (DCD vs. '< 60 yrs' DBD: 77% vs. 80% and 65% vs. 75%; p = 0.016 and p < 0.0001 respectively) but were comparable to current alternatives, '>/= 60 yrs' DBD livers (donor age >/= 60) and split livers. DCD livers are a reasonable option when death is imminent. Our study demonstrates good outcomes using DCD kidneys and livers and encourages their use.     

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.     

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.     

Variation in Biliary Complication Rates Following Liver Transplantation: Implications for Cost and Outcome

Although biliary complications (BCs) have a significant impact on the outcome of liver transplantation (LT), variation in BC rates among transplant centers has not been previously analyzed. BC rate, LT outcome and spending were assessed using linked Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and Medicare claims (n = 16 286 LTs). Transplant centers were assigned to BC quartiles based upon risk‐adjusted observed to expected (O:E) ratio of BC separately for donation after brain death (DBD) and donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors. The median incidence of BC was 300% greater in the highest versus lowest DBD quartiles (19.0% vs. 5.9%) and varied 250% between DCD quartiles (20.3%–8.4%). Donor and recipient characteristics suggest that high BC centers actually used lower donor risk index organs, fewer split livers and fewer imports (p < 0.001 for all). Transplant at a center in the highest O:E quartile was associated with increased posttransplant mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.53, p = 0.007) in DCD transplant and increased graft loss (aHR 1.21, p = 0.02) in DBD transplant. Medicare spending was $22 895 (p < 0.0001) higher at centers in highest versus lowest BC quartile. In summary, BC rates vary widely among transplant centers and higher rates are a marker for an increased risk of death, graft failure and health‐care spending.     

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.     

心脏死亡供者供肝移植效果的荟萃分析

目的 评估心脏死亡器官捐献(DCD)供肝移植的效果.方法 检索美国国立医学图书馆国际性综合生物医学信息书目数据库(Pubmed/Medline数据库)、Embase数据库和Cochrane图书馆数据库中1950-2011年正式发表的英文文献,选取单中心研究.针对肝移植术后并发症的发生率,人、移植物存活率进行荟萃分析.结果 共纳入13篇单中心研究文献,包括5867例脑死亡器官捐献(DBD)肝移植和619例DCD肝移植.DCD肝移植术后发生胆道并发症的比值比(OR值)为2.5(95％可信区间为2.00～3.12),发生缺血性胆管炎的OR值为14.65(95％可信区间为6.51～32.99),发生原发性移植物无功能(PNF)的OR值为2.12(95％可信区间为1.33～3.36).DCD肝移植和DBD肝移植术后受者总体1年存活率分别为83.8％和87.2％,OR值为0.78(95％可信区间为0.59～1.02);移植物总体1年存活率分别为72.2％和82.4％,OR值为0.55(95％可信区间为0.45～0.68).DCD肝移植和DBD肝移植术后受者总体3年存活率分别为81.5％和78.9％,二者的差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);移植物总体3年存活率分别为69.5％和73.6％,OR值为0.73(95％可信区间为0.56～0.94).结论 DCD肝移植术后胆道并发症发生率,尤其是缺血性胆管炎的发生率较高,但术后整体效果与DBD肝移植相当.     

Factors affecting graft survival after liver transplantation from donation after cardiac death donors

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors is an increasingly common approach for expansion of the donor organ supply. However, transplantation with DCD livers results in inferior graft survival. In this study, we examined donor and recipient characteristics that are associated with poor allograft outcomes and present a set of criteria that permit allograft survival that is comparable to that of donation after brain death (DBD) grafts in both low- and high-risk recipients. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Liver Transplantation Registry between January 1996 and March 2006 was investigated. Adult DCD liver transplants (n = 874) were included. RESULTS: A DCD risk index was developed using the statistically significant factors from a multivariate Cox model: history of previous transplantation, life support status at transplantation, donor age, donor warm ischemia time (DWIT), and cold ischemia time (CIT). Favorable DCD donor criteria were donor age < or =45 years, DWIT < or =15 min, and CIT < or =10 hr. Four risk groups were developed based upon index scores that showed different graft survival. Graft survival of the favorable DCD group (84.9% at 1 year, 75.2% at 3 years, and 69.4% at 5 years) was comparable to that for DBD liver transplantation irrespective of recipient condition. Increasing donor age was more highly predictive of poor outcomes in DCD compared to DBD, especially in recipients in poor preoperative condition. CONCLUSIONS: DCD livers from young donors with short DWIT and CIT should be given greater consideration in order to expand the number of available donor organs.     

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.     

Donation after cardiac death as a strategy to increase deceased donor liver availability

OBJECTIVE: This study examines donation after cardiac death (DCD) practices and outcomes in liver transplantation. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Livers procured from DCD donors have recently been used to increase the number of deceased donors and bridge the gap between limited organ supply and the pool of waiting list candidates. Comprehensive evaluation of this practice and its outcomes has not been previously reported. METHODS: A national cohort of all DCD and donation after brain-death (DBD) liver transplants between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2004 was identified in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Time to graft failure (including death) was modeled by Cox regression, adjusted for relevant donor and recipient characteristics. RESULTS: DCD livers were used for 472 (2%) of 24,070 transplants. Annual DCD liver activity increased from 39 in 2000 to 176 in 2004. The adjusted relative risk of DCD graft failure was 85% higher than for DBD grafts (relative risk, 1.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.51-2.26; P < 0.001), corresponding to 3-month, 1-year, and 3-year graft survival rates of 83.0%, 70.1%, and 60.5%, respectively (vs. 89.2%, 83.0%, and 75.0% for DBD recipients). There was no significant association between transplant program DCD liver transplant volume and graft outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The annual number of DCD livers used for transplant has increased rapidly. However, DCD livers are associated with a significantly increased risk of graft failure unrelated to modifiable donor or recipient factors. Appropriate recipients for DCD livers have not been fully characterized and recipient informed consent should be obtained before use of these organs.     

Simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation from donation after cardiac death: successful long-term outcomes

OBJECTIVE: The outcomes of simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplantation with donor organs procured from donation after cardiac death (DCD) are compared with transplants performed with donor organs recovered from donation after brain death (DBD). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Concerns exist regarding the utilization of pancreata obtained from DCD donors. While it is known that DCD kidneys will have a higher rate of DGF, long-term functional graft survival data for DCD pancreata have not been reported. METHODS: A retrospective review of all DCD SPK transplants performed at a single center was undertaken. RESULTS: Patient, pancreas, and kidney survival at 5 years were similar between DCD and DBD organs. Pancreas function and outcomes were indistinguishable between the 2 modes of procurement. As expected, the DCD kidneys had an elevated rate of DGF, which had no significant long-term clinical impact. CONCLUSION: SPK transplantation using selected DCD donors is a safe and viable method to expand the organ pool for transplantation.     

Use of Tissue Plasminogen Activator in Liver Transplantation from Donation After Cardiac Death Donors

Ischemic‐type biliary stricture (ITBS) occurs in up to 50% after liver transplantation (LT) from donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors. Thrombus formation in the peribiliary microcirculation is a postulated mechanism. The aim was to describe our experience of tissue plasminogen activator (TPA) administration in DCD‐LT. TPA was injected into the donor hepatic artery on the backtable (n = 22). Two recipients developed ITBS including one graft failure. Although excessive postreperfusion bleeding was seen in 14 recipients, the amount of TPA was comparable between those with and without excessive bleeding (6.4 ± 2.8 vs. 6.6 ± 2.8 mg, p = 0.78). However, donor age (41 ± 12 vs. 29 ± 9 years, p = 0.02), donor BMI (26.3 ± 5.5 vs. 21.7 ± 3.6 kg/m², p = 0.03), previous laparotomy (50% vs. 0%, p = 0.02) and lactate after portal reperfusion (6.3 ± 4.6 vs. 2.8 ± 0.9 mmol/L, p = 0.005) were significantly greater in recipients with excessive bleeding. In conclusion, the use of TPA may lower the risk of ITBS‐related graft failure in DCD‐LT. Excessive bleeding may be related to poor graft quality and previous laparotomy rather than the amount of TPA. Further studies are needed in larger population.     

Outcomes after simultaneous pancreas–kidney transplantation from donation after circulatory death donors: A UK registry analysis

There are concerns that simultaneous pancreas–kidney (SPK) transplants from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors have a higher risk of graft failure than those from donation after brain death (DBD) donors. A UK registry analysis of SPK transplants between 2005 and 2018 was performed. Pancreas survivals of those receiving organs from DCD or DBD donors were compared. Multivariable analyses were used to adjust for baseline differences between the two groups and to identify factors associated with pancreas graft loss. A total of 2228 SPK transplants were implanted; 403 (18.1%) were from DCD donors. DCD donors were generally younger, slimmer, less likely to have stroke as a cause of death, with lower terminal creatinines and shorter pancreas cold ischemic times than DBD donors. Median (IQR) follow-up was 4.2 (1.6–8.1) years. On univariable analysis, there were no statistically significant differences in 5-year death-censored pancreas graft survival between the two donor types (79.5% versus 80.4%; p = .86). Multivariable analysis showed no statistically significant differences in 5-year pancreas graft loss between transplants from DCD (n = 343) and DBD (n = 1492) donors (hazard ratio 1.26, 95% CI 0.76–1.23; p = .12). The findings from this study support the increased use of SPK transplants from DCD donors.     

Extracorporeal support for organ donation after cardiac death effectively expands the donor pool

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.