The 20-year paradigm shift toward organ recovery centers: 2500 donors at Mid-America Transplant and broader adoption across the United States.

On March 1, 2001, Mid-America Transplant, the organ procurement organization (OPO) located in St Louis, Missouri, performed the first organ recovery of a brain-dead donor in a hospital-independent, free-standing, organ recovery center (ORC), with successful transplantation of a liver. This was the inception of a paradigm shift in donor management and organ procurement, moving away from the traditional method of using the donor hospital. In the last 20 years, many advances have occurred in the ORC. Brain-dead donors are moved within hours of authorization to fully equipped intensive care units. Some ORCs are equipped with computed tomography scanners, portable radiography, laboratory facilities, bronchoscopy, and a cardiac catheterization laboratory. ORCs have dedicated surgical suites, and operating time is frequently during the day and is rarely delayed. Donor management in an ORC is more consistent, efficient, and effective than that in a donor hospital, and studies have demonstrated increased organ yield. Multiple studies have demonstrated a cost benefit of an ORC as well as providing an ideal environment for donor research studies. Currently, there are 24 of 57 OPOs that are using an independent or hospital-based ORC to manage their donors. We review the history and describe the current state of ORCs.

Opportunity to increase deceased donation for United States veterans.

Recent changes to organ procurement organization (OPO) performance metrics have highlighted the need to identify opportunities to increase organ donation in the United States. Using data from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN), Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR), and Veteran Health Administration Informatics and Computing Infrastructure Clinical Data Warehouse (VINCI CDW), we sought to describe historical donation performance at Veteran Administration Medical Centers (VAMCs). We found that over the period 2010-2019, there were only 33 donors recovered from the 115 VAMCs with donor potential nationwide. VA donors had similar age-matched organ transplant yields to non-VA donors. Review of VAMC records showed a total of 8474 decedents with causes of death compatible with donation, of whom 5281 had no infectious or neoplastic comorbidities preclusive to donation. Relative to a single state comparison of adult non-VA inpatient deaths, VAMC deaths were 20 times less likely to be characterized as an eligible death by SRTR. The rate of conversion of inpatient donation-consistent deaths without preclusive comorbidities to actual donors at VAMCs was 5.9% that of adult inpatients at non-VA hospitals. Overall, these findings suggest significant opportunities for growth in donation at VAMCs.

Utilization of deceased donors during a pandemic: argument against using SARS-CoV-2-positive donors.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has rapidly become an unprecedented pandemic that has impacted society, disrupted hospital functions, strained health care resources, and impacted the lives of transplant professionals. Despite this, organ failure and the need for transplant continues throughout the United States. Considering the perpetual scarcity of deceased donor organs, Kates et al present a viewpoint that advocates for the utilization of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-positive donors in selected cases. We present a review of the current literature that details the potential negative consequences of COVID-19-positive donors. The factors we consider include (1) the risk of blood transmission of SARS-CoV-2, (2) involvement of donor organs, (3) lack of effective therapies, (4) exposure of health care and recovery teams, (5) disease transmission and propagation, and (6) hospital resource utilization. While we acknowledge that transplant fulfills the mission of saving lives, it is imperative to consider the consequences not only to our recipients but also to the community and to health care workers, particularly in the absence of effective preventative or curative therapies. For these reasons, we believe the evidence and risks show that COVID-19 infection should continue to remain a contraindication for donation, as has been the initial response of donation and transplant societies.

Organ donation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a rapidly changing circumstance with dramatic policy changes and universal efforts to deal with the initial crisis and minimize its consequences. To identify changes to organ donation and transplantation during this time, an anonymous web-based survey was distributed to 19 select organ procurement organizations (OPOs) throughout the United States comparing 90-day activity during March-May 2020 and March-May 2019. Seventeen OPOs responded to the survey (response rate of 89.5%). Organ authorization decreased by 11% during the current pandemic (n = 1379 vs n = 1552, P = .0001). Organ recovery for transplantation fell by 17% (P = .0001) with a further 18% decrease in the number of organs transplanted (P = .0001). Donor cause of death demonstrated a 4.5% decline in trauma but a 35% increase in substance abuse cases during the COVID-19 period. All OPOs reported significant modifications in response to the pandemic, limiting the onsite presence of staff and transitioning to telephonic approaches for donor family correspondence. Organ donation during the current climate has seen significant changes and the long-term implications of such shifts remain unclear. These trends during the COVID-19 era warrant further investigation to address unmet needs, plan for a proportionate response to the virus and mitigate the collateral impact.

Organ procurement center allows for daytime liver transplantation with less resource utilization: May address burnout, pipeline, and safety for field of transplantation.

Abdominal organ transplantation faces several challenges: burnout, limited pipeline of future surgeons, changes in liver allocation potentially impacting organ procurement travel, and travel safety. The organ procurement center (OPC) model may be one way to mitigate these issues. Liver transplants from 2009 to 2016 were reviewed. There were 755 liver transplants performed with 525 OPC and 230 in-hospital procurements. The majority of transplants (87.4%) were started during daytime hours (5 am-7 pm). Transplants with any portion occurring after-hours were more likely to have procurements in-hospital (P < .001). Daytime cases (n = 400) had more OPC procured livers and hepatitis C recipients and were less likely to have a donation after circulatory death donor (all P < .05). In adjusted analyses, daytime cases were independently associated with extubation in the operating room and less postoperative transfusion. There were no significant differences in short- or long-term postoperative outcomes. For exported livers, 54.3% were procured by a local team, saving 137 flights (151 559 miles). The OPC resulted in optimally timed liver transplants and decreased resource utilization with no negative impact on patient outcomes. It allows for ease in exporting organs procured by local surgeons, and potentially addresses provider burnout, the transplant surgery pipeline, and surgeon travel.

Variation in use of procurement biopsies and its implications for discard of deceased donor kidneys recovered for transplantation.

The use of procurement biopsies in deceased donor kidney acceptance is controversial. We analyzed Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data (n = 59 328 allografts, 2014-2018) to describe biopsy practices across US organ procurement organizations (OPOs) and examine relationships with discards, using hierarchical modeling to account for OPO and donor factors. Median odds ratios (MORs) provide the median of the odds that allografts with identical reported traits would be biopsied or discarded from 2 randomly drawn OPOs. Biopsies were obtained for 52.7% of kidneys. Biopsy use rose in a graded manner with kidney donor profile index (KDPI). Biopsy rates differed significantly among OPOs (22.8% to 77.5%), even after adjustment for KDPI and other donor factors. Discard rates also varied from 6.6% to 32.1% across OPOs. After adjustment for donor factors and OPO, biopsy was associated with more than 3 times the likelihood of discard (adjusted odds ratio [95%LCL aOR95%UCL ], 3.29 3.513.76 ). This association was most pronounced for low-risk (KDPI <20) kidneys (aOR, 5.45 6.477.69 ), with minimal impact at KDPI >85 (aOR, 0.88 1.151.51 ). Adjusted MORs for kidney discard and biopsy were greatest for low-risk kidneys. Reducing the rate of unnecessary biopsy and improving the accuracy of histologic assessments in higher KDPI organs may help reduce graft discard rates.

Unintended consequences of changes to lung allocation policy.

Organ allocation for transplantation aims to balance the principles of justice and medical utility to optimally utilize a scarce resource. To address practical considerations, the United States is divided into 58 donor service areas (DSA), each constituting the first unit of allocation. In November 2017, in response to a lawsuit in New York, an emergency action change to lung allocation policy replaced the DSA level of allocation for donor lungs with a 250 nautical mile circle around the donor hospital. Similar policy changes are being implemented for other organs including heart and liver. Findings from a recent US Department of Health and Human Services report, supplemented with data from our institution, suggest that the emergency policy has not resulted in a change in the type of patients undergoing lung transplantation (LT) or early postoperative outcomes. However, there has been a significant decline in local LT, where donor and recipient are in the same DSA. With procurement teams having to travel greater distances, organ ischemic time has increased and median organ cost has more than doubled. We propose potential solutions for consideration at this critical juncture in the field of transplantation. Policymakers should choose equitable and sustainable access for this lifesaving discipline.

Liver Transplant Costs and Activity After United Network for Organ Sharing Allocation Policy Changes.

Importance: A new liver allocation policy was implemented by United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) in February 2020 with the stated intent of improving access to liver transplant (LT). There are growing concerns nationally regarding the implications this new system may have on LT costs, as well as access to a chance for LT, which have not been captured at a multicenter level. Objective: To characterize LT volume and cost changes across the US and within specific center groups and demographics after the policy implementation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study collected and reviewed LT volume from multiple centers across the US and cost data with attention to 8 specific center demographics. Two separate 12-month eras were compared, before and after the new UNOS allocation policy: March 4, 2019, to March 4, 2020, and March 5, 2020, to March 5, 2021. Data analysis was performed from May to December 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Center volume, changes in cost. Results: A total of 22 of 68 centers responded comparing 1948 LTs before the policy change and 1837 LTs postpolicy, resulting in a 6% volume decrease. Transplants using local donations after brain death decreased 54% (P < .001) while imported donations after brain death increased 133% (P = .003). Imported fly-outs and dry runs increased 163% (median, 19; range, 1-75, vs 50, range, 2-91; P = .009) and 33% (median, 3; range, 0-16, vs 7, range, 0-24; P = .02). Overall hospital costs increased 10.9% to a total of $46 360 176 (P = .94) for participating centers. There was a 77% fly-out cost increase postpolicy ($10 600 234; P = .03). On subanalysis, centers with decreased LT volume postpolicy observed higher overall hospital costs ($41 720 365; P = .048), and specifically, a 122% cost increase for liver imports ($6 508 480; P = .002). Transplant centers from low-income states showed a significant increase in hospital (12%) and import (94%) costs. Centers serving populations with larger proportions of racial and ethnic minority candidates and specifically Black candidates significantly increased costs by more than 90% for imported livers, fly-outs, and dry runs despite lower LT volume. Similarly, costs increased significantly (>100%) for fly-outs and dry runs in centers from worse-performing health systems. Conclusions and Relevance: Based on this large multicenter effort and contrary to current assumptions, the new liver distribution system appears to place a disproportionate burden on populations of the current LT community who already experience disparities in health care. The continuous allocation policies being promoted by UNOS could make the situation even worse.

Deceased Donor Procurement Biopsy Practices, Interpretation, and Histology-Based Decision-Making: A Survey of US Kidney Transplant Centers.

Introduction: The utility of kidney procurement biopsies is controversial. Understanding the current landscape of how clinicians obtain and use biopsies in organ evaluation may help inform consensus-building efforts. Methods: An electronic survey was distributed to clinicians at US kidney transplant programs (April 22, 2021-June 30, 2021) to evaluate donor biopsy indications, frequency, processing and interpretation, and impact of findings on practices. Results: Responses from staff involved in organ acceptance (73% surgeons, 20% nephrologists, 6% coordinators) at 95 transplant centers were analyzed, representing 40% of US transplant centers and 50% of recent deceased donor kidney transplant volume. More than a third of centers (35%) reported obtaining procurement biopsies on most-to-all kidneys. Most clinicians decided when to biopsy jointly with the Organ Procurement Organization (OPO) (82%) based on formal criteria for the decision (72%), although 41% reported having requested a biopsy outside of the criteria. Most respondents used a semiquantitative scoring system for interpretation (57%). Many respondents reported rarely or never having access to renal specialty pathologists (37%) or to telepathology (59%). Most respondents reported that a favorable biopsy result would encourage them to accept a "marginal" donor kidney (72%); nearly half (46%) indicated that an unfavorable biopsy result would lead to decline of a standard criteria kidney. Conclusion: Procurement biopsies are commonly used in organ acceptance decisions despite inconsistent access to experienced renal pathologists and heterogeneous approaches to criteria, scoring, and interpretation. Ongoing study and consensus building are needed to direct procurement biopsy practice toward increasing organ utilization and reducing allocation inefficiency.

Organ Procurement Organization Run Department of Motor Vehicle Registration and Drivers Licensing Offices Leads to Increased Organ Donor First Person Authorization Registrations.

BACKGROUND: More people who have personally consented to organ donation via first person authorization (FPA) registration before death become organ donors than those not personally consenting. The majority of registrations occur at state-specific department of motor vehicle (DMV) and licensing offices, where people register their vehicles and obtain driver's licenses. METHODS: One organ procurement organization (OPO) ran 3 DMV offices and implemented an intervention: a donor-centric approach, including employee education, office decoration with donation materials, and customer experience improvements. Data about registry enrollment was collected before and during the 4-year OPO licensing office contract. A linear mixed model and interrupted time series analyses were performed to evaluate whether the intervention improved rates of registration. RESULTS: Preintervention registry enrollment rates per month were 10%-50%. Having the offices run by an OPO was associated with more enrollments independent of the increasing trend of enrollment (P < 0.001). Also, the DMV office with the lowest preimplementation registration rates had an immediate increase in enrollments after the intervention leading to higher registration rates (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A donor-centric OPO-managed DMV experience increases FPA registration, especially at offices with low initial registration rates. However, even at the office with the highest percentage of FPA registrations, rates were only 65% at intervention conclusion. The transplant community should consider other opportunities for FPA registration.

Cost Evaluation of a Donation after Cardiac Death Program: How Cost per Organ Compares to Other Donor Types.

BACKGROUND: Donation after cardiac death (DCD) is one method of organ donation. Nationally, more than half of evaluated DCD donors do not yield transplantable organs. There is no algorithm for predicting which DCD donors will be appropriate for organ procurement. Donation after cardiac death program costs from an organ procurement organization (OPO) accounting for all evaluated donors have not been reported. STUDY DESIGN: Hospital, transportation, and supply costs of potential DCD donors evaluated at a single OPO from January 2009 to June 2016 were collected. Mean costs per donor and per organ were calculated. Cost of DCD donors that did not yield a transplantable organ were included in cost analyses resulting in total cost of the DCD program. Donation after cardiac death donor costs were compared with costs of in-hospital donation after brain death (DBD) donors. RESULTS: There were 289 organs transplanted from 264 DCD donors evaluated. Mean cost per DCD donor yielding transplantable organs was $9,306. However, 127 donors yielded no organs, at a mean cost of $8,794 per donor. The total cost of the DCD program was $32,020 per donor and $15,179 per organ. Mean cost for an in-hospital DBD donor was $33,546 and $9,478 per organ transplanted. Mean organ yield for DBD donors was 3.54 vs 2.21 for DCD donors (p < 0.0001), making the cost per DBD organ 63% of the cost of a DCD organ. CONCLUSIONS: Mean cost per DCD donor is comparable with DBD donors, however, individual cost of DCD organs increases by almost 40% when all costs of an entire DCD program are included.

Type I Interferon Responses Drive Intrahepatic T cells to Promote Metabolic Syndrome.

Obesity-related insulin resistance is driven by low-grade chronic inflammation of metabolic tissues. In the liver, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is associated with hepatic insulin resistance and systemic glucose dysregulation. However, the immunological factors supporting these processes are poorly understood. We found that the liver accumulates pathogenic CD8+ T cell subsets which control hepatic insulin sensitivity and gluconeogenesis during diet-induced obesity in mice. In a cohort of human patients, CD8+ T cells represent a dominant intrahepatic immune cell population which links to glucose dysregulation. Accumulation and activation of these cells are largely supported by type I interferon (IFN-I) responses in the liver. Livers from obese mice upregulate critical interferon regulatory factors (IRFs), interferon stimulatory genes (ISGs), and IFNα protein, while IFNαR1-/- mice, or CD8-specific IFNαR1-/- chimeric mice are protected from disease. IFNαR1 inhibitors improve metabolic parameters in mice, while CD8+ T cells and IFN-I responses correlate with NAFLD activity in human patients. Thus, IFN-I responses represent a central immunological axis that governs intrahepatic T cell pathogenicity during metabolic disease.

Organ Donor Recovery Performed at an Organ Procurement Organization-Based Facility Is an Effective Way to Minimize Organ Recovery Costs and Increase Organ Yield.

BACKGROUND: A new era in organ donation with national redistricting is being proposed. With these proposals, costs of organ acquisition are estimated to more than double. Traditionally, organ recoveries occur in the donor hospital setting, incurring premium hospital expenses. The aim of the study was to determine organ recovery costs and organ yield for donor recoveries performed at an organ procurement organization (OPO) facility. STUDY DESIGN: In 2001, we established an OPO facility and in 2008 began transferring the donor expeditiously when brain death was declared. The OPO donor and hospital costs on a per donor basis were calculated. Donation after cardiac death donors cannot be transferred and were included in the hospital cost analysis. RESULTS: From January 2009 to December 2014, nine hundred and sixty-three donors originating in our OPO had organs recovered and transplanted. Seven hundred and sixty-six (79.5%) donors were transferred to the OPO facility 8.6 hours (range 0.6 to 23.6 hours) after declaration of brain death. Donor recovery cost was 51% less when donors were transferred to the OPO facility ($16,153 OPO recovery vs $33,161 hospital recovery; p < 0.0001). Organ yield was 27.5% better (3.43 organs) from OPO-recovered donors vs an organ yield of 2.69 from hospital-recovered donors (p < 0.0001). Standard criteria donor organ yield from our OPO was 6% higher than the national average (3.92 vs 3.7 nationally; p = 0.012) and expanded criteria donor organ yield was 18% higher (2.2 vs 1.87 nationally; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: An OPO facility for donor organ recovery increases efficiency and organ yield, reduces costs, and minimizes organ acquisition charge. As we face new considerations with broader sharing, increased efficiencies, cost. and organ use should be considered.

Comparison of high- and low-dose corticosteroid regimens for organ donor management.

PURPOSE: Corticosteroids are used to promote hemodynamic stability and reduce inflammatory organ injury after brain death. High-dose (HD) methylprednisolone has become the standard regimen based on comparisons to untreated/historical controls. However, this protocol may exacerbate hyperglycemia. Our objective was to compare a lower-dose (LD) steroid protocol (adequate for hemodynamic stabilization in adrenal insufficiency and sepsis) to the traditional HD regimen in the management of brain-dead organ donors. METHODS: We evaluated 132 consecutive brain-dead donors managed before and after changing the steroid protocol from 15 mg/kg methylprednisolone (HD) to 300 mg hydrocortisone (LD). Primary outcome measures were glycemic control, oxygenation, hemodynamic stability, and organs transplanted. RESULTS: Groups were balanced except for nonsignificantly higher baseline Pao(2) in the LD cohort. Final Pao(2) remained higher (394 mm Hg LD vs 333 mm Hg HD, P=.03); but improvement in oxygenation was comparable (+37 mm Hg LD vs +28 mm Hg HD, P=.43), as was the proportion able to come off vasopressor support (39% LD vs 47% HD, P=.38). Similar proportions of lungs (44% vs 33%) and hearts (31% vs 27%) were transplanted in both groups. After excluding diabetics, median glucose values at 4 hours (170 mmol/L vs 188 mmol/L, P=.06) and final insulin requirements (2.9 U/h vs 8.4 U/h, P=.01) were lower with LD steroids; and more patients were off insulin infusions (74% LD vs 53% HD, P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: A lower-dose corticosteroid protocol did not result in worsened donor pulmonary or cardiac function, with comparable organs transplanted compared with the traditional HD regimen. Insulin requirements and glycemic control were improved. High-dose methylprednisolone may not be required to support brain-dead donors.