Ex Situ Left Ventricular Pressure-Volume Loop Analyses for Donor Hearts: Proof of Concept in an Ovine Experimental Model.

Ex situ heart perfusion (ESHP) has emerged as an important strategy to preserve donation after brain death (DBD) and donation after circulatory death (DCD) donor hearts. Clinically, both DBD and DCD hearts are successfully preserved using ESHP. Viability assessment is currently based on biochemical values, while a reliable method for graft function assessment in a physiologic working mode is unavailable. As functional assessment during ESHP has demonstrated the highest predictive value of outcome post-transplantation, this is an important area for improvement. In this study, a novel method for ex situ assessment of left ventricular function with pressure-volume loop analyses is evaluated. Ovine hearts were functionally evaluated during normothermic ESHP with the novel pressure-volume loop system. This system provides an afterload and adjustable preload to the left ventricle. By increasing the preload and measuring end-systolic elastance, the system could successfully assess the left ventricular function. End-systolic elastance at 60 min and 120 min was 2.8 ± 1.8 mmHg/mL and 2.7 ± 0.7 mmHg/mL, respectively. In this study we show a novel method for functional graft assessment with ex situ pressure-loop analyses during ESHP. When further validated, this method for pressure-volume assessments, could be used for better graft selection in both DBD and DCD donor hearts.

Waiting list mortality and the potential of donation after circulatory death heart transplantations in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: With more patients qualifying for heart transplantation (HT) and fewer hearts being transplanted, it is vital to look for other options. To date, only organs from brain-dead donors have been used for HT in the Netherlands. We investigated waiting list mortality in all Dutch HT centres and the potential of donation after circulatory death (DCD) HT in the Netherlands. METHODS: Two different cohorts were evaluated. One cohort was defined as patients who were newly listed or were already on the waiting list for HT between January 2013 and December 2017. Follow-up continued until September 2018 and waiting list mortality was calculated. A second cohort of all DCD donors in the Netherlands (lung, liver, kidney and pancreas) between January 2013 and December 2017 was used to calculate the potential of DCD HT. RESULTS: Out of 395 patients on the waiting list for HT, 196 (50%) received transplants after a median waiting time of 2.6 years. In total, 15% died while on the waiting list before a suitable donor heart became available. We identified 1006 DCD donors. After applying exclusion criteria and an age limit of 50 years, 122 potential heart donors remained. This number increased to 220 when the age limit was extended to 57 years. CONCLUSION: Waiting list mortality in the Netherlands is high. HT using organs from DCD donors has great potential in the Netherlands and could lead to a reduction in waiting list mortality. Cardiac screening will eventually determine the true potential.

A Multicenter Study on Long-Term Outcomes After Lung Transplantation Comparing Donation After Circulatory Death and Donation After Brain Death.

The implementation of donation after circulatory death category 3 (DCD3) was one of the attempts to reduce the gap between supply and demand of donor lungs. In the Netherlands, the total number of potential lung donors was greatly increased by the availability of DCD3 lungs in addition to the initial standard use of donation after brain death (DBD) lungs. From the three lung transplant centers in the Netherlands, 130 DCD3 recipients were one-to-one nearest neighbor propensity score matched with 130 DBD recipients. The primary end points were primary graft dysfunction (PGD), posttransplant lung function, freedom from chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD), and overall survival. PGD did not differ between the groups. Posttransplant lung function was comparable after bilateral lung transplantation, but seemed worse after DCD3 single lung transplantation. The incidence of CLAD (p = 0.17) nor the freedom from CLAD (p = 0.36) nor the overall survival (p = 0.40) were significantly different between both groups. The presented multicenter results are derived from a national context where one third of the lung transplantations are performed with DCD3 lungs. We conclude that the long-term outcome after lung transplantation with DCD3 donors is similar to that of DBD donors and that DCD3 donation can substantially enlarge the donor pool.