A more than 20% increase in deceased-donor organ procurement and transplantation activity after the use of donation after circulatory death.

BACKGROUND: Organ procurement and transplant activity from controlled donation after circulatory death (DCD) was evaluated over an 11-year period to determine whether this program influenced the transplant and donation after brain death (DBD) activities. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Deceased donor (DD) procurement and transplant data were prospectively collected in a local database for retrospective review. RESULTS: There was an increasing trend in the potential and actual DCD numbers over time. DCD accounted for 21.9% of the DD pool over 11 years, representing 23.7% and 24.2% of the DD kidney and liver pool, respectively. The DBD retrieval and transplant activity increased during the same time period. Mean conversion rate turning potential into effective DCD donors was 47.3%. Mean DCD donor age was 54.6 years (range, 3-83). Donors ≥60 years old made up 44.1% of the DCD pool. Among referred donors, reasons for nondonation were medical contraindications (33.7%) and family refusals (19%). Mean organ yield per DCD donor was 2.3 organs. Mean total procurement warm ischemia time was 19.5 minutes (range, 6-39). In 2012, 17 DCD and 37 DBD procurements were performed in the Liege region, which has slightly >1 million inhabitants. CONCLUSIONS: This DCD program implementation enlarged the DD pool and did not compromise the development of DBD programs. The potential DCD pool might be underused and seems to be a valuable organ donor source.

Delayed graft function does not harm the future of donation-after-cardiac death in kidney transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: Delayed graft function (DGF) occurs more frequently in kidney transplants from donation after cardiac death (DCD) than from donation after brain death (DBD). We investigated the effect of DGF on posttransplantation outcomes among grafts from controlled DCD kidneys. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This single-center retrospective study recruited 80 controlled DCD kidneys transplanted from January 2005 to December 2011. Mean patient follow-up was 28.5 months. RESULTS: There were no primary nonfunction grafts; the DGF rate was 35.5%. Overall graft survival rates between groups with versus without DGF were 92.4% and 95.2% at 1 year, 92.4% and 87.1% at 3 years, and 84.7% and 87.1% at 5 years, respectively (P = not significant (NS)). Patients with versus without DGF showed the same survival rates at the corresponding time 92.4% vs 97.2%, 92.4% vs 93.9%, and 84.7% vs 93.9% (P = NS). Estimated glomerular filtration rate was significantly lower in the DGF compared with the non-DGF group at hospital discharge (29 vs 42 mL/min; P = .00) and at 6 months posttransplantation (46 vs 52 mL/min; P = .04), but the difference disappeared thereafter: 47 vs 52 mL/min at 1 year, 50 vs 48 mL/min at 3 years, and 54 vs 53 mL/min at 5 years (P = NS). DGF did not increase the risk of an acute rejection episode (29.6% vs 30.6%; P = NS) or rate of surgical complications (33.3% vs 26.5%; P = NS). However, DGF prolonged significantly the length of hospitalization in the DGF versus the non- DGF group (18.9 vs 13 days; P = .00). Donor body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m(2), recipient BMI ≥30 kg/m(2), and pretransplantation dialysis duration increased the risk of DGF upon multivariate logistic regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Apart from the longer hospital stay, DGF had no deleterious impact on the future of kidney allografts from controlled DCD, which showed comparable graft and patient survivals, renal function, rejection rates, and surgical complications as a group without DGF. Therefore, DGF should no longer be considered to be a medical barrier to the use of kidney grafts from controlled DCD.

Evolution of native kidney function after pancreas transplantation alone.

INTRODUCTION: This study investigated changes in kidney function over time among a cohort of patients undergoing pancreas transplantation alone (PTA) from January 2002 to December 2011. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten of eighteen PTA patients bearing functioning grafts for at least 1 year were recruited for the analysis. Primary endpoints were changes in mean serum creatinine (SCr, mg/L) and mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) using the 4-variable Levey-MDRD equation (mL/min/1.73 m(2)) comparing baseline (pretransplantation) to 6-month, 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year posttransplantation values. Mean follow-up time was 75.7 ± 20.5 months (range, 46-106.5). RESULTS: Baseline eGFR was 89.3 ± 27.9 (range, 58-145). eGFR decreased to 75.7 ± 26.2, 71 ± 20.6, 66.5 ± 14.8, and 62.1 ± 11.2 at 6 months, 1, 3, and 5 years representing -15.2%, -20.5%, -15.8%, and -22.6% percentage decreases respectively (P < .05 for all pairwise comparisons). The Baseline SCr was 8.6 ± 2.3 mg/L (range, 5-13). SCr progressively increased to 10.1 ± 3, 10.5 ± 3.1, 10.9 ± 3.1, and 11.3 ± 1.7 at 6 months, 1, 3, and 5 years a 17.1%, 22%, 16.6%, and 19.9% increase respectively (P < .05 for all pairwise comparisons). One of ten, 2/8, and 3/7 patients displayed an eGFR <60 at transplantation versus 3 and 5 years thereafter, respectively. No patient developed a SCr > 25 mg/L or eGFR <30 or needed dialysis or kidney transplantation. Five of ten patients had micro-albuminuria or proteinuria before transplantation. Tacrolimus levels were within recommended therapeutic ranges over time. CONCLUSION: Kidney function deteriorated significantly after PTA. Understanding of risk factors for the development of renal impairment is important to preserve kidney function and to select appropriate candidates for PTA.

Categories of donation after cardiocirculatory death.

The interest in donation after cardiocirculatory death (DCD) was renewed in the early 1990s, as a means to partially overcome the shortage of donations after brain death. In some European countries and in the United States, DCD has become an increasingly frequent procedure over the last decade. To improve the results of DCD transplantation, it is important to compare practices, experiences, and results of various teams involved in this field. It is therefore crucial to accurately define the different types of DCD. However, in the literature, various DCD terminologies and classifications have been used, rendering it difficult to compare reported experiences. The authors have presented herein an overview of the various DCD descriptions in the literature, and have proposed an adapted DCD classification to better define the DCD processes, seeking to provide a better tool to compare the results of published reports and to improve current practices. This modified classification may be modified in the future according to ongoing experiences in this field.