Dataset Information

Wide Variation in the Percentage of Donation After Circulatory Death Donors Across Donor Service Areas: A Potential Target for Improvement.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Substantial differences exist in the clinical characteristics of donors across the 58 donor service areas (DSAs). Organ procurement organization (OPO) performance metrics incorporate organs donated after circulatory determination of death (DCDD) donors but do not measure potential DCDD donors.

Methods

Using 2011-2016 United Network for Organ Sharing data, we examined the variability in DCDD donors/all deceased donors (%DCDD) across DSAs. We supplemented United Network for Organ Sharing data with CDC death records and OPO statistics to characterize underlying process and system factors that may correlate with donors and utilization.

Results

Among 52 184 deceased donors, the %DCDD varied widely across DSAs, with a median of 15.1% (interquartile range [9.3%, 20.9%]; range 0.0%-32.0%). The %DCDD had a modest positive correlation with 4 DSA factors: median match model for end-stage liver disease, proportion of white deaths out of total deaths, kidney center competition, and %DCDD livers by a local transplant center (all Spearman coefficients 0.289-0.464), and negative correlation with 1 factor: mean kidney waiting time (Spearman coefficient -0.388). Adjusting for correlated variables in linear regression explained 46.3% of the variability in %DCDD.

Conclusions

Donor pool demographics, waitlist metrics, center competition, and DCDD utilization explain only a portion of the variability of DCDD donors. This requires further studies and policy changes to encourage consideration of all possible organ donors.

SUBMITTER: Sonnenberg EM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7170761 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:RATIONALE:To address the lung donor shortage, we obtained institutional review board and US Food and Drug Administration approval to transplant lungs recovered from uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death donors (uDCDDs). OBJECTIVES:To compare outcomes of recipients of lungs recovered from uDCDDs vs. brain-dead donors. METHODS:After consent and screening, lungs recovered from uDCDDs were assessed by 4 hours ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) and computed tomography (CT) scan. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Over the course of 29 months, 502 potential uDCDDs younger than 66 years were identified in a single county, with death declaration by emergency medical services and four emergency departments in this and two other countries. We determined reasons that lungs from these uDCDDs were not able to be transplanted: uDCDDs could not have lungs recovered (224), next-of-kin could not be found or refused to discuss (67), next-of-kin refused (48), medical examiner case (39), logistics/missed (35), and miscellaneous (35). There were 247 medical contraindications: 141 pulmonary and 106 nonpulmonary. Lungs were recovered from 31 uDCDDs. Thirteen lungs did not have EVLP: 5 injured lungs (one pulmonary embolism [PE] with perforated infarct, two motor vehicle crash with severe injuries, one adhesion, and one lightning strike), two large PE, two prolonged ischemic time, two obvious chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, one technical, and one consent withdrawn. Eighteen lungs had EVLP: 10 with immediate edema (three PE, three unknown down time, three long ischemic time, and one ruptured aneurysm into L pleural space, making long cardiopulmonary resuscitation ineffective), and one myocarditis, possible lung involvement. In three lungs, CT showed edema after EVLP: one poor flush and poor EVLP performance, one edema after myocardial infarction (MI) with 10-year history of chronic heart failure, and one edema with MI, resuscitated, arrested again. One concurrent pneumonia was diagnosed by bronchoscopy, CT, and cultures; one patient had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with small subpleural blebs and poor collapse, confirmed by CT. Two uDCDDs with MIs were suitable but not transplanted: no consented recipient from one large blood type B uDCDD, and the senior surgeon was unavailable to transplant suitable lungs from a uDCDD and did not allow the transplant. CONCLUSIONS:The objective was not met: no lungs from uDCDDs were transplanted. uDCDDs can be a source of lungs for transplant. Resolving logistical challenges and better use of first-person authorization, allowing organ recovery without next-of-kin consent or knowledge of death, could increase yield. Donor medical problems were higher than expected and may limit the effect of uDCDDs on the lung donor pool. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT01615484.