Treating the donor

Haemodynamic management in brain death donors: Influence of aetiology of brain death

BACKGROUND

In brain death donors (BDDs), donor management is the key in the complex donation process. Donor management goals, which are standards of care or clinical parameters, have been considered an acceptable barometer of successful donor management.

AIM

To test the hypothesis that aetiology of brain death could influence haemodynamic management in BDDs.

METHODS

Haemodynamic data (blood pressure, heart rate, central venous pressure, lactate, urine output, and vasoactive drugs) of BDDs were recorded on intensive care unit (ICU) admission and during the 6-h observation period (Time 1 at the beginning; Time 2 at the end).

RESULTS

The study population was divided into three groups according to the aetiology of brain death: Stroke (n = 71), traumatic brain injury (n = 48), and postanoxic encephalopathy (n = 19). On ICU admission, BDDs with postanoxic encephalopathy showed the lowest values of systolic and diastolic blood pressure associated with higher values of heart rate and lactate and a higher need of norepinephrine and other vasoactive drugs. At the beginning of the 6-h period (Time 1), BDDs with postanoxic encephalopathy showed higher values of heart rate, lactate, and central venous pressure together with a higher need of other vasoactive drugs.

CONCLUSION

According to our data, haemodynamic management of BDDs is affected by the aetiology of brain death. BDDs with postanoxic encephalopathy have higher requirements for norepinephrine and other vasoactive drugs.

Donor heart selection: Evidence-based guidelines for providers

The proposed donor heart selection guidelines provide evidence-based and expert-consensus recommendations for the selection of donor hearts following brain death. These recommendations were compiled by an international panel of experts based on an extensive literature review.

Hemodynamic management in brain dead donors

Donor management is the key in the complex donation process, since up to 20% of organs of brain death donors (DBD) are lost due to hemodynamic instability. This challenge is made more difficult due to the lack of strong recommendations on therapies for hemodynamic management in DBDs and more importantly to the epidemiologic changes in these donors who are becoming older and with more comorbidities (marginal donors). In the present manuscript we aimed at summarizing the available evidence on therapeutic strategies for hemodynamic management (focusing on vasoactive drugs) and monitoring (therapeutic goals). Evidence on management in elderly DBDs is also summarized. Donor management continues critical care but with different and specific therapeutic goals since the number of donor goals met is related to the number of organs retrieved and transplanted. Careful monitoring of selected parameters (possibly including serial echocardiography) is the clinical tool able to guarantee the achievement and maintaining of therapeutic goals. Despide worldwide differences, norepinephrine is the vasoactive of choice in most countries but, whenever higher doses (> 0.2 mcg/kg/min) are needed, a second vasoactive drug (vasopressin) is advisable. Hormonal therapy (desmopressin, corticosteroid and thyroid hormone) are suggested in all DBDs independently of hemodynamic instability. In the single patient, therapeutic regimen (imprimis vasoactive drugs) should be chosen also according to the potential organs retrievable (i.e. heart vs liver and kidneys).

Catastrophic Non-Survivable Brain Injury Care-Role 2/3

A catastrophic brain injury is defined as any brain injury that is expected to result in permanent loss of all brain function above the brain stem level. These clinical recommendations will help stabilize the patient so that they may be safely evacuated from theater. In addition to cardiovascular and hemodynamic goals, special attention must be paid to their endocrine dysfunction and its treatment-specifically steroid, insulin and thyroxin (t4) replacement while evaluating for and treating diabetes insipidus. Determining the futility of care coupled with resource management must also be made at each echelon. Logistical coordination and communication is paramount to expedite these patients to higher levels of care so that there is an increased probability of reuniting them with their family.

Adherence to guidelines for the management of donors after brain death

PURPOSE

Guideline adherence for the management of a donor after brain death (DBD) is largely unknown. This study aimed to perform an importance-performance analysis of prioritized key interventions (KIs) by linking guideline adherence rates to expert consensus ratings for the management of a DBD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This observational, cross-sectional multicenter study was performed in 21 Belgian ICUs. A retrospective review of patient records of adult utilized DBDs between 2013 and 2016 used 67 KIs to describe adherence to guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 296 patients were included. Thirty-five of 67 KIs had a high level of adherence congruent to a high expert panel rating of importance. Nineteen of 67 KIs had a low level of adherence in spite of a high level of importance according to expert consensus. However, inadequate documentation proved an important issue, hampering true guideline adherence assessment. Adherence ranged between 3 and 100% for single KI items and on average, patients received 72% of the integrated expert panel recommended care set.

CONCLUSIONS

Guideline adherence to an expert panel predefined care set in DBD donor management proved moderate leaving substantial room for improvement. An importance-performance analysis can be used to improve implementation and documentation of guidelines.

Development of key interventions and quality indicators for the management of an adult potential donor after brain death: a RAND modified Delphi approach

Background

A substantial degree of variability in practices exists amongst donor hospitals regarding the donor detection, determination of brain death, application of donor management techniques or achievement of donor management goals. A possible strategy to standardize the donation process and to optimize outcomes could lie in the implementation of a care pathway. The aim of the study was to identify and select a set of relevant key interventions and quality indicators in order to develop a specific care pathway for donation after brain death and to rigorously evaluate its impact.

Methods

A RAND modified three-round Delphi approach was used to build consensus within a single country about potential key interventions and quality indicators identified in existing guidelines, review articles, process flow diagrams and the results of the Organ Donation European Quality System (ODEQUS) project. Comments and additional key interventions and quality indicators, identified in the first round, were evaluated in the following rounds and a subsequent physical meeting. The study was conducted over a 4-month time period in 2016.

Results

A multidisciplinary panel of 18 Belgian experts with different relevant backgrounds completed the three Delphi rounds. Out of a total of 80 key interventions assessed throughout the Delphi process, 65 were considered to contribute to the quality of care for the management of a potential donor after brain death; 11 out of 12 quality indicators were validated for relevance and feasibility. Detection of all potential donors after brain death in the intensive care unit and documentation of cause of no donation were rated as the most important quality indicators.

Conclusions

Using a RAND modified Delphi approach, consensus was reached for a set of 65 key interventions and 11 quality indicators for the management of a potential donor after brain death. This set is considered to be applicable in quality improvement programs for the care of potential donors after brain death, while taking into account each country’s legislation and regulations regarding organ donation and transplantation.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3386-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Organ-Protective Intensive Care in Organ Donors

BACKGROUND

The ascertainment of brain death (the irreversible, total loss of brain function) gives the physician the opportunity to limit or stop further treatment. Alternatively, if the brain-dead individual is an organ donor, the mode of treatment can be changed from patient-centered to donationcentered. Consensus-derived recommendations for the organ-protective treatment of brain-dead organ donors are not yet available in Germany.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective search in PubMed, and on the authors' clinical experience.

RESULTS

Brain death causes major pathophysiological changes, including an increase in catecholamine levels and a sudden drop in the concentration of multiple hormones, among them antidiuretic hormone, cortisol, insulin, and triand tetraiodothyronine. These changes affect the function of all organ systems, as well as the hemodynamic state and the regulation of body temperature. The use of standardized donor management protocols might well increase the rate of transplanted organs per donor and improve the quality of the transplanted organs. In addition, the administration of methylprednisolone, desmopressin, and vasopressin could be a useful supplement to treatment in some cases. Randomized controlled trials have not yet demonstrated either improved organ function or prolonged survival of the transplant recipients.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base for organ-protective intensive care is weak; most of the available evidence is on the level of expert opinion. There is good reason to believe, however, that the continuation of intensive care, in the sense of early donor management, can make organ transplantation more successful both by increasing the number of transplantable organs and by improving organ quality.

The First 2 Years of Activity of a Specialized Organ Procurement Center: Report of an Innovative Approach to Improve Organ Donation

The number of patients requiring organ transplants continues to outgrow the number of organs donated each year. In an attempt to improve the organ donation process and increase the number of organs available, we created a specialized multidisciplinary team within a specialized organ procurement center (OPC) with dedicated intensive care unit (ICU) beds and operating rooms. The OPC was staffed with ICU nurses, operating room nurses, organ donor management ICU physicians, and multidisciplinary staff. All organ donors within a designated geographic area were transferred to and managed within the OPC. During the first 2 years of operation, 126 patients were referred to the OPC. The OPC was in use for a total of 3527 h and involved 253 health workers. We retrieved 173 kidneys, 95 lungs, 68 livers, 37 hearts, and 13 pancreases for a total of 386 organs offered for transplantation. This translates to a total of 124.6 persons transplanted per million population, which compares most favorably to recently published numbers in developed countries. The OPC clearly demonstrates potential to increase the number of deceased donor organs available for transplant. Further studies are warranted to better understand the exact influence of the different components of the OPC on organ procurement.

Organ donor management: Eight common recommendations and actions that deserve reflection

Despite major advances in our understanding of the physiopathology of brain death (BD), there are important controversies as to which protocol is the most appropriate for organ donor management. Many recent reviews on this subject offer recommendations that are sometimes contradictory and in some cases are not applied to other critically ill patients. This article offers a review of the publications (many of them recent) with an impact upon these controversial measures and which can help to confirm, refute or open new areas of research into the most appropriate measures for the management of organ donors in BD, and which should contribute to discard certain established recommendations based on preconceived ideas, that lead to actions lacking a physiopathological basis. Aspects such as catecholamine storm management, use of vasoactive drugs, hemodynamic objectives and monitoring, assessment of the heart for donation, and general care of the donor in BD are reviewed.