OBJECTIVES Controlled donation after circulatory death (cDCD) donors are becoming a common source of organs for transplantation globally. However, the graft survival rate of cDCD abdominal organs is inferior to that of organs from brain-dead donors. The rapid retrieval (RR) technique is used by most donor organ procurement teams. The abdominal normothermic regional perfusion (A-NRP) technique has been implemented to minimize warm ischaemic damage to the abdominal organs. However, there is limited information on the effect of A-NRP on the quality of the donor lungs. This study aimed to compare lung transplantation outcomes using lungs procured from cDCD donors using the A-NRP and abdominal RR techniques. METHODS A single-centre retrospective analysis of consecutive transplant recipients of cDCD lungs from June 2013 to December 2019 was performed. The recipients were divided into 2 cohorts according to the abdominal procurement technique used. The recipient and donor characteristics (age, sex, cause of brain injury, warm ischaemic time, diagnosis, lung allocation score and other factors), incidence of primary graft dysfunction and early survival were monitored. RESULTS Twenty-eight consecutive lung transplantation recipients were identified (median age 59 years; 61% male); 14 recipients received lungs using the A-NRP and 14 using abdominal RR for abdominal organ retrieval. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics, primary graft dysfunction (P = 0.70), hospital mortality (P = 1.0) and 1-year survival rate (P = 1.0) between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS No difference was observed in lung transplantation outcomes irrespective of the abdominal organ procurement technique used (A-NRP or abdominal RR).

Summary Controlled donation after circulatory death donors (cDCD) are becoming a frequent source of lungs grafts worldwide. Conversely, lung transplantations (LTx) from uncontrolled donors (uDCD) are sporadically reported. We aimed to review our institutional experience using both uDCD and cDCD and compare to LTx from brain death donors (DBD). This is a retrospective analysis of all LTx performed between January 2013 and December 2019 in our institution. Donor and recipient characteristics were collected and univariate, multivariate and survival analyses were carried out comparing the three cohorts of donors. A total of 239 (84.7%) LTx were performed from DBD, 29 (10.3%) from cDCD and 14 (5%) from uDCD. There were no statistically significant differences in primary graft dysfunction grade 3 at 72 h, 30‐ and 90‐day mortality, need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation after procedure, ICU and hospital length of stay, airway complications, CLAD incidence or survival at 1 and 3 years after transplant (DBD: 87.1% and 78.1%; cDCD: 89.7% and 89.7%; uDCD: 85.7% and 85.7% respectively; P = 0.42). Short‐ and mid‐term outcomes are comparable between the three types of donors. These findings may encourage and reinforce all types of donation after circulatory death programmes as a valid and growing source of suitable organs for transplantation.

OBJECTIVES Most transplant centres use donation after brain death (DBD) criteria to assess the quality of controlled donation after circulatory death (cDCD) lungs. However, research on the relationship between DBD extended criteria and cDCD lung transplantation outcomes is limited. We investigated the outcomes of using DBD extended criteria donor organs in cDCD lung transplantation, compared to the standard criteria cDCD lung transplantation. METHODS A retrospective chart review of consecutive cDCD lung referrals to Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro-Majadahonda from June 2013 to December 2019 was undertaken. Donors were divided into standard and extended criteria groups. Early outcomes after lung transplant were compared between these groups using the Kaplan–Meier method and log-rank test. RESULTS Thirty out of 91 cDCD donor lung offers were accepted for transplantation, of which 11 were from standard criteria donors and 19 were extended criteria donors. The baseline characteristics of the 2 recipient groups were similar. There were no differences in the rates of grade 3 primary graft dysfunction at 72 h after lung transplantation (21% vs 18%), duration of mechanical ventilation (48 h vs 36 h), total intensive care unit stay (10 days vs 7 days) and 1-year survival (89% vs 90%). CONCLUSIONS Carefully selecting cDCD lungs from outside the standard acceptability criteria may expand the existing donor pool with no detrimental effects on lung transplantation outcomes.

No abstract