By identifying donor factors associated with graft failure, these analyses may help to expand the number of transplanted kidneys by increasing the utilization of retrieved cadaveric kidneys.
A national conference on organ donation after cardiac death (DCD) was convened to expand the practice of DCD in the continuum of quality end-of-life care.This national conference affirmed the ethical propriety of DCD as not violating the dead donor rule. Further, by new developments not previously reported, the conference resolved controversy regarding the period of circulatory cessation that determines death and allows administration of pre-recovery pharmacologic agents, it established conditions of DCD eligibility, it presented current data regarding the successful transplantation of organs from DCD, it proposed a new framework of data reporting regarding ischemic events, it made specific recommendations to agencies and organizations to remove barriers to DCD, it brought guidance regarding organ allocation and the process of informed consent and it set an action plan to address media issues. When a consensual decision is made to withdraw life support by the attending physician and patient or by the attending physician and a family member or surrogate (particularly in an intensive care unit), a routine opportunity for DCD should be available to honor the deceased donor's wishes in every donor service area (DSA) of the United States.
Key words: Deceased organ donation
Received 25 July 2005, revised and accepted for publication 24 October 2005A national conference on organ donation after cardiac death (DCD) was convened in Philadelphia on April 7 and 8, 2005, to address the increasing experience of DCD and to affirm the ethical propriety of transplanting organs from such donors. Participants represented the broad spectrum of the medical community, including neuroscientists, critical care professionals and distinguished bioethicists (Appendix 1).Six work groups were assembled to address specific DCD issues and fulfill the conference objectives: (i) determining death by a cardiopulmonary criterion, (ii) assessing medical criteria that predict DCD candidacy following the withdrawal of life support, (iii) reviewing protocols for successful DCD organ recovery and subsequent transplantation, (iv) initiating DCD in donation service areas (DSAs), (v) discussing the allocation of DCD organs for transplantation and (vi) examining perceptions of DCD held by the media and the public.
Work Group 1: Determining Death by a Cardiopulmonary CriterionA prospective organ donor's death may be determined by either cardiopulmonary (DCD) or neurologic criteria (donation after brain death [DBD]) (1). The term donation after cardiac death (DCD) clearly indicates that death precedes donation. Death determination in the DCD patient mandates the use of a cardiopulmonary criterion to prove the absence of circulation. The cardiopulmonary criterion may be used when the donor does not fulfill brain death criteria. The ethical axiom of organ donation necessitates adherence to the dead donor rule: the retrieval of organs for transplantation should not cause the death of a donor (2).In clinical situations that fulfill either brain death criteria ...
The process of humoral rejection is multifaceted and has different manifestations in the various types of organ transplants. Because this process is emerging as a leading cause of graft loss, a conference was held in April 2003 to comprehensively address issues regarding humoral rejection.Though humoral rejection may result from different factors, discussion focused on a paradigm caused by antibodies, typically against donor HLA antigens, leading to the term 'antibody-mediated rejection' (AMR). Conference deliberations were separated into four workgroups: The Profiling Workgroup evaluated strengths and limitations of different methods for detecting HLA reactive antibody, and created risk assessment guidelines for AMR; The Diagnosis Workgroup reviewed clinical, pathologic, and serologic criteria for assessing AMR in renal, heart and lung transplant recipients; The Treatment Workgroup discussed advantages, limitations and possible mechanisms of action for desensitization protocols that may reverse AMR; and The Basic Science Workgroup presented animal and human immunologic models for humoral rejection and proposed potential targets for future intervention. This work represents a comprehensive review with contributions from experts in the fields of Transplantation Surgery, Medicine, Pathology, Histocompatibility, Immunology, and clinical trial design. Immunologic barriers once considered insurmountable are now consistently overcome to enable more patients to undergo organ transplantation.
Results: Participants explored the benefits of early transplantation on costs and outcomes, identified current barriers (at multiple levels) that impede access to early transplantation, and recommended specific interventions to overcome those barriers.Conclusions: With implementation of early education, referral to a transplant center coincident with creation of vascular access, timely transplant evaluation, and identification of potential living donors, early transplantation can be an option for substantially more patients with chronic kidney disease.
More than one-third of the patients with steroid-insensitive AR had evidence of AHR, often resistant to antilymphocyte therapy. Most cases (95%) with DSA at the time of rejection had widespread C4d deposits in peritubular capillaries, suggesting a pathogenic role of the circulating alloantibody. Combined DSA testing and C4d staining provides a useful approach for the early diagnosis of AHR, a condition that often necessitates a more intensive therapeutic rescue regimen.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.