The joint impact of donor and recipient parameters on the outcome of heart transplantation in Germany after graft allocation

Just a number? Donor age and (lack of) associated reasons for heart offer refusal

The use of 50+ year-old donors for heart transplant (HT) is rare in the United States. We assessed reasons for this-and whether it reflects concern about age itself or associated risk factors-using a survey of US HT centers. The Donor Heart Study enrolled US adult potential heart donors from 2015 to 2020. A total of 6,814 surveys across 2,197 donors cited, on average, 2.4 reasons (per donor) for offer refusal. Age was cited often (by ≥50% of centers surveyed) for 715 donors (33%). In this subgroup, accompanying donor-related reasons for refusal were infrequent, with no cardiac abnormality cited in most cases. Donor age showed associations with (1) age as a reason for refusal and (2) discard. Both abruptly increased at age 50: 55% of 50 to 51-year-old donors were refused often due to age (vs 38% of 48-49-year-olds), and 72% were discarded (vs 55% of 48-49-year-olds), despite no evidence of a threshold effect of age on outcomes.

Usage of older donors is associated with higher mortality after heart transplantation: A UNOS observational study

BACKGROUND

Utilization of heart from older donors is variable across centers with uncertain outcomes of recipients. We sought to utilize a national registry to examine the usage and outcomes of heart transplant (HT) recipients from older donors. We also explored the impact of current donor heart allocation scheme on the outcomes of hearts from older donors.

METHODS

This observational study utilized the United Network for Organ Sharing database between 2015 and 2023 with donors categorized into age <45 years or ≥45 years and evaluated organ disposition and geographical variation. Thirty-day, 1-, and 3-year mortality, and graft failure rates were compared among recipients as per donor age group. We also evaluated annual trends in HT for each group over the follow-up period.

RESULTS

A total of 24,966 adult donors were recovered: 3,742 (15.0%) were ≥45 years; 3,349 (15.6%) adults received heart from such donors with significant geographical variation, and a declining utilization in the transplantation rate in current donor allocation system. Donors with age ≥45 years had higher comorbidities and were allotted with a significantly shorter ischemic time to recipients who were significantly less likely to receive temporary mechanical circulatory support and more likely female. Unadjusted and adjusted, 30-day mortality were similar but 1- and 3-year mortality and graft failure rates were significantly higher in recipients of such donors. Spline analysis suggested a higher 1-year mortality risk at older donor age with risk increasing after age 40 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Older donor age was associated with worsened 1- and 3-year mortality and graft failure for heart transplant recipients.

Optimal Donor Allograft Function: The Search for the Lowest Acceptable Donor Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction in Pediatric Heart Transplantation

BACKGROUND

The availability of heart donors is limited by organ shortage. Due to concerns of reduced survival, donors with depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF <50%) have been cautiously used in pediatric heart transplantation. One strategy to expand the donor pool is to re-evaluate whether lower donor LVEF may be acceptable for transplantation.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients <18 y receiving heart transplants from April 2007 to September 2021 using the United Network of Organ Sharing dataset. We excluded retransplants and multiorgan transplants. Cut-point analyses of LVEF was performed and Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare 1-y survival for new cut-points and the standard (LVEF >50%).

RESULTS

The analytic sample consisted of 5255 patients. Recipients receiving hearts with lower LVEFs were more likely to be on ventilator and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. Recipients did not differ in waitlist times or transplant status. Cut-point analysis identified LVEF 45% as a potentially new cutoff. One-year survival of recipients of donors with LVEF ≥45% (92.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 91.3%-92.8%) was similar to that of LVEF >50% (92.1%; CI, 91.4%-92.9%). Survival for the LVEF 45%-49% (88.8%; CI, 72.9%-95.7%) cohort was slightly lower than the ≥50% cohort, albeit nonsignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

One-year survival among pediatric heart transplants using a donor heart LVEF threshold of 45% or 40% was similar to a threshold of 50%. However, the finding is based on a small number of patients with LVEF <50%, and future larger prospective studies are warranted to confirm the findings of this study before a lower LVEF threshold is considered.

Do vasoactive medications impact donor hearts clinical outcomes in pediatric heart transplantation?

OBJECTIVES

There is limited data examining donor vasopressor and/or inotrope medications (vasoactives) on pediatric orthotopic heart transplant (OHT) outcomes. We aim to evaluate the effects of vasoactives on pediatric OHT outcomes.

METHODS

The United Network for Organ Sharing database was retrospectively reviewed from January 2000 to March 2018 for donor hearts. Exclusion criteria included multiorgan transplants and recipient age >18. Donors receiving vasoactives at the time of procurement were compared to donors not on vasoactives, including the number of vasoactives and the type. End-points of interest were survival at 30 days and 1 year as well as post-transplant rejection at 1 year. Logistic and Cox models were used to quantify survival end-points.

RESULTS

Of 6462 donors, 3187 (49.3%) were receiving at least one vasoactive. Comparing any vasoactive medication versus none, there was no difference in 30-day survival (p = .27), 1 year survival (p = .89), overall survival (p = .68), or post-transplant rejection (p = .98). There was no difference in 30-day survival for donors receiving 2 or more vasoactive infusions (p = .89), 1 year survival (p = .53), overall survival (p = .75), or post-transplant rejection at 1 year (p = .87). Vasopressin was associated with decreased 30-day mortality (OR = 0.22; p = .028), dobutamine with decreased 1-year mortality (OR = 0.37; p = .036), overall survival (HR = 0.51; p = .003), and decreased post-transplant rejection (HR = 0.63; p = .012).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no difference in pediatric OHT outcomes when the cardiac donor is treated with vasoactive infusions at procurement. Vasopressin and dobutamine were associated with improved outcomes. This information can be used to guide medical management and donor selection.

Does donor treatment with inotropes and/or vasopressors impact post-transplant outcomes?

PURPOSE

The purpose was to evaluate the effects of the most commonly used cardiac donor inotropes/vasopressors on subsequent post-heart transplant survival.

METHODS

Adult heart transplant recipients from January 2000 to June 2022 were identified in the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database. Exclusion criteria included: multiorgan transplants, donor age < 15, and recipient age < 18. Donors receiving vasoactive medications at the time of procurement were compared to donors not receiving these medications. Those on vasoactive medications were stratified by medication: phenylephrine, dopamine, dobutamine, norepinephrine and epinephrine, the combination of these agents, and the concomitant administration of vasopressin with any single agent alone or in combination. The primary area of interest was short-and-long-term survival. Survival at 30 days, 1 year, and long-term (Median = 13.6 years) was compared using logistic and Cox models to quantify survival endpoints.

RESULTS

A total of 45,198 donors met inclusion criteria and had data on the use of vasoactive agents available. Mean donor age was 32.3 years with 71% male. Vasoactive medications and potential combinations included phenylephrine in 8156 donors (18.0%), dopamine in 9550 (21.1%), dobutamine in 718 (1.6%), epinephrine in 332 (.73%), and norepinephrine in 4854 (10.7%). A total of 25,856 donors (57.2%) were receiving vasopressin at the time of procurement. There was no impact of donor inotropes on 30-day survival. Donors receiving one inotrope and no vasopressin were associated with increased 1 year mortality (OR 1.14; p = .021), as were donors receiving 2+ inotropes and no vasopressin (OR 1.26; p = .006). For individual agents, 1 year mortality was increased for dopamine (OR 1.11; p = .042) and epinephrine (OR 1.59; p = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no difference in heart transplant recipient survival at 30 days when the donor is receiving inotropes without vasopressin at the time of procurement. Inotropic support without vasopressin is associated with greater 1 year mortality. The impact of donor inotropic support on long term heart transplant survival, and the interaction with vasopressin warrants further study.

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.

Donor Noradrenaline Support Is Not Associated with Decreased Survival in Heart Transplant Recipients

Objective: Although the application of higher doses of norepinephrine (NE) in potential organ donors is a frequent reason for heart decline, its associations with outcomes after heart transplantation (HTx) are discussed controversially. Therefore, we aimed to explore donor NE support’s potential impact on outcomes in our single-center heart transplant cohort. Methods: All patients who had undergone HTx in our center between September 2010 and April 2022 (n = 241) were screened for eligibility. From those, all patients with complete data on donor NE support (n = 238) were included. Recipients were divided into three groups according to their donor NE support: without support (n = 26), with low support of 0.01−0.2 µg/kg/min (n = 132), and with high support of > 0.2 µg/kg/min (n = 80). Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) and Kaplan Meier analysis was used to investigate the association of donor NE support and mortality after heart transplantation. Recipient and donor variables, including peri- and postoperative characteristics, were reviewed and compared. Results: NE support in donors ranged between 0 and 2.94 µg/kg/min (median 0.13 µg/kg/min, IQR 0.05−0.26 µg/kg/min). No association between donor NE support and mortality after HTx was observed (AUC for overall survival 0.494). Neither Kaplan-Meier analysis in survival up to 5 years after transplantation (Log Rank p = 0.284) nor group comparisons showed significant differences between the groups. With few exceptions, baseline characteristics in recipients and donors were comparable between the groups. Regarding peri- and postoperative parameters, increasing donor NE support was associated with a longer duration of mechanical ventilation (68 h and 95 h vs. 47 h), longer postoperative IMC/ICU stay (14 vs. 15 vs. 19 days), and a higher need for mechanical life support post-HTx (26% and 39% vs. 12%). Conclusion: In this retrospective analysis, NE support in donors prior to heart transplantation was unrelated to differing survival after heart transplantation. However, higher doses of donor NE were associated with prolonged ventilation, longer duration on IMC/ICU, and a higher need for extracorporeal life support in recipients post-HTx.

Intracerebral bleeding in donors is associated with reduced short-term to midterm survival of heart transplant recipients

Aim

The quality of the donor heart is known to have a crucial effect on outcome after heart transplantation (HTx). Although leading to brain death in the end, the initial cause of death of the donor and its potential influences on organ quality are heterogeneous. However, it is still controversial to which extent the donor cause of death is associated with outcome or survival post‐HTx.

Methods and results

We included all patients undergoing HTx in our centre between September 2010 and June 2021 (n = 218). Recipients were divided in five groups related to their donor cause of death: intracerebral bleeding (‘ICB’, n = 95, 44%), traumatic brain injury (‘trauma’, n = 54, 25%), hypoxic brain damage (‘hypoxic’, n = 34, 16%), cerebrovascular (‘vascular’, n = 15, 7%), or other cause (n = 20, 9%). Baseline characteristics, perioperative parameters, and survival after 30 and 90 days as well as 5 years after transplantation were collected.

Results

Intracerebral bleeding in donors compared with traumatic brain injury is associated with higher probability of need for ECLS post‐HTx (35% vs. 19%, P = 0.04) and significantly reduced survival up to 5 years post‐HTx (i.e. 1 year survival: 61% vs. 95%, P < 0.0001). Although other conditions also show significant changes in outcome and survival, the effect is strongest for ICB, where survival is also reduced compared with all other causes (1 year: 61% vs. 89%, P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

In this retrospective analysis, donor cause of death is associated with differing outcome and survival after HTx. Intracerebral bleeding hereby shows strongest decline in outcome and survival in comparison with all other causes.

Can adequate hemodynamic management of brain-dead donors improve donor organ procurement?

There is increasing evidence that adequate donor management with a goal of optimization of organ function is essential to maximize the number of organs that can be procured. Therefore, identification of the cause of hemodynamic instability is crucial in order to direct the right therapy. Several donor management goals for better hemodynamic management including serial echocardiography can guide hemodynamic management in potential donors to increase both number and quality of donor hearts.

Donor Cardiac Troponin for Prognosis of Adverse Outcomes in Cardiac Transplantation Recipients: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cardiac troponin is a highly specific and widely available marker of myocardial injury, and elevations in cardiac transplant donors may influence donor selection. We aimed to investigate whether elevated donor troponin has a role as a prognostic biomarker in cardiac transplantation.

METHODS

In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, without language restriction, from inception to December 2020. We included studies reporting the association of elevated donor troponin with recipient outcome after cardiac transplant. We generated summary odds ratios and hazard ratios for the association of elevated donor troponin with short- and long-term adverse outcomes. Methodological quality was monitored using the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool, and interstudy heterogeneity was assessed using a series of sensitivity and subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

We included 17 studies involving 15 443 patients undergoing cardiac transplantation. Elevated donor troponin was associated with increased odds of graft rejection at 1 y (odds ratio, 2.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-5.28). No significant prognostic relationship was found between donor troponin and primary graft failure, short- to long-term mortality, cardiac allograft vasculopathy, and pediatric graft loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated donor troponin is not associated with an increased short- or long-term mortality postcardiac transplant despite increasing the risk of graft rejection at 1 y. Accordingly, an elevated donor troponin in isolation should not exclude donation.

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).

Mechanical ventilation at the time of heart transplantation and associations with clinical outcomes

AIMS

The impact of mechanical ventilation (MV) at the time of heart transplantation is not well understood. In addition, MV was recently removed as a criterion from the new US heart transplantation allocation system. We sought to assess for the association between MV at transplantation and 1-year mortality.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We utilized the United Network for Organ Sharing database and included all adult, single organ heart transplantations from 1990 to 2019. We utilized multivariable logistic regression adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and markers of clinical acuity. We identified 60 980 patients who underwent heart transplantation, 2.4% (n = 1431) of which required MV at transplantation. Ventilated patients were more likely to require temporary mechanical support, previous dialysis, and had a shorter median waitlist time (21 vs. 95 days, P < 0.001). At 1 year, the mortality was 33.7% (n = 484) for ventilated patients and 11.7% (n = 6967) for those not ventilated at the time of transplantation (log-rank P < 0.001). After multivariable adjustment, patients requiring MV continued to have a substantially higher 90-day [odds ratio (OR) 3.20, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.79-3.66, P < 0.001] and 1-year mortality (OR 2.67, 95% CI: 2.36-3.03, P < 0.001). For those that survived to 90 days, the adjusted mortality at 1 year continued to be higher (OR 1.48, 95% CI: 1.16-1.89, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

We found a strong association between the presence of MV at heart transplantation and 90-day and 1-year mortality. Future studies are needed to identify which patients requiring MV have reasonable outcomes, and which are associated with substantially poorer outcomes.

New Approaches to Donor Selection and Preparation in Heart Transplantation

Purpose of review

With increasing survival of patients with stage D heart failure, the demand for heart transplantation has increased. The supply of donor hearts remains relatively limited. Strategies have been investigated and new technologies have been developed to expand the current donor pool. These new approaches will be discussed herein.

Recent findings

Donor hearts are often considered “marginal” due to risk factors such as older age, size mismatch with the intended recipient, prolonged ischemic time, presence of left ventricular hypertrophy, and hepatitis B/C infection. We reviewed recent data regarding the use of donor hearts with these risk factors and suggest ways to safely liberalize current donor heart acceptance criteria. New technologies such as temperature-controlled transport systems and ex vivo cardiac perfusion methods have also demonstrated promising short-term and intermediate outcomes as compared with routine cold storage, by promoting heart preservation and enabling heart procurement from remote sites with shorter cold ischemic time. Recent use of hearts from donation after circulatory death donors has demonstrated comparable outcomes to conventional donation after brain death, which can further expand the current donor pool.

Summary

Careful selection of “marginal” donor hearts, use of ex vivo cardiac perfusion, and acceptance of hearts after circulatory death may expand our current cardiac donor pool with comparable outcomes to conventional donor selection and preparation methods.

Review of interactions between high-risk pediatric heart transplant recipients and marginal donors including utilization of risk score models

BACKGROUND

Donor organ acceptance practices vary among pediatric heart transplant professionals. We sought to understand what is known about the interactions between the "high-risk" recipient and the "marginal donor," and how donor risk scores can impact this discussion.

METHODS

A systematic review of published literature on pediatric HTx was undertaken with the assistance of a medical librarian. Two authors independently assessed search results, and papers were reviewed for inclusion.

RESULTS

We found that there are a large number of individual factors, and clusters of factors, that have been used to label individual recipients "high-risk" and individual donors "marginal." The terms "high-risk recipient" and "marginal donor" have been used broadly in the literature making it virtually impossible to make comparisons between publications. In general, the data support that patients who could be easily agreed to be "sicker recipients" are at more risk compared to those who are clearly "healthier," albeit still "sick enough" to need transplantation. Given this variability in the literature, we were unable to define how being a "high-risk" recipient interplays with accepting a "marginal donor." Existing risk scores are described, but none were felt to adequately predict outcomes from factors available at the time of offer acceptance.

CONCLUSIONS

We could not determine what makes a donor "marginal," a recipient "high-risk," or how these factors interplay within the specific recipient-donor pair to determine outcomes. Until there are better risk scores predicting outcomes at the time of organ acceptance, programs should continue to evaluate each organ and recipient individually.

Effects of donor cause of death, ischemia time, inotrope exposure, troponin values, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, electrocardiographic and echocardiographic data on recipient outcomes: A review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Heart transplantation has become standard of care for pediatric patients with either end-stage heart failure or inoperable congenital heart defects. Despite increasing surgical complexity and overall volume, however, annual transplant rates remain largely unchanged. Data demonstrating pediatric donor heart refusal rates of 50% suggest optimizing donor utilization is critical. This review evaluated the impact of donor characteristics surrounding the time of death on pediatric heart transplant recipient outcomes.

METHODS

An extensive literature review was performed to identify articles focused on donor characteristics surrounding the time of death and their impact on pediatric heart transplant recipient outcomes.

RESULTS

Potential pediatric heart transplant recipient institutions commonly receive data from seven different donor death-related categories with which to determine organ acceptance: cause of death, need for CPR, serum troponin, inotrope exposure, projected donor ischemia time, electrocardiographic, and echocardiographic results. Although DITs up to 8 hours have been reported with comparable recipient outcomes, most data support minimizing this period to <4 hours. CVA as a cause of death may be associated with decreased recipient survival but is rare in the pediatric population. Otherwise, however, in the setting of an acceptable donor heart with a normal echocardiogram, none of the other data categories surrounding donor death negatively impact pediatric heart transplant recipient survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Echocardiographic evaluation is the most important donor clinical information following declaration of brain death provided to potential recipient institutions. Considering its relative importance, every effort should be made to allow direct image visualization.

ISHLT consensus statement on donor organ acceptability and management in pediatric heart transplantation

The number of potential pediatric heart transplant recipients continues to exceed the number of donors, and consequently the waitlist mortality remains significant. Despite this, around 40% of all donated organs are not used and are discarded. This document (62 authors from 53 institutions in 17 countries) evaluates factors responsible for discarding donor hearts and makes recommendations regarding donor heart acceptance. The aim of this statement is to ensure that no usable donor heart is discarded, waitlist mortality is reduced, and post-transplant survival is not adversely impacted.

Donor and recipient risk factor analysis of inferior postheart transplantation outcome in the era of durable mechanical assist devices

The study objective is to quantify the impact of donor and recipient variables on heart transplant survival in recipients with a significant proportion of implanted continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). This is a prospective cohort study of International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) Registry that includes all primary heart-alone transplants in adult recipients (January 2005 and June 2013, N = 15 532, 27% LVADs). Donor and recipient characteristics were assessed for association with death or graft failure within 90 days and between 90 days and 5 years after transplantation. On Cox proportional hazard model donor cause of death other than head trauma (hazard ratio [HR] 1.985, P < 0.0001), recipient congenital (HR 2.7555, P < 0.0001) and ischemic (HR 1.165, P = 0.0383) vs dilated etiology and female donor heart transplanted into male recipient (HR 1.207, P = 0.0354) were predictors of death or graft failure within 90 days. Between 90 days and 5 years, donor cigarette use (HR 1.232, P = 0.0001), recipient cigarette use (HR 1.193, P = 0.0003), diabetes (HR 1.159, P = 0.0050), arterial hypertension (HR 1.129, P = 0.0115), and ischemic vs dilative cardiomyopathy had an increased probability of death or graft failure.

The effects of donor age on organ transplants: A review and implications for aging research

Despite the considerable amount of data available on the effect of donor age upon the outcomes of organ transplantation, these still represent an underutilized resource in aging research. In this review, we have compiled relevant studies that analyze the effect of donor age in graft and patient survival following liver, kidney, pancreas, heart, lung and cornea transplantation, with the aim of deriving insights into possible differential aging rates between the different organs. Overall, older donor age is associated with worse outcomes for all the organs studied. Nonetheless, the donor age from which the negative effects upon graft or patient survival starts to be significant varies between organs. In kidney transplantation, this age is within the third decade of life while the data for heart transplantation suggest a significant effect starting from donors over age 40. This threshold was less defined in liver transplantation where it ranges between 30 and 50 years. The results for the pancreas are also suggestive of a detrimental effect starting at a donor age of around 40, although these are mainly derived from simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation data. In lung transplantation, a clear effect was only seen for donors over 65, with negative effects of donor age upon transplantation outcomes likely beginning after age 50. Corneal transplants appear to be less affected by donor age as the majority of studies were unable to find any effect of donor age during the first few years posttransplantation. Overall, patterns of the effect of donor age in patient and graft survival were observed for several organ types and placed in the context of knowledge on aging.

•

Data on the effects of donor age upon the outcomes of organ transplantation are an underutilized resource in biogerontology

•

We compiled data on the effect of donor age following liver, kidney, pancreas, heart, lung and cornea transplantation

•

Older donor age is associated with worse outcomes for all the organs studied

•

The donor age from which the negative effects upon survival starts to be significant varies between organs

Organ Dysfunction and Failure Following Brain Death Do Not Preclude Successful Donation

BACKGROUND

Organ dysfunction is common after neurologic determination of death (NDD) but before organ collection. Reliable markers for graft success following transplant of these organs would be useful. We sought to determine the relationship between the donor after neurologic determination of death (DNDD) pathophysiology and successful organ donation.

METHODS

Donor information was obtained through the local organ procurement organization. Donor demographics and clinical data points for cardiovascular, renal, respiratory, hepatic, hematological and neuroendocrine systems were reviewed 12 h before and 12 h after neurologic determination of death was declared. The worst values were utilized for analysis and generation of the organ-specific Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores. SOFA scores were calculated and used to quantify the degree of organ dysfunction. The NDD non-donors for a specific organ were used as a comparison control group. The control group refers to DNDD patients whose specific organs were not transplanted. Lack of use was mostly due to discard by the transplant team as a result of unsuitability of the organ caused by deterioration or possible donor-specific pathology.

RESULTS

One hundred and five organ donors were analyzed. Mean age was 35.0 (± 13.6), 78.1% male, median GCS 3, interquartile range (IQR) 3-4 and median injury severity score 32 (IQR 25-43). Of the successful donors, organ-specific severe dysfunction (SOFA 3 or 4) occurred in 96, 27.5 and 3.3% of cardiac, lung and liver donors, respectively. There was no significant difference between the levels of organ dysfunction in donors versus non-donors except lung donors, in which the median lowest partial pressure of arterial oxygen-to-fraction of inspired oxygen (P/F) ratio in the non-donor was 194 (IQR 121.8-308.3) compared to the median lowest P/F ratio in the donor which was 287 (IQR 180-383.5), p = 0.02. In the recipients, graft failure 6 months after transplantation was reported in one kidney recipient (0.74%) (peak donor creatinine = 1 mg/dL) and in five pancreas recipients (11.4%). The median peak glucose of the pancreas donors in failed recipients was 178 mg/dL (IQR 157-213), whereas in the functioning recipients, the median glucose of their donors was not different (185 mg/dL, IQR 157-216), p = 0.394.

CONCLUSION

Current measures of organ failure and dysfunction do not predict the success of organ donation. Successful donor management in the face of severe organ dysfunction and failure can result in lives saved.

High-dose catecholamine donor support and outcomes after heart transplantation

BACKGROUND

Higher dose norepinephrine donor support is a frequent reason for donor heart decline, but its associations with outcomes after heart transplantation are unclear.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 965 patients transplanted between 1992 and 2015 in the Heart Transplant Program Vienna. Stratification was performed according to donor norepinephrine dose administered before organ procurement (Group 0: 0 µg/kg/min; Group 1: 0.01 to 0.1 µg/kg/min; Group 2: >0.1 µg/kg/min). Sub-stratification of Group 2 was performed for comparison of high-dose subgroups (Group HD 1: 0.11 to 0.4 µg/kg/min; Group HD 2: >0.4 µg/kg/min). Associations between groups and outcome variables were investigated using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model and logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

Donor norepinephrine dose groups were not associated with overall mortality (Group 1 vs 0: hazard ratio [HR] 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87 to 1.43; Group 2 vs 0: HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.39; p = 0.669). No significant group differences were found for rates of 30-day mortality (p = 0.35), 1-year mortality (p = 0.897), primary graft dysfunction (p = 0.898), prolonged ventilation (p = 0.133) and renal replacement therapy (p = 0.324). Groups 1 and 2 showed higher rates of prolonged intensive care unit stay (18.9% vs 28.5% vs 27.5%, p = 0.005). High-dose subgroups did not differ significantly in 1-year mortality (Group HD 1: 14.3%; Group HD 2: 17.8%; p = 0.549).

CONCLUSIONS

Acceptance of selected donor hearts supported by higher doses of norepinephrine may be a safe option to increase the donor organ pool.

Predictors of 1-year mortality in heart transplant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

A systematic summary of the observational studies informing heart transplant guideline recommendations for selection of candidates and donors has thus far been unavailable. We performed a meta-analysis to better understand the impact of such known risk factors.

Methods

We systematically searched and meta-analysed the association between known pretransplant factor and 1-year mortality identified by multivariable regression models. Our review used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation for assessing the quality of assessment. We pooled risk estimates by using random effects models.

Results

Recipient variables including age (HR 1.16 per 10-year increase, 95% CI 1.10–1.22, high quality), congenital aetiology (HR 2.35, 95% CI 1.62 to 3.41, moderate quality), diabetes (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.62, high quality), creatinine (HR 1.11 per 1 mg/dL increase, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.16, high quality), mechanical ventilation (HR 2.46, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.09, low quality) and short-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS) (HR 2.47, 95% CI 1.04 to 5.87, low quality) were significantly associated with 1-year mortality. Donor age (HR 1.20 per 10-year increase, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.26, high quality) and female donor to male recipient sex mismatch (HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.80, high quality) were significantly associated with 1-year mortality. None of the operative factors proved significant predictors.

Conclusion

High-quality and moderate-quality evidence demonstrates that recipient age, congenital aetiology, creatinine, pulsatile MCS, donor age and female donor to male recipient sex mismatch are associated with 1-year mortality post heart transplant. The results of this study should inform future guideline and predictive model development.

Identification of the activating cytotoxicity receptor NKG2D as a senescence marker in zero-hour kidney biopsies is indicative for clinical outcome

The definition of biological donor organ age rather than chronological age seems obvious for the establishment of a valid pre-transplant risk assessment. Therefore, we studied gene expression for candidate markers in 60 zero-hour kidney biopsies. Compared with 29 younger donors under age 55, 31 elderly donors age 55 and older had significant mRNA expression for immunoproteasome subunits (PSMB8, PSMB9 and PSMB10), HLA-DRB, and transcripts of the activating cytotoxicity receptor NKG2D. Gene expression was validated in an independent donor cohort consisting of 37 kidneys from donors 30 years and under (Group I), 75 kidneys from donors age 31-54 years (Group II) and 75 kidneys from donors age 55 and older (Group III). Significant gene induction was confirmed in kidneys from Group III for PSMB9 and PSMB10. Strikingly, transcripts of NKG2D had the significantly highest gene induction in Group III versus Group II and Group I. Similar results were obtained for CDKN2A, but not for telomere length. Both NKG2D and CDKN2A mRNA expression were significantly correlated with creatinine levels at 24 months after transplantation. Univariate regression analysis showed significant predictive power regarding graft function at 6 and 12 months for NKG2D and CDKN2A. However, only NKG2D remained significantly predictive in the multivariate model at 12 months. Thus, our results reveal novel candidate markers in aged renal allografts, which could be helpful in the assessment of organ quality.

Influence of Deceased Donor and Pretransplant Recipient Parameters on Early Overall Kidney Graft-Survival in Germany

Background. Scarcity of grafts for kidney transplantation (KTX) caused an increased consideration of deceased donors with substantial risk factors. There is no agreement on which ones are detrimental for overall graft-survival. Therefore, we investigated in a nationwide multicentre study the impact of donor and recipient related risks known before KTX on graft-survival based on the original data used for allocation and graft acceptance. Methods. A nationwide deidentified multicenter study-database was created of data concerning kidneys donated and transplanted in Germany between 2006 and 2008 as provided by the national organ procurement organization (Deutsche Stiftung Organtransplantation) and BQS Institute. Multiple Cox regression (significance level 5%, hazard ratio [95% CI]) was conducted (n = 4411, isolated KTX). Results. Risk factors associated with graft-survival were donor age (1.020 [1.013-1.027] per year), donor size (0.985 [0.977-0.993] per cm), donor's creatinine at admission (1.002 [1.001-1.004] per µmol/L), donor treatment with catecholamine (0.757 [0.635-0.901]), and reduced graft-quality at procurement (1.549 [1.217-1.973]), as well as recipient age (1.012 [1.003-1.021] per year), actual panel reactive antibodies (1.007 [1.002-1.011] per percent), retransplantation (1.850 [1.484-2.306]), recipient's cardiovascular comorbidity (1.436 [1.212-1.701]), and use of IL2-receptor antibodies for induction (0.741 [0.619-0.887]). Conclusion. Some donor characteristics persist to impact graft-survival (e.g., age) while the effect of others could be mitigated by elaborate donor-recipient match and care.

Donor Heart Utilization following Cardiopulmonary Arrest and Resuscitation: Influence of Donor Characteristics and Wait Times in Transplant Regions

Background. Procurement of hearts from cardiopulmonary arrest and resuscitated (CPR) donors for transplantation is suboptimal. We studied the influences of donor factors and regional wait times on CPR donor heart utilization. Methods. From UNOS database (1998 to 2012), we identified 44,744 heart donors, of which 4,964 (11%) received CPR. Based on procurement of heart for transplantation, CPR donors were divided into hearts procured (HP) and hearts not procured (HNP) groups. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of heart procurement. Results. Of the 4,964 CPR donors, 1,427 (28.8%) were in the HP group. Donor characteristics that favored heart procurement include younger age (25.5 ± 15 yrs versus 39 ± 18 yrs, P ≤ 0.0001), male gender (34% versus 23%, P ≤ 0.0001), shorter CPR duration (<15 min versus >30 min, P ≤ 0.0001), and head trauma (60% versus 15%). Among the 11 UNOS regions, the highest procurement was in Region 1 (37%) and the lowest in Region 3 (24%). Regional transplant volumes and median waiting times did not influence heart procurement rates. Conclusions. Only 28.8% of CPR donor hearts were procured for transplantation. Factors favoring heart procurement include younger age, male gender, short CPR duration, and traumatic head injury. Heart procurement varied by region but not by transplant volumes or wait times.

Human leukocyte antigen matching in heart transplantation: systematic review and meta-analysis

Allocation of donors with regard to human leukocyte antigen (HLA) is controversial in heart transplantation. This paper is a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available evidence. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched systematically for studies that addressed the effects of HLA matching on outcome after heart transplantation. Fifty-seven studies met the eligibility criteria. 34 studies had graft rejection as outcome, with 26 of the studies reporting a significant reduction in graft rejection with increasing degree of HLA matching. Thirteen of 18 articles that reported on graft failure found that it decreased significantly with increasing HLA match. Two multicenter studies and nine single-center studies provided sufficient data to provide summary estimates at 12 months. Pooled comparisons showed that graft survival increased with fewer HLA-DR mismatches [0-1 vs. 2 mismatches: risk ratio (RR) = 1.09 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.19; P = 0.04)]. Having fewer HLA-DR mismatches (0-1 vs. 2) reduced the incidence of acute rejection [(RR = 0.81 (0.66-0.99; P = 0.04)]. Despite the considerable heterogeneity between studies, the short observation time, and older data, HLA matching improves graft survival in heart transplantation. Prospective HLA-DR matching is clinically feasible and should be considered as a major selection criterion.