Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Recently, several centers in the United States have begun performing donation after circulatory death (DCD) heart transplants (HTs) in adults. We sought to characterize the recent use of DCD HT, waitlist time, and outcomes compared to donation after brain death (DBD). METHODS:Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, 10,402 adult (aged >18 years) HT recipients from January 2019 to June 2022 were identified: 425 (4%) were DCD and 9,977 (96%) were DBD recipients. Posttransplant outcomes in matched and unmatched cohorts and waitlist times were compared between groups. RESULTS:DCD and DBD recipients had similar age (57 years for both, p = 0.791). DCD recipients were more likely White (67% vs 60%, p = 0.002), on left ventricular assist device (LVAD; 40% vs 32%, p < 0.001), and listed as status 4 to 6 (60% vs 24%, p < 0.001); however, less likely to require inotropes (22% vs 40%, p < 0.001) and preoperative extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0.9% vs 6%, p < 0.001). DCD donors were younger (29 vs 32 years, p < 0.001) and had less renal dysfunction (15% vs 39%, p < 0.001), diabetes (1.9% vs 3.8%, p = 0.050), or hypertension (9.9% vs 16%, p = 0.001). In matched and unmatched cohorts, early survival was similar (p = 0.22). Adjusted waitlist time was shorter in DCD group (21 vs 31 days, p < 0.001) compared to DBD cohort and 5-fold shorter (DCD: 22 days vs DBD: 115 days, p < 0.001) for candidates in status 4 to 6, which was 60% of DCD cohort. CONCLUSIONS:The community is using DCD mostly for those recipients who are expected to have extended waitlist times (e.g., durable LVADs, status >4). DCD recipients had similar posttransplant early survival and shorter adjusted waitlist time compared to DBD group. Given this early success, efforts should be made to expand the donor pool using DCD, especially for traditionally disadvantaged recipients on the waitlist.

INTRODUCTION:Thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion (TA-NRP) following cardiac death is an emerging multivisceral organ procurement technique. Recent national studies on outcomes of presumptive TA-NRP-procured organs are limited by potential misclassification since TA-NRP is not differentiated from donation after cardiac death (DCD) in registry data. METHODS:We studied 22 donors whose designees consented to TA-NRP and organ procurement performed at our institution between January 20, 2020 and July 3, 2022. We identified these donors in SRTR to describe organ utilization and recipient outcomes and compared them to recipients of traditional DCD (tDCD) and donation after brain death (DBD) organs during the same timeframe. RESULTS:All 22 donors progressed to cardiac arrest and underwent TA-NRP followed by heart, lung, kidney, and/or liver procurement. Median donor age was 41 years, 55% had anoxic brain injury, 45% were hypertensive, 0% were diabetic, and median kidney donor profile index was 40%. TA-NRP utilization was high across all organ types (88%-100%), with a higher percentage of kidneys procured via TA-NRP compared to tDCD (88% vs. 72%, p = .02). Recipient and graft survival ranged from 89% to 100% and were comparable to tDCD and DBD recipients (p ≥ .2). Delayed graft function was lower for kidneys procured from TA-NRP compared to tDCD donors (27% vs. 44%, p = .045). CONCLUSION:Procurement from TA-NRP donors yielded high organ utilization, with outcomes comparable to tDCD and DBD recipients across organ types. Further large-scale study of TA-NRP donors, facilitated by its capture in the national registry, will be critical to fully understand its impact as an organ procurement technique.

BACKGROUND:Drug overdose (DO) deaths rose to unprecedented levels during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study examines the impact of COVID-19 on the availability of cardiac allografts from DO donors and the implications of DO donor use on recipient survival. METHODS:Heart transplants reported to the United Network for Organ Sharing from January 2017 to November 2019 ("pre-COVID") and from March 2020 to June 2021 ("COVID pandemic") were analyzed with respect to DO donor status. Outcomes were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox regression to identify predictors of survival. Characteristics of discarded cardiac allografts were also compared by DO donor status. RESULTS:During the COVID-19 pandemic, 27.2% of cardiac allografts were from DO donors vs 20.5% pre-COVID, a 32.7% increase (p < 0.001). During the pandemic, DO donors were younger (84.7% vs 76.3% <40 years, p < 0.001), had higher cigarette use (16.1% vs 10.8%, p < 0.001), higher cocaine use (47.4% vs 19.7%, p < 0.001), and higher incidence of hepatitis C antibodies (26.8% vs 6.1%, p < 0.001) and RNA positivity (16.2% vs 4.2%, p < 0.001). While DO donors were less likely to require inotropic support (30.8% vs 35.4%, p = 0.008), they were more likely to have received cardiopulmonary resuscitation (95.3% vs 43.2%, p < 0.001). Recipient survival was equivalent using Kaplan-Meier analysis (log-rank, p = 0.33) and survival probability at 36 months was 85.6% (n at risk = 398) for DO donors vs 83.5% (n at risk = 1,633) for all other donors. Cox regression demonstrated that DO donor status did not predict mortality (hazard ratio 1.05; 95% confidence interval 0.90-1.23, p = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS:During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a 32.7% increase in heart transplants utilizing DO donor hearts, and DO became the most common mechanism of death for donors. The use of DO donor hearts did not have an impact on short-term recipient survival.

Approximately 65 million adults globally have heart failure, and the prevalence is expected to increase substantially with ageing populations. Despite advances in pharmacological and device therapy of heart failure, long-term morbidity and mortality remain high. Many patients progress to advanced heart failure and develop persistently severe symptoms. Heart transplantation remains the gold-standard therapy to improve the quality of life, functional status and survival of these patients. However, there is a large imbalance between the supply of organs and the demand for heart transplants. Therefore, expanding the donor pool is essential to reduce mortality while on the waiting list and improve clinical outcomes in this patient population. A shift has occurred to consider the use of organs from donors with hepatitis C virus, HIV or SARS-CoV-2 infection. Other advances in this field have also expanded the donor pool, including opt-out donation policies, organ donation after circulatory death and xenotransplantation. We provide a comprehensive overview of these various novel strategies, provide objective data on their safety and efficacy, and discuss some of the unresolved issues and controversies of each approach.

Use of thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion (TA-NRP) during donation after circulatory death (DCD) is an important advance in organ donation. Prior to establishing TA-NRP, the brachiocephalic, left carotid, and left subclavian arteries are ligated, thereby eliminating anterograde brain blood flow via the carotid and vertebral arteries. While theoretical concerns have been voiced that TA-NRP after DCD may restore brain blood flow via collaterals, there have been no studies to confirm or refute this possibility. We evaluated brain blood flow using intraoperative transcranial Doppler (TCD) in two DCD TA-NRP cases. Pre-extubation, anterior and posterior circulation brain blood flow waveforms were present in both cases, similar to the waveforms detected in a control patient on mechanical circulatory support undergoing cardiothoracic surgery. Following declaration of death and initiation of TA-NRP, no brain blood flow was detected in either case. Additionally, there was absence of brainstem reflexes, no response to noxious stimuli and no respiratory effort. These TCD results demonstrate that DCD with TA-NRP did not restore brain blood flow.