Summary In the face of a crisis in organ donation, the transplant community are increasingly utilizing donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors. Over the last 10 years, with the increasing usage of DCD donors, we have seen the introduction in a number of new terms and definitions. We report the results of the 6th International Conference in Organ Donation held in Paris in 2013 and report a consensus agreement of an established expert European Working Group on the definitions and terminology regarding DCD donation, including refinement of the Maastricht definitions. This document forms part of a special series where recommendations are presented for uncontrolled and controlled DCD donation and organ specific guidelines for kidney, pancreas, liver and lung transplantation. An expert panel formed a consensus on definitions and terms aiming to establish consistent usage of terms in DCD donation.

No abstract

Maastricht type 2 donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors suffer sudden and unexpected cardiac arrest, typically outside the hospital; they have significant potential to expand the donor pool. Herein, we analyze the results of transplanted livers and all potential donors treated under our type 2 DCD protocol. Cardiac arrest was witnessed; potential donors arrived at the hospital after attempts at resuscitation had failed. Death was declared based on the absence of cardiorespiratory activity during a 5-min no-touch period. Femoral vessels were cannulated to establish normothermic extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, which was maintained until organ recovery. From April 2002 to December 2010, there were 400 potential donors; 34 liver transplants were performed (9%). Among recipients, median age, model for endstage liver disease and cold and reperfusion warm ischemic times were 55 years (49-60), 19 (14-21) and 380 (325-430) and 30 min (26-35), respectively. Overall, 236 (59%) and 130 (32%) livers were turned down due to absolute and relative contraindications to donate, respectively. One-year recipient and graft survivals were 82% and 70%, respectively (median follow-up 24 months). The applicability of type 2 DCD liver transplant was <10%; however, with better preservation technology and expanded transplant criteria, we may be able to improve this figure significantly.

We have evaluated the involvement of hepatic preconditioning mediators (adenosine, adenosine A1 and A2 receptors) during normothermic recirculation (NR) in a model of liver transplantation from non-heart-beating donor (NHBD) pigs.Application of NR after 20 min of warm ischemia (WI) reversed the lethal injury associated with transplantation of NHBD livers (achieving 5-day survival and diminishing glutathione S-transferase (GST), aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and hyaluronic acid (HA)).Adenosine administration prior to WI simulated the effect of NR. Measuring adenosine, we found that during NR, hepatic adenosine levels increased and xanthine levels decreased. Then when we blocked A2 receptors the effect of NR was abolished, whereas the blocking of A1 receptors further protected the liver. Furthermore, A2 blocking improved hepatic perfusion during NR whereas A1 blocking reduced it.The study suggests that NR has a preconditioning effect by maintaining adequate adenosine and xanthine levels. During NR, adenosine protects the liver through A2 activation and damages it through A1 activation although simultaneous stimulation of both receptors exerts a clear beneficial effect. The possible relation of NR mechanism with other preconditioning mediators such as cAMP and nitric oxide synthesis are discussed.

Donation after the circulatory determination of death (DCDD) has emerged as a valuable strategy to increase the availability of organs for transplantation. 1 In 2018, 23% of the 39 357 deceased organ donors reported to the Global Observatory on Donation and Transplantation had been declared dead by circulatory criteria. 2,3 DCDD also provides the opportunity of posthumous donation when patients die following an unsuccessfully-resuscitated cardiac arrest (uncontrolled DCDD [uDCDD]) or the decision to withdraw of life-sustaining therapies (WLSTs) that are no longer deemed beneficial to the patient (controlled DCDD [cDCDD]). 4cDCDD programs already exist in 17 countries throughout the world. 2,3,5 In cDCDD, the effects of warm ischemia during the agonal period after the WLST and following the cessation of circulation are further exacerbated during the later phase of cold