Fourteen years of experience in uncontrolled organ donation after cardio-circulatory death

[Adult advanced life support]

These European Resuscitation Council Advanced Life Support guidelines are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. This section provides guidelines on the prevention of and ALS treatments for both in-hospital cardiac arrest and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Current status and further potential of lung donation after circulatory death

Chronic organ shortage remains the most limiting factor in lung transplantation. To overcome this shortage, a minority of centers have started with efforts to reintroduce donation after circulatory death (DCD). This review aims to evaluate the experimental background, the current international clinical experience, and the further potential and challenges of the different DCD categories. Successful strategies have been implemented to reduce the problems of warm ischemic time, thrombosis after circulatory arrest, and difficulties in organ assessment, which come with DCD donation. From the currently reported results, controlled-DCD lungs are an effective and safe method with good mid-term and even long-term survival outcomes comparable to donation after brain death (DBD). Primary graft dysfunction and onset of chronic allograft dysfunction seem also comparable. Thus, controlled-DCD lungs should be ceased to be treated as marginal and instead be promoted as an equivalent alternative to DBD. A wide implementation of controlled-DCD-lung donation would significantly decrease the mortality on the waiting list. Therefore, further efforts in establishment of legislation and logistics are crucial. With regard to uncontrolled DCD, more data are needed analyzing long-term outcomes. To help with the detailed assessment and improvement of uncontrolled or otherwise questionable grafts after retrieval, ex-vivo lung perfusion is promising.

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Adult advanced life support

These European Resuscitation Council Advanced Life Support guidelines, are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. This section provides guidelines on the prevention of and ALS treatments for both in-hospital cardiac arrest and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Estimating the potential pool of uncontrolled DCD donors in the United States

Organs from uncontrolled DCD donors (uDCDs) have expanded donation in Europe since the 1980s, but are seldom used in the United States. Cited barriers include lack of knowledge about the potential donor pool, lack of robust outcomes data, lack of standard donor eligibility criteria and preservation methods, and logistical and ethical challenges. To determine whether it would be appropriate to invest in addressing these barriers and building this practice, we sought to enumerate the potential pool of uDCD donors. Using data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample, the largest all-payer emergency department (ED) database, between 2013 and 2016, we identified patients who had refractory cardiac arrest in the ED. We excluded patients with contraindications to both deceased donation (including infection, malignancy, cardiopulmonary disease) and uDCD (including hemorrhage, major polytrauma, burns, and poisoning). We identified 9828 (range: 9454-10 202) potential uDCDs/y; average age was 32 years, and all were free of major comorbidity. Of these, 91.1% had traumatic deaths, with major causes including nonhead blunt injuries (43.2%) and head injuries (40.1%). In the current era, uDCD donors represent a significant potential source of unused organs. Efforts to address barriers to uDCD in the United States should be encouraged.

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.

Systematic review of kidney transplantation functional predictors

CONTEXT

Kidney transplantation from donors with expanded criteria has increased the pool of kidneys at the cost of a higher risk of short and long-term graft dysfunction. The main issue lies in determining which kidneys will offer acceptable function and survival compared with the risk represented by surgery and subsequent immunosuppression.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our article is to review the current evidence on the tools for predicting the functionality of kidney transplantation from cadaveric donors with expanded criteria and determining the validity for their use in standard practice.

ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE

We conducted a systematic literature review according to the PRISM criteria, through Medline (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) and using the keywords (in isolation or in conjunction) "cadaveric renal transplantation; kidney graft function appraisal, graft function predictors". We selected prospective and retrospective series and review articles. A total of 375 articles were analysed, 39 of which were ultimately selected for review.

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

The predictors of functionality include the following: The donor risk indices; the calculation of the renal functional weight or the assessment of the nephronic mass; the measurement of vascular resistances during perfusion in hypothermia; the measurement of the donor's biomarkers in urine and in the perfusion liquid; the measurement of functional and reperfusion parameters in normothermia; and the measurement of morphological parameters (microscopic and macroscopic) of the target organ. In this article, we present an explanatory summary of each of these parameters, as well as their most recent evidence on this issue.

DISCUSSION

None of the reviewed parameters in isolation could reliably predict renal function and graft survival. There is a significant void in terms of the macroscopic assessment of kidney transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

We need to continue developing predictors of renal functionality to accurately define the distribution of each currently available donor kidney.

Postoperative Care in Kidney Transplantation: A Comparison Between Controlled and Uncontrolled Donation After Circulatory Death

Recent research in kidney transplantation has revealed differences in the evolution of renal function among patients transplanted from 2 alternative programs for donation after circulatory death (DCD). A retrospective, observational, single-center study was carried out from 2013 to 2016 at a level III hospital intensive care unit (ICU) to assess the progression of kidney recipients after transplants from uncontrolled DCD (uDCD) or controlled DCD (cDCD). The following variables were collected for data analysis: demographics, comorbidities, type of donation, lactate, hemoglobin and glucose levels at ICU admission, creatinine concentration at ICU admission, at-hospital ward transfer, at-hospital discharge, radioisotope imaging results, ICU and in-hospital length of stay, and mortality. There were 87 patients eligible for analysis, 42.5% of which were uDCD recipients. Improvement in kidney function was significantly delayed after uDCD compared with cDCD. A multivariate analysis showed that both uDCD and lactate levels at ICU admission increase the risk of poor outcome after renal transplantation. No deaths were registered in either patient group. Our results suggest that kidney transplantation recipients from uDCD recover renal function at a slower rate than patients transplanted from cDCD, a factor that does not affect mortality.

Similar 5-Year Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate Between Kidney Transplants From Uncontrolled and Controlled Donors After Circulatory Death-A Dutch Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Organ shortage persists despite a high rate of donation after circulatory death (DCD) in the Netherlands. The median waiting time for a deceased donor kidney in 2013 was 3.5 years. Most DCD kidneys are from controlled DCD (cDCD; Maastricht category III). Experience with uncontrolled donors after cardiac death (uDCD), that is, donors with an unexpected and irreversible cardiac arrest (Maastricht categories I and II), is increasing; and its effect on transplant outcomes needs evaluation.

METHODS

We used the Dutch Organ Transplantation Registry to include recipients (≥18 years old) from all Dutch centers who received transplants from 2002 to 2012 with a first DCD kidney. We compared transplant outcome in uDCD (n = 97) and cDCD (n = 1441).

RESULTS

Primary nonfunction in uDCD was higher than in the cDCD (19.6% vs 9.6%, P < 0.001, respectively). Delayed graft function was also higher in uDCD than in cDCD, but not significantly (73.7% vs 63.3%, P = .074, respectively). If censored for primary nonfunction, estimated glomerular filtration rates after 1 year and 5 years were comparable between uDCD and cDCD (1 year: uDCD, 44.3 (23.4) mL/min/m and cDCD, 45.8 (24.1) mL/min/m; P = 0.621; 5 years: uDCD, 49.1 (25.6) mL/min/m and cDCD, 47.7 (21.7) mL/min/m; P = 0.686). The differences in primary nonfunction between kidneys from uDCD and cDCD were explained by differences in the first warm ischemic period, cold ischemic time, and donor age.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that uDCD kidneys have potential for excellent function and can constitute a valuable extension of the donor pool. However, further efforts are necessary to address the high rate of primary nonfunction.

Uncontrolled Donation After Circulatory Determination of Death: A Systematic Ethical Analysis

Uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death (uDCDD) refers to organ donation after a refractory cardiac arrest. We analyzed ethical issues raised by the uDCDD protocols of France, Madrid, and New York City. We recommend: (1) Termination of resuscitation (TOR) guidelines need refinement, particularly the minimal duration of resuscitation efforts before considering TOR; (2) Before enrolling in an uDCDD protocol, physicians must ascertain that additional resuscitation efforts would be ineffective; (3) Inclusion in an uDCDD protocol should not be made in the outpatient setting to avoid error and conflicts of interest; (4) The patient's condition should be reassessed at the hospital and reversible causes treated; (5) A no-touch period of at least 10 minutes should be respected to avoid the risk of autoresuscitation; (6) Once death has been determined, no procedure that may resume brain circulation should be used, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation, artificial ventilation, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; (7) Specific consent is required prior to entry into an uDCDD protocol; (8) Family members should be informed about the goals, risks, and benefits of planned uDCDD procedures; and (9) Public information on uDCDD is desirable because it promotes public trust and confidence in the organ donation system.