Alexandra K. Glazier

Management of the Potential Organ Donor in the ICU: Society of Critical Care Medicine/American College of Chest Physicians/Association of Organ Procurement Organizations Consensus Statement

This document was developed through the collaborative efforts of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, the American College of Chest Physicians, and the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations. Under the auspices of these societies, a multidisciplinary, multi-institutional task force was convened, incorporating expertise in critical care medicine, organ donor management, and transplantation. Members of the task force were divided into 13 subcommittees, each focused on one of the following general or organ-specific areas: death determination using neurologic criteria, donation after circulatory death determination, authorization process, general contraindications to donation, hemodynamic management, endocrine dysfunction and hormone replacement therapy, pediatric donor management, cardiac donation, lung donation, liver donation, kidney donation, small bowel donation, and pancreas donation. Subcommittees were charged with generating a series of management-related questions related to their topic. For each question, subcommittees provided a summary of relevant literature and specific recommendations. The specific recommendations were approved by all members of the task force and then assembled into a complete document. Because the available literature was overwhelmingly comprised of observational studies and case series, representing low-quality evidence, a decision was made that the document would assume the form of a consensus statement rather than a formally graded guideline. The goal of this document is to provide critical care practitioners with essential information and practical recommendations related to management of the potential organ donor, based on the available literature and expert consensus.

An Official American Thoracic Society/International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation/Society of Critical Care Medicine/Association of Organ and Procurement Organizations/United Network of Organ Sharing Statement: Ethical and Policy Considerations in Organ Donation after Circulatory Determination of Death

RATIONALE Donation after circulatory determination of death (DCDD) has the potential to increase the number of organs available for transplantation. Because consent and management of potential donors must occur before death, DCDD raises unique ethical and policy issues. OBJECTIVES To develop an ethics and health policy statement on adult and pediatric DCDD relevant to critical care and transplantation stakeholders. METHODS A multidisciplinary panel of stakeholders was convened to develop an ethics and health policy statement. The panel consisted of representatives from the American Thoracic Society, Society of Critical Care Medicine, International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, Association of Organ Procurement Organizations, and the United Network of Organ Sharing. The panel reviewed the literature, discussed important ethics and health policy considerations, and developed a guiding framework for decision making by stakeholders. RESULTS A framework to guide ethics and health policy statement was established, which addressed the consent process, pre- and post mortem interventions, the determination of death, provisions of end-of-life care, and pediatric DCDD. CONCLUSIONS The information presented in this Statement is based on the current evidence, experience, and clinical rationale. New clinical research and the development and dissemination of new technologies will eventually necessitate an update of this Statement.

Circulatory Death Determination in Uncontrolled Organ Donors: A Panel Viewpoint

One barrier for implementing programs of uncontrolled organ donation after the circulatory determination of death is the lack of consensus on the precise moment of death. Our panel was convened to study this question after we performed a similar analysis on the moment of death in controlled organ donation after the circulatory determination of death. We concluded that death could be determined by showing the permanent or irreversible cessation of circulation and respiration. Circulatory irreversibility may be presumed when optimal cardiopulmonary resuscitation efforts have failed to restore circulation and at least a 7-minute period has elapsed thereafter during which autoresuscitation to restored circulation could occur. We advise against the use of postmortem organ support technologies that reestablish circulation of warm oxygenated blood because of their risk of retroactively invalidating the required conditions on which death was declared.

The principles of gift law and the regulation of organ donation

The principles of gift law establish a consistent international legal understanding of consent to donation under a range of regulatory systems. Gift law as the primary legal principle is important to both the foundation of systems that prevent organ sales and the consideration of strategies to increase organ donation for transplantation.

The OPTN Deceased Donor Potential Study: Implications for Policy and Practice

The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) Deceased Donor Potential Study, funded by the Health Resources and Services Administration, characterized the current pool of potential deceased donors and estimated changes through 2020. The goal was to inform policy development and suggest practice changes designed to increase the number of donors and organ transplants. Donor estimates used filtering methodologies applied to datasets from the OPTN, the National Center for Health Statistics, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and used these estimates with the number of actual donors to estimate the potential donor pool through 2020. Projected growth of the donor pool was 0.5% per year through 2020. Potential donor estimates suggested unrealized donor potential across all demographic groups, with the most significant unrealized potential (70%) in the 50–75‐year‐old age group and potential Donation after Circulatory Death (DCD) donors. Actual transplants that may be realized from potential donors in these categories are constrained by confounding medical comorbidities not identified in administrative databases and by limiting utilization practices for organs from DCD donors. Policy, regulatory, and practice changes encouraging organ procurement and transplantation of a broader population of potential donors may be required to increase transplant numbers in the United States.

Allowing HIV-Positive Organ Donation: Ethical, Legal and Operational Considerations

Case reports of kidney transplantation using HIV‐positive (HIV+) donors in South Africa and advances in the clinical care of HIV+ transplant recipients have drawn attention to the legal prohibition of transplanting organs from HIV+ donors in the United States. For HIV+ transplant candidates, who face high barriers to transplant access, this prohibition violates beneficence by placing an unjustified limitation on the organ supply. However, transplanting HIV+ organs raises nonmaleficence concerns given limited data on recipient outcomes. Informed consent and careful monitoring of outcome data should mitigate these concerns, even in the rare circumstance when an HIV+ organ is intentionally transplanted into an HIV‐negative recipient. For potential donors, the federal ban on transplanting HIV+ organs raises justice concerns. While in practice there are a number of medical criteria that preclude organ donation, only HIV+ status is singled out as a mandated exclusion to donation under the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA). Operational objections could be addressed by adapting existing approaches used for organ donors with hepatitis. Center‐specific outcomes should be adjusted for HIV donor and recipient status. In summary, transplant professionals should advocate for eliminating the ban on HIV+ organ donation and funding studies to determine outcomes after transplantation of these organs.

Organ Transplantation for Nonresidents of the United States: A Policy for Transparency

A policy proposal relating to transplantation of deceased donor organs into nonresidents of the United States was jointly sponsored by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)/United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) International Relations and Ethics Committees and approved by the OPTN/UNOS Board in June 2012. The proposal followed prior acceptance by the Board of the definitions of “travel for transplantation” and “transplant tourism” and the introduction in March 2012 of revised data collection categories for transplant candidates who are neither citizens nor residents. The most important aspect of the new policy concerns replacement of the previous so‐called “5% rule” with the review of all residency and citizenship data and the preparation of a public annual report. The new policy does not prohibit organ transplantation in nonresidents. However, the policy and public data report will ensure transparency and support transplant center responsibility to account for their practices. Since the adoption of the policy, the first 19 months of data show that less than 1% of new deceased donor waitlist additions and less than 1% of transplantation recipients were non‐US citizen/nonresidents candidates who traveled to the United States for purposes of transplantation. By adopting this policy, the US transplant community promotes public trust and serves as an example to the international transplant community.

Changing Patterns of Organ Donation: Brain Dead Donors Are Not Being Lost by Donation After Circulatory Death.

Abstract The clinical characteristics of all New England Organ Bank (NEOB) donors after circulatory death (DCD) donors were analyzed between July 1, 2009, and June 30, 2014. During that 5-year period, there were 494 authorized medically suitable potential DCDs that the NEOB evaluated, constituting more than 30% of deceased donors coordinated annually by the NEOB. From the cohort of 494 authorized potential DCDs, 331 (67%) became actual DCD, 82 (17%) were attempted as a DCD but did not progress to donation, and 81 (16%) transitioned to an actual donor after brain death (DBD). Two hundred seventy-six organs were transplanted from the 81 donors that transitioned from DCD to actual DBD, including 24 heart, 70 liver, 12 single and 14 bilateral lung, and 12 pancreas transplants. When patients with devastating brain injury admitted to the intensive care units are registered donors, the Organ Procurement Organization staff should share the patients donation decision with the health care team and the patients family, as early as possible after the comfort measures only discussion has been initiated. The experience of the NEOB becomes an important reference of the successful implementation of DCD that enables an expansion of deceased donation (inclusive of DBD).

A colloquium on the congress "A gift for life. Considerations on organ donation".

Alessandro Nanni Costa, J. M. Simon i Castellvi, Antonio G. Spagnolo, Nunziata Comoretto, Jean Laffitte, Hakan Gabel, Francis L. Delmonico, Ferdinand Muehlbacher, Walter Schaupp, Alexandra K. Glazier, Valter D. Garcia, Mario Abbud-Filho, Jose O. Medina-Pestana, Mariangela Gritta Grainer, Pier Paolo Donadio, Anna Guermani, Riccardo Bosco, Francesco Giordano, Blanca Martinez Lopez de Arroyabe, Marco Brunetti, Marti Manyalich, Gloria Paez, Ricardo Valero, Rafael Matesanz, Elisabeth Coll, Beatriz Dominguez-Gil, Beatriz Mahillo, Eduardo Martin Escobar, Gregorio Garrido, and Felix Cantarovich

The Declaration of Istanbul Is Moving Forward by Combating Transplant Commercialism and Trafficking and by Promoting Organ Donation

The commentary by Drs. Ambagtsheer and Weimer provide an interesting criminological reflection regarding the Declaration of Istanbul in which they question whether efforts to prohibit organ trade have been either realistic or effective since its widespread adoption (1). They challenge the link of organ trafficking to transplant commercialism and drawing comparison from other demand crimes, speculate that the regulation of commercialism would be feasible and justified in the prevention of trafficking. However, the proposal to curtail trafficking by the regulation of monetary payments for organs is not convincing. Organ trafficking is indisputably linked to commercial profits and distinguishable from other demand crimes. The prohibition of both transplant commercialism and trafficking is required as essential to provide the criminological mechanism for detection and enforcement efforts. The ultimate value of the Declaration of Istanbul as effective policy exists not only in its prohibitionist stance but also in its promotion of effective donation and transplantation systems to reduce the demand for transplant tourism that gives rise to organ commercialism and trafficking.