A case of kidney transplantation using donation after circulatory death with renal calculi.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gao B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4724018 | biostudies-literature | 2015
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Transplantation of any organ into a recipient requires a donor. Lung transplant has a long history of an inadequate number of suitable donors to meet demand, leading to deaths on the waiting list annually since national data was collected, and strict listing criteria. Before the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA), passed in 1980, legally defined brain death in the U.S., all donors for lung transplant came from sudden death victims [uncontrolled Donation after Circulatory Death donors (uDCDs)] in the recipient's hospital emergency department. After passage of the UDDA, uDCDs were abandoned to Donation after Brain Death donors (DBDs)-perhaps prematurely. Compared to livers and kidneys, many DBDs have lungs that are unsuitable for transplant, due to aspiration pneumonia, neurogenic pulmonary edema, trauma, and the effects of brain death on lung function. Another group of donors has become available-patients with a devastating irrecoverable brain injury that do not meet criteria for brain death. If a decision is made by next-of-kin (NOK) to withdraw life support and allow death to occur by asphyxiation, with NOK consent, these individuals can have organs recovered if death occurs relatively quickly after cessation of mechanical ventilation and maintenance of their airway. These are known as controlled Donation after Circulatory Death donors (cDCDs). For a variety of reasons, in the U.S., lungs are recovered from cDCDs at a much lower rate than kidneys and livers. Ex-vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) in the last decade has had a modest impact on increasing the number of lungs for transplant from DBDs, but may have had a larger impact on lungs from cDCDs, and may be indispensable for safe transplantation of lungs from uDCDs. In the next decade, DCDs may have a substantial impact on the number of lung transplants performed in the U.S. and around the world.
| S-EPMC8662509 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDonation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT) has become an effective mechanism for expanding the donor pool and decreasing waitlist mortality. However, it is unclear if low-volume DCD centers can achieve comparable outcomes to high-volume centers.MethodsFrom 2011 to 2019 utilizing the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database, liver transplant centers were categorized into tertiles based on their annual volume of DCD LTs. Donor selection, recipient selection, and survival outcomes were compared between very-low volume (VLV, n = 1-2 DCD LTs per year), low-volume (LV, n = 3-5), and high-volume (HV, n > 5) centers.ResultsOne hundred and ten centers performed 3273 DCD LTs. VLV-centers performed 339 (10.4%), LV-centers performed 627 (19.2%), and HV-centers performed 2307 (70.4%) LTs. 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year patient and graft survival were significantly increased at HV-centers (all P < .05). Recipients at HV-centers had shorter waitlist durations (P < .01) and shorter hospital lengths of stay (P < .01). On multivariable regression, undergoing DCD LT at a VLV-center or LV-center was associated with increased 1-year patient mortality (VLV-OR:1.73, 1.12-2.69) (LV-OR: 1.42, 1.01-2.00) and 1-year graft failure (VLV-OR: 1.79, 1.24-2.58) (LV-OR: 1.28, .95-1.72).DiscussionIncreased annual DCD liver transplant volume is associated with improved patient and graft survival.
| S-EPMC9287056 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Lung transplantation through controlled donation after circulatory death (cDCD) has slowly gained universal acceptance with reports of equivalent outcomes to those through donation after brain death. In contrast, uncontrolled DCD (uDCD) lung use is controversial and requires ethical, legal and medical complexities to be addressed in a limited time. Consequently, uDCD lung use has not previously been reported in the United States. Despite these potential barriers, we present a case of a patient with multiple gunshot wounds to the head and the body who was unsuccessfully resuscitated and ultimately became an uDCD donor. A cytomegalovirus positive recipient who had previously consented for CDC high-risk, DCD and participation in the NOVEL trial was transplanted from this uDCD donor, following 3 h of ex vivo lung perfusion. The postoperative course was uneventful, and the recipient was discharged home on day 9. While this case represents a "best-case scenario," it illustrates a method for potential expansion of the lung allograft pool through uDCD after unsuccessful resuscitation in hospitalized patients.
| S-EPMC4273571 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Normothermic and hypothermic oxygenated perfusion for donation after circulatory death in kidney transplantation are becoming popular in Italy, with the purpose of reducing the risk of primary non function and delayed graft function due to the prolonged warm ischemia time. Potential complications related to these procedures are currently under investigation and are continuously emerging with the increasing experience. Post-operative infections - in particular graft arteritis - are a rare complication but determine high risk of mortality and of graft loss. The acute onset of the arterial complications makes it very difficult to find an effective treatment, and early diagnosis is crucial for saving both patient and graft. Prevention of such infections in this particular setting are advisable. CASE PRESENTATION:We present a patient with an acute arterial rupture after transplantation of a DCD graft treated in-vivo hypothermic oxygenated perfusion. The cause was a severe arteritis of the renal artery caused by Candida krusei and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. We discussed our treatment and we compared it to the other reported series. CONCLUSION:Fungal infections in DCD transplant may be treacherous and strategies to prevent them should be advocated.
| S-EPMC7011237 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Reducing wait list mortality among patients awaiting liver transplantation remains a substantial challenge because of organ shortage. In efforts to expand the donor pool there has been a trend toward increased use of donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver grafts. However, these marginal grafts are prone to higher complication rates, particularly biliary complications. In addition, many procured DCD livers are then deemed unsuitable for transplant. Despite these limitations, DCD grafts represent an important resource to address the current organ shortage, and as such there are research efforts directed toward improving the use of and outcomes for transplantation of these grafts. We review the current progress in DCD liver transplantation.
| S-EPMC7828961 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Scoring systems have been proposed to select donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors and recipients for liver transplantation (LT). We hypothesized that complex scoring systems derived in large datasets might not predict outcomes locally. Methods: Based on 1-year DCD-LT graft survival predictors in multivariate logistic regression models, we designed, validated, and compared a simple index using the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) cohort (n = 136) and a universal-comprehensive (UC)-DCD score using the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) cohort (n = 5,792) to previously published DCD scoring systems. Results: The total warm ischemia time (WIT)-index included donor WIT (dWIT) and hepatectomy time (dHep). The UC-DCD score included dWIT, dHep, recipient on mechanical ventilation, transjugular-intrahepatic-portosystemic-shunt, cause of liver disease, model for end-stage liver disease, body mass index, donor/recipient age, and cold ischemia time. In the UNOS cohort, the UC-score outperformed all previously published scores in predicting DCD-LT graft survival (AUC: 0.635 vs. ≤0.562). In the UCSF cohort, the total WIT index successfully stratified survival and biliary complications, whereas other scores did not. Conclusion: DCD risk scores generated in large cohorts provide general guidance for safe recipient/donor selection, but they must be tailored based on non-/partially-modifiable local circumstances to expand DCD utilization.
| S-EPMC8766343 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Dr. O.P. Yadava, CEO and Chief Cardiac Surgeon, National Heart Institute, New Delhi, India, and Editor-in-Chief, Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, in a conversation with Dr. Catherine Dushyant Sudarshan, discusses the state of donation after circulatory death for cardiac transplant and how it can address the donor shortages.
| S-EPMC7538526 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesThe broader use of combined expanded criteria donor and donation after circulatory death (ECD/DCD) kidneys may help expand the deceased donor pool. The purpose of our study was to evaluate discard rates of kidneys from ECD/DCD donors and factors associated with discard.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsECD/DCD donors and kidneys were evaluated from January 1, 2000 to March 31, 2011 using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. The kidney donor risk index was calculated for all ECD/DCD kidneys. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine risk factors for discarding both donor kidneys. The Kaplan-Meier product limit method and the log-rank statistic were used to assess the cumulative probability of graft failure for transplants from ECD/DCD donors where the mate kidney was discarded versus both kidneys were used.ResultsThere were 896 ECD/DCD donors comprising 1792 kidneys. Both kidneys were discarded in 44.5% of donors, whereas 51.0% of all available kidneys were discarded. The kidney donor risk index scores were higher among donors of discarded versus transplanted kidneys (median, 1.82; interquartile range, 1.60, 2.07 versus median, 1.67; interquartile range, 1.49, 1.87, respectively; P<0.001); however, the distributions showed considerable overlap. The adjusted odds ratios for discard were higher among donors who were older, diabetic, AB blood type, and hepatitis C positive. The cumulative probabilities of total graft failure at 1, 3, and 5 years were 17.3%, 36.5%, and 55.4% versus 13.8%, 24.7%, and 40.5% among kidneys from donors where only one versus both kidneys were transplanted, respectively (log rank P=0.04).ConclusionsOur study shows a significantly higher discard rate for ECD/DCD kidneys versus prior reports. Some discarded ECD/DCD kidneys may be acceptable for transplantation. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the factors that influence decision making around the use of ECD/DCD kidneys.
| S-EPMC4741045 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe Campath, Calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) reduction, and Chronic allograft nephropathy (3C), a study comparing alemtuzumab versus basiliximab induction immunosuppression in kidney transplants, has found lower acute rejection rate with alemtuzumab but same graft survival. The aim of the current study is to evaluate the effect of induction immunosuppression (thymoglobulin, alemtuzumab, basiliximab) on the outcome of kidneys of donors after circulatory death (DCD).MethodsData of the 274 DCD patients of the 3C obtained from the sponsor were compounded with the 140 DCD patients who received thymoglobulin in a single center with the same entry criteria as the 3C, giving 414 patients on 3 induction regimes.ResultsThere were more male donors (P < 0.05) and human leukocyte antigen and DR mismatched patients in the thymoglobulin group (P < 0.001). Death-censored graft survival at 6 months was 98.6% in the thymoglobulin, 95.5% in the alemtuzumab (P = 0.08), and 95.7% in the basiliximab group (P = 0.09) and at 2 years 97.9% versus 94.8% (P = 0.13, hazard ratio [HR] 2.8, 95% CI 0.7-10.9) versus 94.3% (P = 0.06, HR 3.5, 95% CI 0.9-13.6), respectively.The 2-year overall graft survival was 95% in the thymoglobulin versus 88% in the alemtuzumab (unadjusted P = 0.038, adjusted HR 2.4, 95% CI 0.99-5.9) and 91.4% in the basiliximab group (P = 0.21). The 2-year patient survival was numerically less in the alemtuzumab compared with the thymoglobulin group (91.8% vs. 97.1%, P = 0.052, HR 2.90, 95% CI 0.93-9.2). Acute rejection was 17% in the basiliximab, 4.3% in the thymoglobulin, and 6% in the alemtuzumab group (P < 0.001).ConclusionIn DCD transplants, thymoglobulin induction may provide advantage over alemtuzumab in patient survival and the same advantage as alemtuzumab over basiliximab in terms of acute rejection. Differing maintenance immunosuppression may contribute to the difference found.
| S-EPMC9039467 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesOutcomes of liver transplantations from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors may be inferior to those achieved with donation after brain death (DBD) donors. The impact of using DCD donors is likely to depend on specific national practices. We compared risk-adjusted graft loss and recipient mortality after transplantation of DCD and DBD livers in the UK.DesignProspective cohort study. Multivariable Cox regression and propensity score matching were used to estimate risk-adjusted HR.Setting7 liver transplant centres in the National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England and Scotland.ParticipantsAdults who received a first elective liver transplant between January 2005 and December 2010 who were identified in the UK Liver Transplant Audit.InterventionsTransplantation of DCD and DBD livers.OutcomesGraft loss and recipient mortality.ResultsIn total, 2572 liver transplants were identified with 352 (14%) from DCD donors. 3-year graft loss (95% CI) was higher with DCD livers (27.3%, 21.8% to 33.9%) than with DBD livers (18.2%, 16.4% to 20.2%). After adjustment with regression, HR for graft loss was 2.3 (1.7 to 3.0). Similarly, 3-year mortality was higher with DCD livers (19.4%, 14.5% to 25.6%) than with DBD livers (14.1%, 12.5% to 16.0%) with an adjusted HR of 2.0 (1.4 to 2.8). Propensity score matching gave similar results. Centre-specific adjusted HRs for graft loss and recipient mortality seemed to differ among transplant centres, although statistical evidence is weak (p value for interaction 0.08 and 0.24, respectively).ConclusionsGraft loss and recipient mortality were about twice as high with DCD livers as with DBD livers in the UK. Outcomes after DCD liver transplantation may vary between centres. These results should inform policies for the use of DCD livers.
| S-EPMC3773642 | biostudies-literature