Home  About us  Contact
 

Death Donors (death + donor)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Medical Sciences100%

Kinds of Death Donors

  • cardiac death donor
    		•

    Selected Abstracts

    Liver Transplantation Using Donation After Cardiac Death Donors: Long-Term Follow-Up from a Single Center

    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 4 2009
    M. E. De Vera
    There is a lack of universally accepted clinical parameters to guide the utilization of donation after cardiac death (DCD) donor livers and it is unclear as to which patients would benefit most from these organs. We reviewed our experience in 141 patients who underwent liver transplantation using DCD allografts from 1993 to 2007. Patient outcomes were analyzed in comparison to a matched cohort of 282 patients who received livers from donation after brain death (DBD) donors. Patient survival was similar, but 1-, 5- and 10-year graft survival was significantly lower in DCD (69%, 56%, 44%) versus DBD (82%, 73%, 63%) subjects (p < 0.0001). Primary nonfunction and biliary complications were more common in DCD patients, accounting for 67% of early graft failures. A donor warm ischemia time >20 min, cold ischemia time >8 h and donor age >60 were associated with poorer DCD outcomes. There was a lack of survival benefit in DCD livers utilized in patients with model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) ,30 or those not on organ-perfusion support, as graft survival was significantly lower compared to DBD patients. However, DCD and DBD subjects transplanted with MELD >30 or on organ-perfusion support had similar graft survival, suggesting a potentially greater benefit of DCD livers in critically ill patients. [source]

    D-MELD, a Simple Predictor of Post Liver Transplant Mortality for Optimization of Donor/Recipient Matching

    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 2 2009
    J. B. Halldorson
    Numerous donor and recipient risk factors interact to influence the probability of survival after liver transplantation. We developed a statistic, D-MELD, the product of donor age and preoperative MELD, calculated from laboratory values. Using the UNOS STAR national transplant data base, we analyzed survival for first liver transplant recipients with chronic liver failure from deceased after brain death donors. Preoperative D-MELD score effectively stratified posttransplant survival. Using a cutoff D-MELD score of 1600, we defined a subgroup of donor,recipient matches with significantly poorer short- and long-term outcomes as measured by survival and length of stay (LOS). Avoidance of D-MELD scores above 1600 improved results for subgroups of high-risk patients with donor age ,60 and those with preoperative MELD ,30. D-MELD ,1600 accurately predicted worse outcome in recipients with and without hepatitis C. There is significant regional variation in average D-MELD scores at transplant, however, regions with larger numbers of high D-MELD matches do not have higher survival rates. D-MELD is a simple, highly predictive tool for estimating outcomes after liver transplantation. This statistic could assist surgeons and their patients in making organ acceptance decisions. Applying D-MELD to liver allocation could eliminate many donor/recipient matches likely to have inferior outcome. [source]

    Donation after Cardiac Death Kidneys with Low Severity Pre-Arrest Acute Renal Failure

    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 3 2007
    S. Sohrabi
    The widening gap between supply and demand for renal transplantation has prompted many centers to use donors after cardiac death. Some of these donors exhibit signs of acute renal failure (ARF) prior to cardiac arrest. Concern has been expressed about poor quality of graft function from such donors. In response to this perception, we reviewed 49 single renal transplant recipients from category III donors after cardiac death between 1998 and 2005, at out center. All kidneys but one had hypothermic machine perfusion and viability testing prior to transplantation. According to the RIFLE criteria, nine recipients had kidneys from donors with "low severity pre-arrest ARF". The remainder of the recipients were used as control group. There was no statistical significant difference in delayed graft function and rejection rates between these two groups. Recipients GFR at 12 months was 44.4 ± 17.1 and 45.2 ± 14.7 (mL/min/1.73m2) from donors with ARF and without ARF, respectively (p = 0.96). In conclusion, low severity ARF in kidneys from controlled after cardiac death donors can be a reversible condition after transplantation. Short-term results are comparable to the kidneys from same category donors without renal failure, providing that some form of viability assessment is implemented prior to transplantation. [source]

    Authors' reply: Similar liver transplantation survival with selected cardiac death donors and brain death donors (Br J Surg 2010; 97; 744,753)

    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY (NOW INCLUDES EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY), Issue 8 2010
    J. Dubbeld
    No abstract is available for this article. [source]

    Similar liver transplantation survival with selected cardiac death donors and brain death donors (Br J Surg 2010; 97: 744,753)

    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY (NOW INCLUDES EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY), Issue 5 2010
    S. J. Wigmore
    No abstract is available for this article. [source]