Organ Donation After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Scientific Statement From the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation

AIM OF THE REVIEW

Improving rates of organ donation among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who do not survive is an opportunity to save countless lives. The objectives of this scientific statement were to do the following: define the opportunity for organ donation among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest; identify challenges and opportunities associated with organ donation by patients with cardiac arrest; identify strategies, including a generic protocol for organ donation after cardiac arrest, to increase the rate and consistency of organ donation from this population; and provide rationale for including organ donation as a key clinical outcome for all future cardiac arrest clinical trials and registries.

METHODS

The scope of this International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation scientific statement was approved by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation board and the American Heart Association, posted on ILCOR.org for public comment, and then assigned by section to primary and secondary authors. A unique literature search was completed and updated for each section.

RESULTS

There are a number of defining pathways for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest to become organ donors; however, modifications in the Maastricht classification system need to be made to correctly identify these donors and to report outcomes with consistency. Suggested modifications to the minimum data set for reporting cardiac arrests will increase reporting of organ donation as an important resuscitation outcome. There are a number of challenges with implementing uncontrolled donation after cardiac death protocols, and the greatest impediment is the lack of legislation in most countries to mandate organ donation as the default option. Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation has the potential to increase organ donation rates, but more research is needed to derive neuroprognostication rules to guide clinical decision-making about when to stop extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation and to evaluate cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

All health systems should develop, implement, and evaluate protocols designed to optimize organ donation opportunities for patients who have an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and failed attempts at resuscitation.

Organ Donation After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Scientific Statement From the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation

AIM OF THE REVIEW

Improving rates of organ donation among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who do not survive is an opportunity to save countless lives. The objectives of this scientific statement were to do the following: define the opportunity for organ donation among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest; identify challenges and opportunities associated with organ donation by patients with cardiac arrest; identify strategies, including a generic protocol for organ donation after cardiac arrest, to increase the rate and consistency of organ donation from this population; and provide rationale for including organ donation as a key clinical outcome for all future cardiac arrest clinical trials and registries.

METHODS

The scope of this International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation scientific statement was approved by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation board and the American Heart Association, posted on ILCOR.org for public comment, and then assigned by section to primary and secondary authors. A unique literature search was completed and updated for each section.

RESULTS

There are a number of defining pathways for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest to become organ donors; however, modifications in the Maastricht classification system need to be made to correctly identify these donors and to report outcomes with consistency. Suggested modifications to the minimum data set for reporting cardiac arrests will increase reporting of organ donation as an important resuscitation outcome. There are a number of challenges with implementing uncontrolled donation after cardiac death protocols, and the greatest impediment is the lack of legislation in most countries to mandate organ donation as the default option. Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation has the potential to increase organ donation rates, but more research is needed to derive neuroprognostication rules to guide clinical decision-making about when to stop extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation and to evaluate cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

All health systems should develop, implement, and evaluate protocols designed to optimise organ donation opportunities for patients who have an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and failed attempts at resuscitation.

Solid organ donation from the emergency department - A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

A significant gap exists between people awaiting an organ transplant and organ donors. The purpose of this study was to determine what percent of successful donors come from the emergency department (ED), whether there are any missed donors, and to identify factors associated with successful and missed donation.

METHODS

This systematic review used electronic searches of EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CINAHL according to PRISMA guidelines on July 7, 2017. We included primary literature in adults describing successful and missed organ donation. Two authors independently screened articles, and discrepancies were resolved through consensus. Quality was assessed using the STROBE checklist.

RESULTS

This systematic review identified 1,058 articles, and 25 articles were included. For neurologic determination of death, ED patients comprised 4%-50% of successful donors and 3.6%-8.9% of successful donors for donation after circulatory determination of death. ED death reviews revealed up to 84% of missed neurologic determination of death, and 46.2% of missed circulatory determination of death donors who died in the ED are missed due to a failure to refer for consideration of organ donation. Clinical heterogeneity precluded pooling of the data to conduct a meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The ED is a source of actual and missed donors. Potential donors are often missed due to incorrect assumptions regarding eligibility criteria and failure of the healthcare team to refer for consideration of donation. ED healthcare professionals should be aware of organ donation referral protocols at their institution to ensure that no organ donors are missed.

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.

Initial lung transplantation experience with uncontrolled donation after cardiac death in North America

Uncontrolled donation after cardiac death (uDCD) has the potential to ameliorate the shortage of suitable lungs for transplant. To date, no lung transplant data from these donors are available from North America. We describe the successful use of these donors using a simple method of in situ lung inflation so that the organ can be protected from warm ischemic injury. Forty-four potential donors were approached, and family consent was obtained in 30 cases (68%). Of these, the lung transplant team evaluated 16 uDCDs on site, and 14 were considered for transplant pending ex vivo lung perfusion assessment. Five lungs were ultimately used for transplant (16.7% use rate from consented donors). The mean warm ischemic time was 2.8 hours. No primary graft dysfunction grade 3 was observed at 24, 48, or 72 hours after transplant. Median intensive care unit stay was 5 days (range: 2-78 days), and median hospital stay was 17 days (range: 8-100 days). The 30-day mortality was 0%. Four of 5 patients are alive at a median of 651 days (range: 121-1254 days) with preserved lung function. This study demonstrates the proof of concept and the potential for uDCD lung donation using a simple donor intervention.

The unique moral permissibility of uncontrolled lung donation after circulatory death

Implementing uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death (uDCDD) in the United States could markedly improve supply of donor lungs for patients in need of transplants. Evidence from US pilot programs suggests families support uDCDD, but only if they are asked permission for using invasive organ preservation procedures prior to initiation. However, non-invasive strategies that confine oxygenation to lungs may be applicable to the overwhelming majority of potential uDCDD donors that have airway devices in place as part of standard resuscitation. We propose an ethical framework for lung uDCDD by: (a) initiating post mortem preservation without requiring prior permission to protect the opportunity for donation until an authorized party can be found; (b) using non-invasive strategies that confine oxygenation to lungs; and (c) maintaining strict separation between the healthcare team and the organ preservation team. Attempting uDCDD in this way has great potential to obtain more transplantable lungs while respecting donor autonomy and family wishes, securing public support, and enabling authorized persons to affirm or cease preservation decisions without requiring evidence of prior organ donation intent. It ensures prioritization of life-saving, the opportunity to allow willing donors to donate, and respect for bodily integrity while adhering to current ethical norms.

Criteria to Identify a Potential Deceased Organ Donor: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the global published literature defining a potential deceased organ donor and identifying clinical triggers for deceased organ donation identification and referral.

DATA SOURCES

Medline and Embase databases from January 2006 to September 2017.

STUDY SELECTION

All published studies containing a definition of a potential deceased organ donor and/or clinical triggers for referring a potential deceased organ donor were eligible for inclusion. Dual, independent screening was conducted of 3,857 citations.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data extraction was completed by one team member and verified by a second team member. Thematic content analysis was used to identify clinical criteria for potential deceased organ donation identification from the published definitions and clinical triggers.

DATA SYNTHESIS

One hundred twenty-four articles were included in the review. Criteria fell into four categories: Neurological, Medical Decision, Cardiorespiratory, and Administrative. Distinct and globally consistent sets of clinical criteria by type of deceased organ donation (neurologic death determination, controlled donation after circulatory determination of death, and uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death) are reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the clinical criteria sets reported will reduce ambiguity associated with the deceased organ donor identification and the subsequent referral process, potentially reducing the number of missed donors and saving lives globally through increased transplantation.

Uncontrolled deceased cardiac donation: An unutilized source for organ transplantation in the United States

The practice of uncontrolled donation after cardiac death (uDCD) has been met with tepid interest within the United States transplant community. Hesitancy stems largely from fears of eroding public trust due to complex ethical issues involving consent. Beyond ethical concerns, uDCD creates unique logistic challenges to obtain and to preserve organs within a short time frame. This mandates that organ recovery centers be able to rapidly mobilize, and that traditional cold preservation techniques may be inadequate. Proof of effective uDCD organ recovery comes from several European nations, and the frequency of its use is increasing due to early promising results. These scarce resources provide life-saving organs to desperate transplant candidates who otherwise experience high morbidity and mortality on a transplant waitlist. The objective of this review will be to provide an overview of the European experience with uDCD and discuss the unique ethical and logistic challenges associated with its implementation in the United States. Given existing models for it successful use, uDCD remains a poorly utilized source of donors in the United States at this time.

PROviding Better ACcess To ORgans: A comprehensive overview of organ-access initiatives from the ASTS PROACTOR Task Force

The American Society of Transplant Surgeons (ASTS) PROviding better Access To Organs (PROACTOR) Task Force was created to inform ongoing ASTS organ access efforts. Task force members were charged with comprehensively cataloguing current organ access activities and organizing them according to stakeholder type. This white paper summarizes the task force findings and makes recommendations for future ASTS organ access initiatives.

Caring for Patients or Organs: New Therapies Raise New Dilemmas in the Emergency Department

Two potentially lifesaving protocols, emergency preservation and resuscitation (EPR) and uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death (uDCDD), currently implemented in some U.S. emergency departments (EDs), have similar eligibility criteria and initial technical procedures, but critically different goals. Both follow unsuccessful cardiopulmonary resuscitation and induce hypothermia to "buy time": one in trauma patients suffering cardiac arrest, to enable surgical repair, and the other in patients who unexpectedly die in the ED, to enable organ donation. This article argues that to fulfill patient-focused fiduciary obligations and maintain community trust, institutions implementing both protocols should adopt and publicize policies to guide ED physicians to utilize either protocol for particular patients, in order to address the appearance of conflict of interest arising from the protocols' similarities. It concludes by analyzing ethical implications of incentives that may influence institutions to develop the expertise required for uDCDD but not EPR.

Donation after brain circulation determination of death

Background

The fundamental determinant of death in donation after circulatory determination of death is the cessation of brain circulation and function. We therefore propose the term donation after brain circulation determination of death [DBCDD].

Results

In DBCDD, death is determined when the cessation of circulatory function is permanent but before it is irreversible, consistent with medical standards of death determination outside the context of organ donation. Safeguards to prevent error include that: 1] the possibility of auto-resuscitation has elapsed; 2] no brain circulation may resume after the determination of death; 3] complete circulatory cessation is verified; and 4] the cessation of brain function is permanent and complete. Death should be determined by the confirmation of the cessation of systemic circulation; the use of brain death tests is invalid and unnecessary.

Because this concept differs from current standards, consensus should be sought among stakeholders. The patient or surrogate should provide informed consent for organ donation by understanding the basis of the declaration of death.

Conclusion

In cases of circulatory cessation, such as occurs in DBCDD, death can be defined as the permanent cessation of brain functions, determined by the permanent cessation of brain circulation.

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.