Organ donation after trauma: A 30-year review

Changes in the clinical features and demographics of donors after brain death, before and after the establishment of a regional trauma center: 20 years of experience at a single center in Korea

PURPOSE

Organ transplantation is considered the definitive treatment for end-stage organ disease. However, the scarcity of donor organs compared to the number of patients awaiting transplants is a major barrier. This study aimed to assess the impact of a regional trauma center on organ procurement and to provide a basis for future collaboration between regional trauma centers and transplant centers.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed organ donors after brain death over a 20-year period from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2022. It compared patients before and after the establishment of the regional trauma center, as well as trauma and nontrauma patients. The study investigated general patient characteristics and the number and types of donated organs.

RESULTS

The average age of patients significantly increased from 37.75 years before the trauma center was established to 46.72 years after (t=-4.32, P<0.001). The organ acquisition rate significantly increased from 3.03 before to 3.47 after (t=-2.96, P=0.003). Suicide (t=6.52, P=0.011) and cardiopulmonary resuscitation cases were more common among nontrauma patients than among trauma patients (t=8.34, P=0.004). However, the organ acquisition rate was significantly higher among trauma patients than among nontrauma patients (3.53 vs. 3.21; t=2.04, P=0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified changes in the characteristics and donor organs of patients diagnosed with brain death after the establishment of a regional trauma center. Given the increase in the proportion of trauma patients and the rate of organ acquisition per capita post-establishment, efforts should be made to encourage organ donation from patients diagnosed with brain death through close collaboration between regional trauma centers and organ transplant centers.

Assessment of the Effect of Brain Death Etiologies on Organs Transplanted Per Donor

OBJECTIVES

We assessed effects of brain death etiology on organ donation, particularly focusing on the number of organs transplanted per donor.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated 934 actual donors from 982 brain death cases at our center from April 2016 to July 2023. We analyzed donor cause of death, donor age, sex, blood group, time to consent, and hospital characteristics.

RESULTS

Among 934 actual brain death donors (63.6% male), mean age was 41.44 years. Cause of death was nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage in 43.3% of cases, followed by trauma, hypoxia, cerebrovascular accident, toxicity, and brain tumor, respectively. Kidney, liver, heart, and lung donations occurred in 696 cases (74.5%), 809 (86.6%), 146 (15.6%), and 25 (3.4%), respectively. Donor cause of death significantly affected kidney donation (P < .001), with highest rates in trauma (83.7%), followed by brain tumors. Although cause of death did not affect liver transplant rates (P = .26), the highest rate was associated with trauma (89.9%), followed by toxicity. Difference in heart transplant rates among different causes of death was significant (P < .001), with highest rates in trauma cases. Similar to liver transplant, lung transplant was similar among different causes of death (P = .3). Organs transplanted per donor averaged 2.52 ± 1.13, with highest numbers associated with trauma (2.88 ± 1.07), followed by drug toxicity, brain tumors, hypoxia, nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage, and cerebrovascular accident (P < .001). Compared with trauma, differences in organs transplanted per donor were significant for nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage (mean difference 0.56; 95% CI, 0.39-0.74; P < .001), cerebrovascular accident (mean difference 0.58; 95% CI, 0.29-0.87; P < .001), and hypoxia (mean difference 0.50; 95% CI, 0.26-0.76; P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding how cause of death influences donation can help improve organ donation practices and potentially increase the number of organs available for transplant.

Meniscus Size Differs Between Patient and Donor Populations for Meniscus Allograft Transplantation

Purpose

To determine the extent of variability in meniscus size and anthropometric data between donors (supply) and patients (demand), to evaluate potential factors that may contribute to size discrepancies, and to determine whether the discrepancies lead to longer patient wait times.

Methods

Lateral and medial meniscal measurements, anthropometric data, and time to match a donor graft were extracted from a tissue supplier database. The frequency and distribution of meniscus size were analyzed. Body mass index (BMI), relative meniscus area, body mass to meniscus area index, and height to meniscus area index were compared between patient and donor pools via χ² tests and independent samples t-test. The effect of size on time to match was analyzed using analysis of variance and post-hoc Tukey test.

Results

The lateral meniscus patient population showed a greater frequency of larger size requirements compared to the donor population (P < .001) and the medial meniscus patient population showed a higher frequency of smaller meniscus size requirements (P < .001). The medial meniscus analysis showed significantly smaller meniscus areas (P < .001) in the patient population contributing to the observed trend of an increased body mass to meniscus area index and height to meniscus area index. The time to match a donor meniscus was affected by the patient meniscus size.

Conclusions

This analysis demonstrates variations in frequency of meniscus sizes between donor and patient populations. This variation is attributed to differences in anthropometric data between patient and donor populations. This work identifies a mismatch between demand and supply for certain patient sizes contributing to longer times to match.

Clinical Relevance

This work associated donor and patient mismatches with longer wait times. This can be useful for patient counseling as well as provide a framework to determine whether there are solutions within the current meniscus donor pool that can be used to meet this clinical need.

Organ donation after self-inflicted injury: A single institution analysis

BACKGROUND

This study sought to determine the contribution of self-inflicted injury-related deaths to local organ donation rates and analyze contributing factors.

METHODS

A retrospective review of adult patients with traumatic self-inflicted injuries was performed at a Level I trauma center from 2013 to 2017. Data were obtained from the institutional trauma registry and cross-referenced with the local organ procurement organization (OPO). Referral rates were analyzed and outcomes, demographics and injury characteristics were compared between patients who underwent donation versus those who did not.

RESULTS

142 adult patients presented with traumatic self-inflicted injury, and 100 (70.4%) had referral calls made to the local OPO. These patients were predominantly male (83%), and gunshot injuries accounted for 75% of all mechanisms. Sixty-four percent had organ referrals versus tissue referrals (34%), and 17 (26.6%) of those patients went on to donate. The median number of organs procured was 4 [IQR 0-5]. In multivariate analysis, for each year increase in age, patients were less likely to have an organ referral (OR = .96 [95% CI .93-.99]; p = .0134) and less likely to undergo donation (OR = .95 [95% CI .90-.99]; p = .0308).

CONCLUSIONS

Self-inflicted injury, though tragic, may provide a significant contribution to the limited organ donor registry.

Centralization of Major Trauma Influences Liver Availability for Transplantation in Northern Italy: Lesson Learned from COVID-19 Pandemic

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the centralization of patients allowed trauma and transplants referral centers to continue their routine activity, ensuring the best access to health care. This study aims to analyze how the centralization of trauma is linked with liver allocation in Northern Italy. Methods: Cluster analysis was performed to generate patient phenotype according to trauma-related variables. Comparison between clusters was performed to evaluate differences in damage control strategy procedures (DCS) performed and the 30-day graft dysfunction. Results: During the pandemic period, the centralization of major trauma has deeply impaired the liver procurement and allocation between the transplant centers in the metropolitan area of Milan (Niguarda: 22 liver procurement; other transplant centers: 2 organ procurement). Two clusters were identified the in Niguarda’s series: cluster 1 is represented by 17 (27.4%) trauma donors, of which 13 (76.5%) were treated with DCS procedures, and 4 (23.5%) did not; cluster 2 is represented by 45 trauma donors (72.6%), of which 22 (48.8%) underwent DCS procedures. A significant difference was found in the number of DCS procedures performed between clusters (3.18 ± 2.255 vs. 1.11 ± 1.05, p = 0.0001). Comparative analysis did not significantly differ in the number of transplanted livers (cluster1/cluster2 94.1%/95.6% p = 0.84) and the 30-day graft dysfunction rate (cluster1/cluster2 0.0%/4.8% p = 0.34). Conclusions: The high level of care guaranteed by first-level trauma centers could reduce the loss of organs suitable for donation, maintaining the good outcomes of transplanted ones, even in case of multiple organ injuries. The pandemic period underlined that the centralization of major trauma impairs the liver allocation between transplant centers.

Organ Donation after Damage Control Strategy in Trauma Patients: Experience from First Level Trauma Center in Italy

Background: Organ donation (OD) remains the only therapeutic option for end-stage disease in some cases. Unfortunately, the gap between donors and recipients is still substantial. Trauma patients represent a potential yet underestimated pool of organ donors. In this article, we present our data on OD after damage control strategy (DCS). Materials and Methods: A retrospective, observational cohort study was conducted through a complete revision of data of consecutive adult trauma patients (>18 years old) who underwent OD after DCS between January 2018 and May 2021. Four subgroups were created [Liver (Li), Lungs (Lu), Heart (H), Kidneys (K)] to compare variables between those who donated the organ of interest and those who did not. Results: Thirty-six patients underwent OD after DCS. Six patients (16.7%) were excluded: 2(5.6%) for missing data about admission; 4(11.1%) didn’t receive DCS. Mean ISS was 47.2 (SD ± 17.4). Number of donated organs was 113 with an organs/patient ratio of 3.8. The functional response rate was 91.2%. Ten organs (8.8%) had primary nonfunction after transplantation: 2/15 hearts (13.3%), 1/28 livers (3.6%), 4/53 kidneys (7.5%) and 3/5 pancreases (60%). No lung primary nonfunction were registered. Complete results of subgroup analysis are reported in supplementary materials. Conclusion: Organ donation should be considered a possible outcome in any trauma patient. Aggressive damage control strategy doesn’t affect the functional response rate of transplanted organs.

Trauma Surgeons' Perceptions of Resuscitating Lethally Injured Patients for Organ Preservation

BACKGROUND

Trauma surgeons face a challenge when deciding whether to resuscitate lethally injured patients whose organ donor status is unknown. Data suggests practice pattern variability in this setting, but little is known about why.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with trauma surgeons practicing in Level 1 or 2 trauma centers in Tennessee. Interviews focused on ethical dilemmas and resource constraints. Analysis was performed using inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Response rate was 73% (11/15). Four key themes emerged. All described resuscitating patients to buy time to collect more definitive clinical information and to identify family. Some acknowledged this served the secondary purpose of organ preservation. 11/11 participants felt a primacy of obligation to the patient in front of them even after it became apparent, they could not personally benefit. For 9/11 (82%), the moral obligation to consider organ preservation was secondary/balancing; 2/11 (18%) felt it was irrelevant/immoral. Resource allocation was commonly considered. All participants expressed some limitation to resources they would allocate. All participants conveyed clear moral agency in determining resuscitation extent when the goal was to save the patient's life, however this was less clear when resuscitating for organ preservation. Across themes, perceptions of a "standard practice" existed but the described practices were not consistent across interviewees.

DISCUSSION

Widely ranging perceptions regarding ethical and resource considerations underlie practices resuscitating toward organ preservation. Common themes suggest a lack of consensus. Despite expressed beliefs, there is no identifiable standard of practice amongst trauma surgeons resuscitating in this setting.

Trauma and donation after circulatory death: a case series from a major trauma center

Even with encouraging recipient outcomes, transplantation using donation after circulatory death (DCD) is still limited. A major barrier to this type of transplantation is the consequences of warm ischemia on graft survival; however, preservation techniques may reduce the consequences of cardiac arrest and provide better organ conservation. Furthermore, DCD in trauma patients could further expand organ donation. We present five cases in which organs were retrieved and transplanted successfully using normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) in trauma patients. Prompt critical care support and surgical treatment allowed us to overcome the acute phase. Unfortunately, owing to the severity of their injuries, all of the donors died. However, the advanced and continuous organ-specific supportive treatment allowed the maintenance of general clinical stability and organ preservation. Consequently, it was possible to retrieve and transplant the donors’ organs. Death was ascertained in accordance with cardio-circulatory criteria, which was followed by NRP. We consider that DCD in trauma patients may represent an important source of organs.

At the heart of organ donation. Case reports of organ donation after cardiac death in two patients with successfully repaired AAST grade V cardiac injuries

Background

Trauma victims could be an important source of organs. This article presents two cases of successful organ donation and transplant, after Maastricht category III cardiac death in patients with successfully repaired AAST grade V traumatic cardiac injuries.

Case presentation

The first donor was an adult patient with self-inflicted heart stab wound and non-survivable burn injury. The second one was an adult patient with blunt cardiac and abdominal trauma and an anoxic brain injury due to a car accident. The cardiac injury was promptly repaired in both patients. In the first case, adequate organ perfusion ante-mortem was achieved thanks to venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and intensive care unit support. The above procedure allowed successful organ donation and transplantation even after Maastricht category III cardiac death. This is the first case reported where, for organ donation purposes, it was made necessary first thing to avoid the immediate death of the patient, due to a rare and frequently not survivable cardiac injury. The challenge of preserving organ perfusion, due to major burn injury effects, was faced afterwards.

Conclusions

The outcomes of these two cases suggest that a repaired heart injury should not be considered as an absolute contraindication to organ donation, even if it is associated with non-survivable major burns. Therefore, cardiac death could provide an opportunity for these kinds of patients to contribute to the pool of potential organ donors.

Perfil dos potenciais doadores de órgãos e fatores relacionados à doação e a não doação de órgãos de uma Organização de Procura de Órgãos

RESUMO Objetivo: caracterizar o perfil dos potenciais e dos efetivos doadores de órgãos, e identificar os fatores relacionados a não efetivação da doação. Métodos: estudo retrospectivo transversal com coleta de dados das fichas da Organização de Procura de Órgãos do Hospital das Clínicas da Unicamp, referente ao período de janeiro de 2013 a abril de 2018. Resultados: o estudo contou com 1.772 potenciais doadores; predominou-se o sexo masculino (57,39%) e o evento vascular (n=996) foi a principal causa de morte encefálica. A recusa familiar (42,8%) foi o motivo mais comum para não doação de órgãos. Houve diferença estatística entre doadores e não doadores quanto à média de idade e pressão arterial sistólica, assim como houve relação entre a doação de órgãos e a ausência de diabetes e tabagismo. Conclusão: a maioria dos doadores efetivos foi do sexo masculino e jovem. As principais causas de morte encefálica e de recusa familiar foram, respectivamente, vasculares e não manifestação da vontade de ser doador após a morte. O etilismo foi mais presente nas causas traumáticas, assim como, o sexo masculino. Assim, iniciativas de conscientização populacional e abertura de discussão dentro da família sobre o ato da doação contribuem para o aumento do índice de doadores efetivos.