The ability to replace organs and tissues on demand could save or improve millions of lives each year globally and create public health benefits on par with curing cancer. Unmet needs for organ and tissue preservation place enormous logistical limitations on transplantation, regenerative medicine, drug discovery, and a variety of rapidly advancing areas spanning biomedicine. A growing coalition of researchers, clinicians, advocacy organizations, academic institutions, and other stakeholders has assembled to address the unmet need for preservation advances, outlining remaining challenges and identifying areas of underinvestment and untapped opportunities. Meanwhile, recent discoveries provide proofs of principle for breakthroughs in a family of research areas surrounding biopreservation. These developments indicate that a new paradigm, integrating multiple existing preservation approaches and new technologies that have flourished in the past 10 years, could transform preservation research. Capitalizing on these opportunities will require engagement across many research areas and stakeholder groups. A coordinated effort is needed to expedite preservation advances that can transform several areas of medicine and medical science.

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.

Worldwide 715 482 patients have received a lifesaving organ transplant since 1988. During this time, there have been advances in donor management and in the perioperative care of the organ transplant recipient, resulting in marked improvements in long-term survival. Although the number of organs recovered has increased year after year, a greater demand has produced a critical organ shortage. The majority of organs are from deceased donors; however, some are not suitable for transplantation. Some of this loss is due to management of the donor. Improved donor care may increase the number of available organs and help close the existing gap in supply and demand. In order to address this concern, The Organ Donation and Transplantation Alliance, the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations, and the Transplant and Critical Care Committees of the American Society of Anesthesiologists have formulated evidence-based guidelines, which include a call for greater involvement and oversight by anesthesiologists and critical care specialists, as well as uniform reporting of data during organ procurement and recovery.

Introduction: Much of the higher risk for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) in African American individuals relates to ancestry-specific variation in the apolipoprotein L1 gene (APOL1). Relative to kidneys from European American deceased-donors, kidneys from African American deceased-donors have shorter allograft survival and African American living-kidney donors more often develop ESKD. The National Institutes of Health (NIH)-sponsored APOL1 Long-term Kidney Transplantation Outcomes Network (APOLLO) is prospectively assessing kidney allograft survival from donors with recent African ancestry based on donor and recipient APOL1 genotypes. Methods: APOLLO will evaluate outcomes from 2614 deceased kidney donor-recipient pairs, as well as additional living-kidney donor-recipient pairs and unpaired deceased-donor kidneys. Results: The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), Association of Organ Procurement Organizations, American Society of Transplantation, American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics, and nearly all U.S. kidney transplant programs, organ procurement organizations (OPOs), and histocompatibility laboratories are participating in this observational study. APOLLO employs a central institutional review board (cIRB) and maintains voluntary partnerships with OPOs and histocompatibility laboratories. A Community Advisory Council composed of African American individuals with a personal or family history of kidney disease has advised the NIH Project Office and Steering Committee since inception. UNOS is providing data for outcome analyses. Conclusion: This article describes unique aspects of the protocol, design, and performance of APOLLO. Results will guide use of APOL1 genotypic data to improve the assessment of quality in deceased-donor kidneys and could increase numbers of transplanted kidneys, reduce rates of discard, and improve the safety of living-kidney donation.

To study the evolution of pericardial inflammation, we have developed a model of pericarditis in sheep by surgically injecting heat-killed staphylococci and Freund's adjuvant into the pericardial cavity under sterile conditions. The pericarditis evolved through the following phases: 1) inflammatory response, 2) mesothelial cell injury and desquamation, and 3) fibrotic phase. At 3-24 hr there was increased microvascular permeability, which resulted in the exudation of fluid, neutrophils, macrophages, and fibrin into the pericardial cavity and the pericardial interstitium. By 72 hr, large numbers of inflammatory cells were aggregated on the mesothelial surfaces and dispersed throughout the pericardial cavity, either as free-floating cells or located between strands of fibrin. At 6 days, fibrinolysis was apparent along the mesothelial surfaces; and newly formed collagen fibrils were deposited throughout the interstitial spaces and among the aggregated cells. These fibrils provided a matrix for the growth of new blood and lymphatic vessels into new connective tissue on both parietal and visceral pericardial surfaces. At 2 weeks, intrapericardial fibrosis had produced focal adhesions between the pericardial surfaces. At 1 month, extensive areas of the pericardial cavity were obliterated. By 9 months, there was a marked reduction in the numbers of cells and blood vessels and increased deposition of collagen and elastic fibers. The intrapericardial injection of heat-killed staphylococci and adjuvant provides a reproducible animal model to study the time course of pericardial inflammation.