Post-transplant survival after normothermic regional perfusion versus direct procurement and perfusion in donation after circulatory determination of death in heart transplantation

BACKGROUND

Since 2019, the annual transplantation rate of hearts donated following circulatory death (DCD) has increased significantly in the United States. The 2 major heart procurement techniques following circulatory death are direct procurement and perfusion (DPP) and normothermic regional perfusion (NRP). Post-transplant survival for heart recipients has not been compared between these 2 techniques.

METHODS

This observational study uses data on adult heart transplants from donors after circulatory death from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2021 in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. We identified comparable transplant cases across procurement types using propensity-score matching and measured the association between procurement technique and 1-year post-transplant survival using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards model stratefied by matching pairs.

RESULTS

Among 318 DCD heart transplants, 216 (68%) were procured via DPP, and 102 (32%) via NRP. Among 22 transplant centers that accepted circulatory-death donors, 3 used NRP exclusively, and 5 used both procurement techniques. After propensity-score matching on recipient and donor factors, there was no significant difference in 1-year post-transplant survival (93.1% for NRP vs 91.1% for DPP, p = 0.79) between procurement techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

NRP and DPP procurements are associated with similar 1-year post-transplant survival. If NRP is ethically permissible and improves outcomes for abdominal organs, it should be the preferred procurement technique for DCD hearts.

Donor utilization in heart transplant with donation after circulatory death in the United States

Heart transplantation using donation after circulatory death (DCD) was recently adopted in the United States. This study aimed to characterize organ yield from adult (≥18 years) DCD heart donors in the United States using the United Network for Organ Sharing registry. The registry does not identify potential donors who do not progress to circulatory death, and only those who progressed to death were included for analysis. Outcomes included organ recovery from the donor operating room and organ utilization for transplant. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify predictors of heart recovery and utilization. Among 558 DCD procurements, recovery occurred in 89.6%, and 92.5% of recovered hearts were utilized for transplant. Of 506 DCD procurements with available data, 65.0% were classified as direct procurement and perfusion and 35.0% were classified as normothermic regional perfusion (NRP). Logistic regression identified that NRP, shorter agonal time, younger donor age, and highest volume of organ procurement organizations were independently associated with increased odds for heart recovery. NRP independently predicted heart utilization after recovery. DCD heart utilization in the United States is satisfactory and consistent with international experience. NRP procurements have a higher yield for DCD heart transplantation compared with direct procurement and perfusion, which may reflect differences in donor assessment and acceptance criteria.

Heart transplantation using donation after circulatory death in the United States

OBJECTIVES

Heart donation after circulatory death was recently reintroduced in the United States with hopes of increasing donor heart availability. We examined its national use and outcomes.

METHODS

The United Network for Organ Sharing database was used to identify validated adult patients undergoing heart transplantation using donation after circulatory death donors (n = 266) and donation after brain death donors (n = 5998) between December 1, 2019, and December 31, 2021, after excluding heart-lung transplants. Propensity score matching was used to create more balanced groups for comparison.

RESULTS

The monthly percentage of donation after circulatory death heart transplant increased from 2.5% in December 2019 to 6.8% in December 2021 (P < .001). Twenty-two centers performed donation after circulatory death heart transplants, ranging from 1 to 75 transplants per center. Four centers performed 70% of the national volume. Recipients of donation after circulatory death hearts were more likely to be clinically stable (80.4% vs 41.1% in status 3-6, P < .001), to have type O blood (58.3% vs 39.9%, P < .001), and to wait longer after listing (55, interquartile range, 15-180 days vs 32, interquartile range, 9-160 days, P = .003). Six-month survival was 92.1% (95% confidence interval, 91.3-92.8) after donation after brain death heart transplants and 92.6% (95% confidence interval, 88.1-95.4) after donation after circulatory death heart transplants (hazard ratio, 0.94, 95% confidence interval, 0.57-1.54, P = .79). Outcomes in propensity-matched patients were similar except for higher rates of treated acute rejection in donation after circulatory death transplants before discharge (14.4% vs 8.8%, P = .01). In donation after circulatory death heart recipients, outcomes did not differ based on the procurement technique (normothermic regional perfusion vs direct procurement and perfusion).

CONCLUSIONS

Heart transplantation with donation after circulatory death donors has short-term survival comparable to donation after brain death transplants. Broader implementation could substantially increase donor organ availability.