Deceased donor hyperglycemia and liver graft dysfunction

Brazilian guidelines for the management of brain-dead potential organ donors. The task force of the AMIB, ABTO, BRICNet, and the General Coordination of the National Transplant System

OBJECTIVE

To contribute to updating the recommendations for brain-dead potential organ donor management.

METHOD

A group of 27 experts, including intensivists, transplant coordinators, transplant surgeons, and epidemiologists, joined a task force formed by the General Coordination Office of the National Transplant System/Brazilian Ministry of Health (CGSNT-MS), the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine (AMIB), the Brazilian Association of Organ Transplantation (ABTO), and the Brazilian Research in Intensive Care Network (BRICNet). The questions were developed within the scope of the 2011 Brazilian Guidelines for Management of Adult Potential Multiple-Organ Deceased Donors. The topics were divided into mechanical ventilation, hemodynamic support, endocrine-metabolic management, infection, body temperature, blood transfusion, and use of checklists. The outcomes considered for decision-making were cardiac arrest, number of organs recovered or transplanted per donor, and graft function/survival. Rapid systematic reviews were conducted, and the quality of evidence of the recommendations was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Two expert panels were held in November 2016 and February 2017 to classify the recommendations. A systematic review update was performed in June 2020, and the recommendations were reviewed through a Delphi process with the panelists between June and July 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 19 recommendations were drawn from the expert panel. Of these, 7 were classified as strong (lung-protective ventilation strategy, vasopressors and combining arginine vasopressin to control blood pressure, antidiuretic hormones to control polyuria, serum potassium and magnesium control, and antibiotic use), 11 as weak (alveolar recruitment maneuvers, low-dose dopamine, low-dose corticosteroids, thyroid hormones, glycemic and serum sodium control, nutritional support, body temperature control or hypothermia, red blood cell transfusion, and goal-directed protocols), and 1 was considered a good clinical practice (volemic expansion).

CONCLUSION

Despite the agreement among panel members on most recommendations, the grade of recommendation was mostly weak. The observed lack of robust evidence on the topic highlights the importance of the present guideline to improve the management of brain-dead potential organ donors.

Outcomes of Controlled Donation After Cardiac Death Compared With Donation After Brain Death in Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Controlled donation after cardiac death (CDCD) is increasingly common for liver transplantation due to donor shortage. However, the outcomes, in terms of grafts and recipients, remain unclear. The current study is a systematic review and meta-analysis that compared CDCD with donation after brain death (DBD).

METHODS

We conducted an electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database (from January 2007 to May 2017). Studies reporting Maastricht category III or IV CDCD liver transplantation were screened for inclusion. We appraised studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and meta-analyzed using a fixed or random effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies, with 12,035 patients, were included in data analysis. CDCD did not differ from DBD in patient survival (hazard ration: 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.98 to 1.47; P = .07), graft survival (hazard ratio: 1.24; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.56; P = .06), primary nonfunction (odds ratio [OR]: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.00 to 3.03; P = .05), hepatic artery thrombosis (OR: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.74; P = .45). However, CDCD was associated with biliary complications (OR: 2.48; 95% CI: 2.05 to 3.00), retransplantation (OR: 2.54; 95% CI: 1.99 to 3.26), and peak alanine aminotransferase (weighted mean difference: 330.88; 95% CI: 259.88 to 401.87). A subgroup analysis that included only hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive recipients showed no significant difference between CDCD and DBD in biliary complications (P = .16), retransplantion (P = .15), HCV recurrence (P = .20), and peak alanine aminotransferase (P = .06).

CONCLUSIONS

CDCD transplantation is the most viable alternative to DBD transplantation in the current critical shortage of liver organs. HCV infection may not be the inferior factor of postoperative outcomes and survival.