Between-hospital variability in organ donation after resuscitation from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

INTRODUCTION: Survival and recovery after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) varies between hospitals, with better outcomes associated with high-volume and specialty care. We evaluated if there is a similar relationship with organ donation after OHCA. METHODS: We studied a cohort of adults resuscitated from OHCA from 2010 to 2018, treated at one of 112 hospitals served by a regional organ procurement organization (OPO). We obtained hospital-level characteristics from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and Health Resources and Services Administration and obtained patients' clinical information from the OPO health record. We excluded patients with no potential to donate on initial referral. Our primary exposure was treatment at a high-volume hospital (defined > 500 eligible cases during the study period) and our primary outcomes were suitability to donate after full medical evaluation, successful organ procurement and organ transplantation. We used mixed effects models to quantify between-hospital variability in the primary outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 9792 patients were included and 796 (8%) were organ donors. We identified significant between-hospital variation in odds of donation (median odds ratio 1.64 [95% CI 1.42-2.02]). Hospital volume explained the greatest proportion of variability. High volume centers had a higher proportion of referrals with potential to donate (16.9 vs 12.2%), actual donation (10.3 vs 6.2%), and successful transplantation (9.4 vs 5.7%). Overall, 2032/7763 (26%) of recovered transplantable organs in this region were procured from OHCA patients. CONCLUSION: High volume centers are more likely to refer and procure transplantable organs from patients with non-survivable OHCA.

Organ donation after resuscitation from cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: We compared the characteristics and outcomes of post-arrest donors to those of other donors, described the proportion of post-arrest decedents who donated, and compared their characteristics to post-arrest decedents who did not donate. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study including patients who died at a single academic medical center from January 1, 2010 to February 28, 2019. We linked our registry of consecutive post-arrest patients to donation-related data from the Center for Organ Procurement and Recovery (CORE). We used data from CORE to identify donor eligibility, first person designation, family approaches to seek consent for donation, and approach outcomes. We determined number of organs procured and number transplanted, stratified by donor type (brain death donors (BDD) vs donors after circulatory determination of death (DCD)). RESULTS: There were 12,130 decedents; 1525 (13%) were resuscitated from cardiac arrest. CORE staff approached families of 836 (260 (31%) post-arrest, 576 (69%) not post-arrest) to request donation. Post-arrest patients and families were more likely to authorize donation (172/260 (66%) vs 331/576 (57%), P = 0.02), and more likely to be DCDs (50/146 (34%) vs 55/289 (19%), P < 0.001). Overall, 4.1 ±â€¯1.5 organs were procured and 2.9 ±â€¯1.9 transplanted per BDD, which did not differ by post-arrest status, 3.2 ±â€¯1.2 organs were procured and 1.8 ±â€¯1.1 transplanted per DCD. Number of organs transplanted per DCD did not differ by post-arrest status. Unfavorable arrest characteristics were more common among post-arrest organ donors compared to non-donors. CONCLUSION: Patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest with irrecoverable brain injury have excellent potential to become organ donors.

Protocolized fluid therapy in brain-dead donors: the multicenter randomized MOnIToR trial.

BACKGROUND: Critical shortages of organs for transplantation jeopardize many lives. Observational data suggest that better fluid management for deceased organ donors could increase organ recovery. We conducted the first large multicenter randomized trial in brain-dead donors to determine whether protocolized fluid therapy increases the number of organs transplanted. METHODS: We randomly assigned donors to either protocolized or usual care in eight organ procurement organizations. A "protocol-guided fluid therapy" algorithm targeting the cardiac index, mean arterial pressure and pulse pressure variation was used. Our primary outcome was the number of organs transplanted per donor, and our primary analysis was intention to treat. Secondary analyses included: (1) modified intention to treat where only subjects able to receive the intervention were included and (2) 12-month survival in transplant recipients. The study was stopped early. RESULTS: We enrolled 556 donors: 279 protocolized care and 277 usual care. Groups had similar characteristics at baseline. The study protocol could be implemented in 76 % of subjects randomized to the intervention. There was no significant difference in mean number of organs transplanted per donor: 3.39 organs per donor (95 % CI 3.14-3.63) with protocolized care compared to 3.29 usual care (95 % CI 3.04-3.54; mean difference, 0.1, 95 % CI -0.25 to 0.45; p = 0.56). In modified intention-to-treat analysis the mean number of organs increased (3.52 organs per donor, 95 % CI 3.23-3.8), but not statistically significantly (mean difference, 0.23, 95 % CI -0.15 to 0.61; p = 0.23). Among the 1,430 recipients of organs from study subjects with data available, 56 deaths (7.8 %) occurred in the protocolized care arm and 56 (7.9 %) in the usual care arm in the first year (hazard ratio: 0.97, p = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: In brain-dead organ donors, protocol-guided fluid therapy compared to usual care may not increase the number of organs transplanted per donor.