Technical aspects for live-donor organ procurement for liver, kidney, pancreas, and intestine

Potential options to expand the intestinal donor pool: a comprehensive review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Intestinal donation is currently restricted to 'perfect' donors, as the intestine is extremely vulnerable to ischemia. With generally deteriorating donor quality and increasing indications for intestinal transplantation (ITx), the potential to safely increase the donor pool should be evaluated.

RECENT FINDINGS

Increasing awareness on intestinal donation (often forgotten) and cautiously broadening the strict donor criteria (increasing age, resuscitation time and ICU stay) could expand the potential donor pool. Donors after circulatory death (DCD) have so far not been considered for ITx, due to the particularly detrimental effect of warm ischemia on the intestine. However, normothermic regional perfusion might be a well tolerated strategy to render the use of DCD intestinal grafts feasible. Furthermore, machine perfusion is under continuous development and might improve preservation of the intestine and potentially offer a platform to modulate the intestinal graft. Lastly, living donation currently represents only a minority of all ITxs performed worldwide. Various studies and registry analysis show that it can be performed safely for the donor and successfully in the recipient.

SUMMARY

Several potential strategies are available to expand the current intestinal donor pool. Most of them require further investigation or technical developments before they can be implemented in the clinical routine.

Landscape of Living Multiorgan Donation in the United States: A Registry-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The donation of multiple allografts from a single living donor is a rare practice, and the patient characteristics and outcomes associated with these procedures are not well described.

METHODS

Using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we identified 101 living multiorgan donors and their 133 recipients.

RESULTS

The 49 sequential (donations during separate procedures) multiorgan donors provided grafts to 81 recipients: 21 kidney-then-liver, 15 liver-then-kidney, 5 lung-then-kidney, 3 liver-then-intestine, 3 kidney-then-pancreas, 1 lung-then-liver, and 1 pancreas-then-kidney. Of these donors, 38% donated 2 grafts to the same recipient and 15% donated 2 grafts as non-directed donors. Compared to recipients from first-time, single organ living donors, recipients from second-time living donors had similar graft and patient survival. The 52 simultaneous (multiple donations during one procedure) multiorgan donors provided 2 grafts to 1 recipient each: 48 kidney-pancreas and 4 liver-intestine. Donors had median of 13.4 years (interquartile range, 8.3-18.5 years) of follow-up. There was one reported death of a sequential donor (2.5 years after second donation). Few postdonation complications were reported over a median of 116 days (interquartile range, 0-295 days) of follow-up; however, routine living donor follow-up data were sparse. Recipients of kidneys from second-time living donors had similar graft (P = 0.2) and patient survival (P = 0.4) when compared with recipients from first-time living donors. Similarly, recipients of livers from second-time living donors had similar graft survival (P = 0.9) and patient survival (P = 0.7) when compared with recipients from first-time living donors.

CONCLUSIONS

Careful documentation of outcomes is needed to ensure ethical practices in selection, informed consent, and postdonation care of this unique donor community.

Diabetes Mellitus in Living Pancreas Donors: Use of Integrated National Registry and Pharmacy Claims Data to Characterize Donation-Related Health Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Living donor pancreas transplant is a potential treatment for diabetic patients with end-organ complications. Although early surgical risks of donation have been reported, long-term medical outcomes in living pancreas donors are not known.

METHODS

We integrated national Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data (1987-2015) with records from a nationwide pharmacy claims warehouse (2005-2015) to examine prescriptions for diabetes medications and supplies as a measure of postdonation diabetes mellitus. To compare outcomes in controls with baseline good health, we matched living pancreas donors to living kidney donors (1:3) by demographic traits and year of donation.

RESULTS

Among 73 pancreas donors in the study period, 45 were identified in the pharmacy database: 62% women, 84% white, and 80% relatives of the recipient. Over a mean postdonation follow-up period of 16.3 years, 26.7% of pancreas donors filled prescriptions for diabetes treatments, compared with 5.9% of kidney donors (odds ratio, 4.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.91-8.93; P = 0.0003). Use of insulin (11.1% vs 0%) and oral agents (20.0% vs 5.9%; odds ratio, 4.50, 95% confidence interval, 2.09-9.68; P = 0.0001) was also higher in pancreas donors.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetes is more common after living pancreas donation than after living kidney donation, supporting clinical consequences from reduced endocrine reserve.