ON-LINE SUPPLEMENT I: SUPPLEMENTAL TEXT
METHODS
The development of this document was the end result of a collaborative effort
initiated by the Board of Regents of the American College of Critical Care Medicine (an
official body of the SCCM) and the Transplant Network of the ACCP. Chairs of the
Task Force were appointed by the respective societies (SB and GJF for SCCM and RMK
for ACCP) and were charged with selection of task force members, who were identified
by national reputation, specific expertise, and/or active participation in SCCM or ACCP
committees relevant to the mission of the Task Force. Ultimately, a multidisciplinary,
multi-institutional committee of 44 members, incorporating expertise in critical care
medicine, organ donor management, and transplantation was assembled and approved by
the Task Force chairs. Special effort was made to ensure that all relevant subspecialty
groups were represented, including medical, surgical, pediatric, and anesthesia critical
care; neurology; medical and surgical transplantation, and healthcare organizations
involved in organ procurement and transplantation. While the intent of the task force was
to generate recommendations that are universally applicable, we recognize that the
exclusive use of physicians based in the United States may result in some variances with
international practices, particularly with respect to legal aspects of brain death
declaration, the practice of donation after cardiac death, and the organization and role of
the organ procurement organizations. Task force members collaborated over a 5-year
period in person, via teleconferences, and by email to develop the document. 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 neurological criteria, donation
after circulatory death determination, authorization (formerly known as consent) 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 first charged with the task of performing comprehensive PubMed
searches of English-only publications related to their assigned areas. The reference lists
of key articles were also scanned to identify additional publications. Each subcommittee
was asked to generate a spread sheet classifying all articles into one of the following
categories:
a. Randomized, controlled trial without important limitations
b. Randomized, controlled trial with important limitations
c. Observational study with exceptionally strong evidence
d. Observational study of unexceptional quality
e. Case series/case report
f. Review article/editorial
It became clear from this process that the available literature was overwhelmingly
comprised of observational studies of categories d and e, representing low quality
evidence, with a notable scarcity of categories a and b. For this reason, a decision was
made by the co-chairs that the document would assume the form of a consensus statement
rather than an evidence-based (and formally graded) guideline. As defined by the ACCP,
a consensus statement is “a written document that represents the collective opinions of a
convened expert panel. The opinions expressed in the consensus statement are derived
by a systematic approach and traditional literature review where randomized trials do not
commonly exist(1).”
After reviewing the literature, subcommittees were charged with generating a
series of management-related questions that were reviewed and approved by the task
force co-chairs. For each question, subcommittees provided a summary of relevant
literature and specific recommendations. The specific recommendations were approved
by all members of the subcommittee and then assembled into a complete document. The
complete document was then sent to all subcommittee chairs for feedback and, once
approved, sent to all members of the task force for feedback and final approval. In the
process of revising the draft document, relevant articles through December 2012 were
added. The document was then vetted by reviewers chosen by SCCM, ACCP, the
American Thoracic Society, and the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations
(AOPO), who provided the Task Force chairs with detailed comments and suggested
revisions. This process took over one year to complete and resulted in a final document
that was then officially endorsed by three of the organizations: SCCM, ACCP, and
AOPO.
DEATH DETERMINATION USING NEUROLOGICAL CRITERIA
The specific neurological criteria needed to establish death have been debated
since an ad hoc committee at Harvard Medical School proposed the diagnosis of brain
death and a list of appropriate criteria in 1968(2). In spite of the controversy, these have
become the basis for most accepted definitions. The committee defined brain death as
unresponsiveness and lack of receptivity, an absence of breathing and movement, and an
absence of brainstem reflexes with a flat electroencephalogram as a confirmatory test.
These findings had to be present at repeat examination 24 hours later, in the absence of
central nervous system depressants and with a body temperature greater than 90oF
(32.2oC). A suggestion to use irreversible loss of brainstem function alone, rather than
loss of whole brain function, as the basis for brain death came out of the Conference of
Royal Colleges and Their Faculties in the United Kingdom in 1976, but this has not been
utilized in many countries, including the United States(3).
In 1981, two key events advanced the notion of death determination using
neurological criteria. First, the President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems
in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research published its recommendations(4).
Second, the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) was created by the National
Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws(5). The UDDA set a national
standard for death determination by neurological criteria and the more common
circulatory-respiratory criteria that could be similarly applied to all states. This model
legislation, which was enacted by all 50 states, asserts that “[an] individual who has
sustained either irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or
irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brainstem, is
dead.”
The UDDA does not set a medical standard of practice but stipulates that
“determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.”
Thus, the law does not intrude upon medical diagnostics, but rather enables a legal basis
for medical practice. Perhaps as a result, there is variation in clinical practice in how
death is determined using neurological criteria.
The general findings of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform
State Laws were most recently supported in a white paper by the President’s Council on
Bioethics, with the recommendation that “the current neurological standard for declaring
death, grounded in a careful diagnosis of total brain failure, is biologically and
philosophically defensible”; however, the authors did cite a minority opinion that did not
recognize “total brain failure” as a valid criterion for establishing death(6). The
President’s Council also endorsed a key element requiring “that any statutory ‘definition’
should be kept separate and distinct from provisions governing the donation of cadaveric
organs and from any legal rules on decisions to terminate life-sustaining treatment(6).”
Finally, the council endorsed the UDDA.
DONATION AFTER CIRCULATORY DETERMINATION OF DEATH (DCDD)
The majority of transplanted organs are derived from donation after neurological
determination of death (DNDD). The unmet need for donor organs has prompted the
utilization of organs from an alternative donor pool, those declared dead on the basis of
circulatory, rather than neurological, criteria(7-16). Over the last 20 years, supported by
recommendations from the Institute of Medicine, an increased number of organs have
been obtained from patients declared dead following the cessation of circulatory
function(17,18). This option has been used when a patient or the patient’s surrogate
desires to withdraw life support but would like to donate organs. Following the
withdrawal of life support and resuscitative interventions, the patient is declared dead
after permanent circulatory arrest has occurred. After cessation of circulation occurs,
there is an observation period, commonly for a period of 5 minutes but a minimum of 2
minutes before the surgical recovery of organs begins. This observation period is to
ensure that circulation will not restart on its own. This donation process had been termed
non-heart- beating organ donation, donation after cardiac death, and more recently
donation after circulatory determination of death (DCDD).
DCDD can occur in a variety of clinical scenarios, which have been classified into
five categories known as the Maastricht classification(19,20): I, dead on arrival; II,
unsuccessful resuscitation; III, awaiting cardiac arrest following withdrawal of life
support measures; IV, cardiac arrest after brain death; V, unexpected cardiac arrest in a
hospital setting. According to the OPTN, most DCDD transplants in the United States
occur following planned withdrawal of support (Maastricht III), whereas those following
unplanned (uncontrolled) DCDD are uncommon (216 of 2,136 DCDD donors)(21). The
applicability of, and outcomes following, uncontrolled DCDD continue to be evaluated.
One study of uncontrolled DCDD in kidney transplantation demonstrated similar
outcomes compared to planned withdrawal, despite longer warm ischemic times(22).
DCDD has increased the supply of organs available for transplantation and now
accounts for about 12% of deceased organ donors in the US(23,24). Kidney
transplantation has experienced the most rapid increase with the increase in DCDD
donors(16-26). Universal identification of DCDD could lead to a 20% improvement in
the organ supply from deceased donors(27). Although the volume of DCDD literature is
expanding, no large prospective randomized human DCDD trials have been reported.
HEMODYNAMIC MANAGEMENT
Hemodynamic alterations associated with brain death relate to pathophysiologic
processes occurring during ischemic rostrocaudal brainstem injury (most often due to
raised intracranial pressure [ICP] leading to cerebral herniation through the tentorium)
and subsequent effects mediated after complete loss of brainstem function. A complex
interplay of neurohumoral, hormonal, and proinflammatory phenomena contributes to the
cardiovascular response to brain death. Clinically manifested hemodynamic changes can
be observed in two distinct phases of the brain death event: progressive ischemia phase
and brainstem death completion phase.
Early in the progressive ischemia phase, impaired cerebral perfusion pressure due
to rising ICP leads to a compensatory rise in mean arterial pressure. Involvement of the
pons leads to sympathetic stimulation and a hypertensive response (Cushing reflex). This
catecholamine or autonomic storm, in conjunction with the ischemic insult to the vagal
cardiomotor nucleus in the medulla oblongata, results in unopposed massive sympathetic
stimulation and loss of baroreceptor control(28,29).
The surge in circulating catecholamine levels has been repeatedly demonstrated in
animal models and in human series where serum dopamine, norepinephrine, and
epinephrine concentrations are increased several-fold from baseline values, causing acute
severe vasoconstriction and a rise in systemic vascular resistance(30-32). Clinical
manifestations are hypertension, tachycardia (often with arrhythmias), and acute
myocardial dysfunction. A Takotsubo cardiomyopathy-like pattern may be seen due to
catecholamine toxicity. Myocyte necrosis is consequent to catecholamine-induced cyclic
adenosine monophosphate-mediated calcium flux and phosphorylation of ryanodine
receptors(33-40).
Oxygen-derived free radical formation, causing cardiac myocyte
injury, may also result from catecholamines.
Other implicated mechanisms include
dysregulated adrenergic receptor signaling and high-energy phosphate metabolic
activity(41,42). Similar phenomena have been observed in
stress cardiomyopathies
associated with subarachnoid hemorrhage, pheochromocytoma, severe emotional stress,
and IV catecholamine infusions. Myocardial damage may be perpetuated by
catecholamine-mediated intense coronary vasoconstriction against the background of
increased oxygen demands causing subendocardial ischemia, which predominantly
occurs in the left ventricle Left and right ventricle dysfunction and failure are reported
with a resultant fall in cardiac output, rise in left atrial pressure and acute transient mitral
regurgitation(43).
The second phase is the brainstem death completion phase. Controlled models of
brain death in dogs demonstrate spinal cord ischemia coinciding with terminal
herniation(35). This leads to deactivation of the sympathetic system, causing loss of
vasomotor tone, a decrease in serum catecholamine levels, and a fall in cardiac
stimulation. The result is a state of profound vasodilation, frequently associated with
relative hypovolemia, causing a further fall in preload against the background of cardiac
dysfunction and loss of afterload.
The donor’s hemodynamic status is also influenced by coexisting factors that
affect the heart’s effectiveness. The venous volume reservoir that determines preload is
frequently diminished due to hypovolemia. In addition to venous pooling and increased
capacitance resulting from venous vasodilation, an absolute fluid volume loss is
commonly caused by other factors: diabetes insipidus from pituitary ischemia and initial
brain injury; stimulation of the inflammatory cascade due to upregulation of cytokines
(interleukin [IL]-6, IL-1β, IL-8, IL-2R, tumor necrosis factor-α) that mediate
inflammation and capillary leakage into the interstitial space(44); and hyperosmolar
therapy for managing elevated ICP. Additional abnormalities, such as acidosis, anemia,
hypothermia, hypoxia, electrolyte imbalance, relative adrenal insufficiency, and
concomitant sepsis, are frequently present and affect the hemodynamic profile(45).
PEDIATRIC DONOR MANAGEMENT ISSUES
The demand for organs and tissues for transplantation continues to increase with
a widening gap between donors and recipients(46). Despite this increasing demand, the
number of children on the national transplant waiting list (approximately 1.5%)(46) is
slowly declining.
Although the composition of the pediatric waiting list changes
frequently, mortality among children on solid organ transplant wait lists remains a
significant problem with the highest rate in children younger than 1 year. In 2011, more
than 90 children died on wait lists in the U.S. and approximately 60 more were removed
from the waiting list because transplantation was no longer an option(46).
The pediatric donor pool continues to decline for many reasons.
Improved
medical and surgical treatments, vaccinations that have eradicated life-threatening
diseases, safety restraints, education and awareness about child health hazards, and the
involvement of pediatric critical care specialists have all reduced morbidity and mortality
in children over the past 25 years. Missed opportunities for organ donation continue to
occur in many medical institutions nationally. Families may not be given the opportunity
or may decline the option of donation, potential organs for transplantation may be lost
due to hemodynamic instability and inappropriate donor management, and opportunities
for donation may be inappropriately denied by medical examiners in cases of abusive
trauma.
CARDIAC DONORS
Are There Any Unique Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria Regarding the Cardiac Donor?
Age: Clinical issues that led to the traditional age limit of 40 years include: 1)
incidence of undetected coronary artery disease; 2) the natural decline in cardiomyocytes
and muscle mass with age; and 3) suggestion of an enhanced rate of cellular rejection and
allograft vasculopathy(47,48,49). The relative ease with which coronary angiography can
be obtained has permitted the thorough evaluation of the coronary vasculature in patients
older than age 40 and in those with known risk factors for coronary artery disease(50).
Improvements in immunosuppressive drug regimens have led to steady gains in survival
rates across all follow-up intervals; mean duration of graft viability is 14.5 years. Most
transplant institutions now demonstrate similar survival rates among older and younger
donor hearts(51). Additionally, a study using intravascular ultrasound demonstrated that
donor coronary artery disease did not accelerate the development of recipient
vasculopathy(52). These insights and experiences have led to consideration of donors as
old as age 65, a practice supported by a single-center case series(53) and now
incorporated into guidelines published by the Clinical Practice Committee of the
American Society of Transplantation(54). However, international registry data reveal that
organs from donors older than 55 yield a 1.75 1-year odds ratio of recipient death, thus
highlighting the continued influence of age on outcomes(55).
Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH): Initial reports evaluating the use of hearts
with LVH demonstrated a substantial incidence of graft dysfunction in the first 30 days
and consequently worse survival. Subsequent studies with larger patient populations
found equivalent survival data for patients with mild LVH (left ventricle wall thickness
<1.4 cm) compared to those without LVH(56,57). Data relating to moderate LVH are
conflicting, and the populations with severe LVH are too small to draw clear conclusions.
The degree of LVH regresses in transplanted hearts over the first few months
postoperatively(56-58). Donor hearts with LVH should be used with caution when the
recipient has an extensive history of hypertension or is receiving perioperative
mechanical circulatory supports(57).
Cardiac arrest: Cardiac arrest is not uncommon as a consequence of a severe
traumatic head injury or catastrophic intracranial events. In a study examining this issue,
the mean duration of cardiac arrest was 15 minutes and donors with an arrest were
typically younger than those without(59). The recipients of these hearts did not require
greater perioperative
resource use, did not experience greater postoperative
complications, and did not exhibit different 30-day, 1-year, or 5-year survival rate.
Donor/recipient size matching:
Generally a 70- to 75-kg male donor heart
suffices for all situations(60). When a female donor heart is used, an effort should be
made to reasonably match body sizes, as a woman's left ventricular weight index remains
smaller than that of a man, even accounting for age and blood pressure
differences(48,57). The traditional advice has been to avoid body mass index (BMI)
mismatches >20%(61). More recent data, however, question whether tight adherence to
this guideline is necessary, except when recipient pulmonary hypertension is
prominent(62).
Thoracic trauma: One center in Germany has described the use of hearts from
patients with “severe chest trauma,” including pneumothorax, hemothorax, bilateral rib
fractures, pulmonary contusions, and aortic hematoma, and found no substantive effect
on postoperative graft function(63). Occult injuries undetected by echocardiography and
angiography have been found at cardiac explantation, leading to subsequent cancellation
of transplantation(64,65). The literature lacks clear definition as to what degree of injury
might preclude consideration for transplantation.
KIDNEY DONORS
Are There Any Unique Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria Regarding the Kidney Donor?
Although concerns exist regarding the suitability of kidney grafts from potential
donors with the characteristics below, evidence suggests that they may, in fact, be
considered for transplantation:

Resolving acute kidney injury in otherwise healthy donors(66-69)

Donors positive for hepatitis B core antibody in the absence of surface antigen
if recipients are appropriately immunized(70)

Hepatitis C seropositive donors with no chronic kidney disease if recipient is
hepatitis C seropositive and depending on the genotypes of both donor and
recipient(71,72)

Pediatric donors weighing <20 kg. For extremely small donors (i.e., <12 kg),
en block double kidney transplantation has been the procedure of choice and
is associated with superior 1-year outcomes. Single kidney transplant from
larger donors (12-20 kg) is an acceptable alternative and, at experienced
centers, has yielded excellent results even from donors below this weight
range(73,74).

Donors with kidney stones in the absence of chronic kidney damage(75)

Donation after DCDD(76)
Patients with the following are generally not considered as potential kidney donors but
such cases should still be discussed with the OPO representative:

Untreated renal abscess and pyelonephritis

Hepatitis B surface antigen positivity

HIV-positive status

Chronic kidney disease, including significant reduction in glomerular
filtration rate and proteinuria(77)

Acute renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy(78,79)

Severe
glomerulosclerosis
(>30%),
interstitial
fibrosis,
and
arteriosclerosis(80,81)

Age >70 years(82)
LIVER DONORS
Are There Any Unique Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria Regarding the Liver Donor?
Liver allografts have been successfully utilized from donors of advanced age (>70
years)(83,84),
although grafts taken from these donors may not fare as well when
transplanted into recipients with hepatitis C(85). Livers from donors with hepatitis C
have
been
successfully
transplanted.
Additionally,
those
who
underwent
cardiopulmonary resuscitation are now considered potential donors; in fact, there may
even be some benefit in this period of “ischemic preconditioning(86).”
Potentially
suitable livers may come from donors on vasopressors, donors with active infections,
hypernatremic donors, morbidly obese donors, individuals with significant alcohol use,
high-risk donors (per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), those with brain
tumors and malignancies, and after circulatory determination of death. Even prior liver
transplantation does not preclude organ donation; such re-use of liver allografts has been
conducted in several transplant centers(87,88).
Although liver donor criteria have been liberalized, a number of factors correlate
with inferior outcomes: advanced donor age,(83,89) duration of ICU stay,(90)
macrovesicular hepatic steatosis greater than 30%(91,92), hypernatremia(93), elevated
base deficit(94), hypotension, death from causes other than trauma, donation after
circulatory death, and race(95). Morbid obesity contributes to macrovesicular steatosis,
which can reduce graft function. A history of significant alcohol consumption in the
organ donor may increase the risk of transplanted organ dysfunction, but this has been
difficult to study. Livers from donors with a known history of significant alcohol use
have been used successfully for transplantation, and one small series reported similar
outcomes in a comparison of livers from donors who consumed >30 g alcohol daily for
over 10 years and livers from those without any identifiable risk factors(96). Markedly
elevated liver enzymes that continue to trend upwards likely increase the risk of a poor
outcome(90). Organs have been successfully procured from high-risk donors, so many
individual risk factors do not contraindicate organ donation(97-101). Scoring systems
have been developed to identify high-risk liver donors(95,102,103).
REFERENCES
1. American College of Chest Physicians Guidelines and Resources Methodology:
Consensus Statements.
Available at: http://www.chestnet.org/Guidelines-and-
Resources/Guidelines-and-Consensus-Statements/Methodology/ConsensusStatements. Accessed July 21, 2013.
2. A definition of irreversible coma: report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard
Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death. JAMA. 1968;205: 337340.
3. Diagnosis of brain death.
Statement issued by the honorary secretary of the
Conference of Medical Royal Colleges and their Faculties in the United Kingdom on
11 October 1976. BMJ. 1976;2:1187–1188.
4. President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and
Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Defining Death: Medical, Legal and Ethical
Issues in the Determination of Death. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,
1981.
5. National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. Uniform
Determination of Death Act, 1980. Available at: http://pntb.org/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/Uniform-Determination-of-Death-1980_5c.pdf. Accessed December
17, 2012.
6. President’s Council on Bioethics. Controversies in the determination of death.
Washington,
DC,
2008.
Available
http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/death/index.html. Accessed October 19, 2012.
at
7. Cohen B, Smits JM, Haase B, Bersijn G, Vanrenterghem Y, Frei U. Expanding the
donor pool to increase renal transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2005;20:34-41.
8. Marks WH, Wagner D, Pearson TC, et al. Organ donation and utilization, 1995-2004:
Entering the collaborative era. Am J Transplant. 2006;6:1101-1110.
9. Hassan TB, Joshi M, Quinton DN, Elwell R, Baines J, Bell PR. Role of the accident
and emergency department in the non-heart-beating donor programme in Leicester. J
Accid Emerg Med. 1996;13:321-324.
10. Thomas I, Caborn S, Manara AR. Experiences in the development of non-heart
beating organ donation scheme in a regional neurosciences intensive care unit. Br J
Anaesth. 2008;100:820-826.
11. Kievit JK, Oomen AP, Heineman E, Kootstra G. The importance of non-heart-beating
donor kidneys in reducing the organ shortage. EDTNA-ERCA J. 1997;23:11-13.
12. O'Connor KJ, Delmonico FL. Increasing the supply of kidneys for transplantation.
Semin Dial. 2005;18:460-462.
13. Samuel D, Antonini TM. [Liver transplantation]. Rev Prat. 2007;57:280-286.
14. Kootstra G, Kievit JK, Heineman E. The non heart-beating donor. Br Med Bull.
1997;53:844-853.
15. Muiesan P, Jassem W, Girlanda R, et al. Segmental liver transplantation from nonheart beating donors--an early experience with implications for the future. Am J
Transplant. 2006;6:1012-1016.
16. Evers KA, Lewis DD. Estimating the non-heart-beating donor potential at a trauma
center. J Transpl Coord. 1999;9:186-188.
17. Potts
JT,
Herdman
R,
Institute
of
Medicine.
Non-Heart-Beating
Organ
Transplantation: Medical and Ethical Issues in Procurement. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press, 1997.
18. Institute of Medicine. Non-Heart-Beating Organ Transplantation: Practice and
Protocols. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2000.
19. Squifflet JP. Why did it take so long to start a non-heart-beating donor program in
Belgium? Acta Chir Belg. 2006;106:485-488.
20. Rela M, Jassem W. Transplantation from non-heart-beating donors. Transplant Proc.
2007;39:726-727.
21. Gagandeep S, Matsuoka L, Mateo R, et al. Expanding the donor kidney pool: utility
of renal allografts procured in a setting of uncontrolled cardiac death. Am J
Transplant. 2006;6:1682-1688.
22. Brook NR, Waller JR, Richardson AC, et al. A report on the activity and clinical
outcomes of renal non-heart beating donor transplantation in the United Kingdom.
Clin Transplant. 2004;18:627-633.
23. Howard RJ, Schold JD, Cornell DL. A 10-year analysis of organ donation after
cardiac death in the United States. Transplantation. 2005;80:564-568.
24. Van Gelder F, de Roey J, Desschans B, et al. Donor categories: heart-beating, nonheart-beating and living donors; evolution within the last 10 years in UZ Leuven and
Collaborative Donor Hospitals. Acta Chir Belg. 2008;108:35-38.
25. Delmonico FL, Sheehy E, Marks WH, Baliga P, McGowan JJ, Magee JC. Organ
donation and utilization in the United States, 2004. Am J Transplant. 2005;5:862-873.
26. Reiner M, Cornell D, Howard RJ. Development of a successful non-heart-beating
organ donation program. Prog Transplant. 2003;13:225-231.
27. Halpern SD, Abt PL. Incidence and distribution of potential donors after circulatory
determination of death in U. S. ICUs. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 181;2010:A6861.
28. Bittner HB, Kendall SW, Campbell KA, Montine TJ, Van Trigt P. A valid
experimental brain death donor model. J Heart Lung Transplant. 1995;14:308-317.
29. Novitzky D. Detrimental effects of brain death on the potential organ donor.
Transplant Proc . 1997;29:3770–3772.
30. Chiari P, Hadour G, Michel P, et al. Biphasic response after brain death induction:
prominent part of catecholamines release in this phenomenon. J Heart Lung
Transplant. 2000;19:675-682.
31. Chen EP, Bittner HB, Kendall SW, Van Trigt P. Hormonal and hemodynamic
changes in a validated animal model of brain death. Crit Care Med. 1996;24:1352–
1359.
32. Powner DJ, Hendrich A, Nyhuis A, Strate R. Changes in serum catecholamine levels
in patients who are brain death. J Heart Lung Transplant. 1992;11:1046–1053.
33. Novitzky D, Wicomb WN, Cooper DK, Rose AG, Reichart R. Prevention of
myocardial injury during brain death by total cardiac sympathectomy in the chacma
baboon. Ann Thorac Surg. 1986;41:520–524.
34. D’Amico TA, Meyers CH, Koutlas TC, et al. Desensitization of myocardial β
adrenergic receptors and deterioration of left ventricular function after brain death. J
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1995;110:746–751.
35. Shivalkar B, Van Loon J, Wieland W, et al. Variable effects of explosive or gradual
increase of intracranial pressure on myocardial structure and function. Circulation.
1993;87:230-239.
36. Pinelli G, Mertes PM, Carteaux JP, et al. Myocardial effects of experimental acute
brain death evaluation by hemodynamic and biological studies. Ann Thorac Surg.
1995;60: 1729–1734.
37. Timek T, Vahl CF, Bonz A, Schaffer L, Rosenberg M, Hagl S. Triiodothyronine
reverses depressed contractile performance after excessive catecholamine stimulation.
Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;66:1618–1625.
38. Novitzky D, Cooper DK, Rosendale JD, Kauffman HM. Hormonal therapy of the
brain-dead organ donor: experimental and clinical studies. Transplantation.
2006;82:1396-1401.
39. Ellison GM, Torella D, Karakikes I, et al. Acute beta-adrenergic overload produces
myocyte damage through calcium leakage from the ryanodine receptor 2 but spares
cardiac stem cells. J Biol Chem. 2007;282:1397-1409.
40. Curran J, Hinton MJ, Ríos E, Bers DM, Shannon TR. Beta-adrenergic enhancement
of sarcoplasmic reticulum calcium leak in cardiac myocytes is mediated by
calcium/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase. Circ Res. 2007;100:391-398.
41. Opie LH. The mechanism of myocyte death in ischaemia. Eur Heart J. 1993;14 Suppl
G:31-33.
42. Stocia SC. High-energy phosphates and the human donor heart. J Heart Lung
Transplant. 2004;23(9 Suppl): S244-S246.
43. Paul JJ, Tani LY, Shaddy RE, Minich LL. Spectrum of left ventricular dysfunction in
potential pediatric heart transplant donors. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2003;22: 548552.
44. Barklin A. Systemic inflammation in the brain-dead organ donor. Acta Anaesthesiol
Scand. 2009;53:425-435.
45. Wood KE, Becker BN, McCartney JG, D’Allessandro AM, Coursin DB. Care of the
potential organ donor. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2730-2739.
46. Wheeldon DR, Potter CD, Oduro A, Wallwork J, Large SR. Transforming the
"unacceptable" donor: outcomes from the adoption of a standardized donor
management technique. J Heart Lung Transplant. 1995;14:734-742.
47. OPTN:
Organ
Procurement
and
Transplantation
Network.
Available
at:
http://www.optn.hrsa.gov. Accessed December 18, 2012.
48. Olivetti G, Giordano G, Corradi D, et al. Gender differences and aging: effects on the
human heart. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;26:1068-1079.
49. Grauhan O, Patzurek J, Knosella C, et al. Coronary angiography in heart donors: a
necessity or a luxury ? Transplant Proc. 2001;33:3805.
50. Grauhan O, Wesslau C, Hetzer R. Routine screening of donor hearts by coronary
angiography is feasible. Transplant Proc. 2006;38:666-667.
51. Gutierez E, Andres A. Selection of donor and organ viability criteria: expanding
donation criteria. J Ren Care. 2007;33:83-88.
52. Li H, Tanaka K, Anzai H, et al. Influence of pre-existing donor atherosclerosis on the
development of cardiac allograft vasculopathy and outcomes in heart transplant
recipients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:2470-2476.
53. Aliabadi A, Sandner S, Bunzel B, et al. Recent trends in heart transplantation: the
University of Vienna experience. Clin Transpl. 2007:81-97.
54. Steinman T, Becker BN, Frost AE, et al. Guidelines for the referral and management
of patients eligible for solid organ transplant. Transplantation. 2001;71:1189-1204.
55. Hosenpud JD, Novick RJ, Bennett LE, Keck BM, Fiol B, Daily OP. The Registry of
the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplant: thirteenth official report-1996. J Heart Lung Transplant. 1996;15: 655-674.
56. Goland S, Czer LS, Kass RM, et al. Use of cardiac allografts with mild and moderate
left ventricular hypertrophy can be safely used in heart transplantation to expand the
donor pool.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51:1214-1220.
57. Kuppahally SS, Valantine HA, Weisshaar D, et al. Outcome in cardiac recipients of
donor hearts with increased left ventricular wall thickness. Am J Transplant.
2007;7:2388-2395.
58. Sopko N, Shea KJ, Ludrosky K, et al. Survival is not compromised in donor hearts
with echocardiographic abnormalities. J Surg Res. 2007;143: 141-144.
59. Ali AA, Lim E, Thanikachalam M, Sudarshan C, et al. Cardiac arrest in the organ
donor does not negatively influence recipient survival after heart transplantation. Eur
J Cardiothorac Surg. 2007;31:929-933.
60. Young JB, Naftel DC, Bourge RC, et al. Matching the heart donor and heart
transplant recipient. Clues for successful expansion of the donor pool: a
multivariable, multi-institutional report. The Cardiac Transplant Research Database
Group. J Heart Lung Transplant. 1994;13: 353-364.
61. Sobiesczanska-Malek M, Zielinski T, Korewicki J. The influence of donor related
factors on the frequency of acute cellular rejection by the recipient in the first year
following heart transplantation. Ann Transplant. 2007;12:38-43.
62. Patel ND, Weiss ES, Nwakanma LU, et al. Impact of donor to recipient weight ratio
on survival after transplantation: analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing
database. Circulation. 2008;118 (14 Suppl ):S83-S88.
63. Shuler S, Parnt R, Warneke H, Matheis G, Hetzer R. Extended donor criteria for heart
transplantation. J Heart Transplant. 1988;17:326-330.
64. Canas A, Tellez JC, Roda J, Castedo E, Ugarte J, Pulpon LA. Interatrial septal deficit
caused by blunt trauma in a heart donor. Circulation. 1999;100:e73-e74.
65. Schroeder JS, Stinson EB, Bieber CP, Wexler L, Shumway NE, Harrison DC.
Papillary muscle dysfunction due to non-penetrating chest trauma. Recognition in a
potential cardiac donor. Br Heart J. 1972;34:645-647.
66. Rao PS, Schaubel DE, Guidinger MK, et al. A comprehensive risk quantification
score for deceased donor kidneys: the kidney donor risk index. Transplantation.
2009;88:231-236.
67. Anil Kumar MS, Khan SM, Jaglan S, et al. Successful transplantation of kidneys
from deceased donors with acute renal failure: three-year results. Transplantation.
2006;82:1640-1645.
68. Greenstein SM, Moore N, McDonough P, Schechner R, Tellis V. Excellent outcome
using "impaired" standard criteria donors with elevated serum creatinine.
Transplant. 2008;22:630-633.
Clin
69. Kayler LK, Garzon P, Magliocca J, et al. Outcomes and utilization of kidneys from
deceased donors with acute kidney injury. Am J Transplant. 2009;9:367-373.
70. Fong TL, Bunnapradist S, Jordan SC, Cho YW. Impact of hepatitis B core antibody
status on outcomes of cadaveric renal transplantation: analysis of United Network of
Organ Sharing database between 1994 and 1999. Transplantation. 2002;73:85-89.
71. Abbott KC, Lentine KL, Bucci JR, Agodoa LY, Peters TG, Schnitzler MA. The
impact of transplantation with deceased donor hepatitis C-positive kidneys on
survival in wait-listed long-term dialysis patients. Am J Transplant. 2004;4:20322037.
72. Woodside KJ, Ishihara K, Theisen JE, et al.
Use of kidneys from hepatitis C
seropositive donors shortens waitlist time but does not alter one-yr outcome. Clin
Transplant. 2003;17:433-437.
73. Pelletier SJ, Guidinger MK, Merion RM, et al. Recovery and utilization of deceased
donor kidneys from small pediatric donors. Am J Transplant. 2006;6:1646-1652.
74. Maluf DG, Carrico RJ, Rosendale JD, et al. Optimizing recovery, utilization, and
transplantation outcomes from kidneys from small, ≤ 20 kg, pediadric donors. Am J
Transplant 2013; 13:2703-2712.
75. Lu HF, Shekarriz B, Stoller ML.
Donor-gifted allograft urolithiasis: early
percutaneous management. Urology. 2002;59:25-27.
76. Kokkinos C, Antcliffe D, Nanidis T, Darzi AW, Tekkis P, Papalois V. Outcome of
kidney transplantation from nonheart-beating versus heart-beating cadaveric donors.
Transplantation. 2007; 83:1193-1199.
77. Kuo PC, Johnson LB, Schweitzer EJ, Alfrey EJ, Waskerwitz J, Bartlett ST.
Utilization of the older donor for renal transplantation. Am J Surg. 1996;172:551555; discussion 556-557.
78. Bhandari S, Turney JH. Survivors of acute renal failure who do not recover renal
function. QJM. 1996;89:415-421.
79. Siddiqui S, Norbury M, Robertson S, Almond A, Isles C. Recovery of renal function
after 90 d on dialysis: implications for transplantation in patients with potentially
reversible causes of renal failure. Clin Transplant. 2008;22:136-140.
80. Munivenkatappa RB, Schweitzer EJ, Papadimitriou JC, et al.
The Maryland
aggregate pathology index: a deceased donor kidney biopsy scoring system for
predicting graft failure. Am J Transplant. 2008;8:2316-2324.
81. Randhawa PS, Minervini MI, Lombardero M, et al.
Biopsy of marginal donor
kidneys: correlation of histologic findings with graft dysfunction. Transplantation.
2000;69:1352-1357.
82. Chavalitdhamrong D, Gill J, Takemoto S, et al. Patient and graft outcomes from
deceased kidney donors age 70 years and older: an analysis of the Organ Procurement
Transplant Network/United Network of Organ Sharing database. Transplantation.
2008;85:1573-1579.
83. Kim DY, Cauduro SP, Bohorquez HE, Ishitani MB, Nyberg SL, Rosen CB. Routine
use of livers from deceased donors older than 70: is it justified? Transpl Int.
2005;18:73-77.
84. Zhao Y, Lo CM, Liu CL, Fan ST. Use of elderly donors (> 60 years) for liver
transplantation. Asian J Surg. 2004;27:114-119.
85. Baccarani U, Adani GL, Toniutto P, et al. Liver transplantation from old donors into
HCV and non-HCV recipients. Transplant Proc. 2004;36:527-528.
86. Totsuka E, Fung JJ, Urakami A, et al. Influence of donor cardiopulmonary arrest in
human liver transplantation: possible role of ischemic preconditioning. Hepatology.
2000;31:577-580.
87. Rubay R, Wittebolle X, Ciccarelli O, et al. Re-use of a liver allograft; an exceptional
opportunity to enlarge the organ donor pool. Transpl Int. 2003;16:497-499.
88. Ortiz J, Reich DJ, Manzarbeitia C, Humar A. Successful re-use of liver allografts:
three case reports and a review of the UNOS database. Am J Transplant. 2005;5:189192.
89. Busquets J, Xiol X, Figueras J, et al. The impact of donor age on liver transplantation:
influence of donor age on early liver function and on subsequent patient and graft
survival. Transplantation. 2001;71:1765-1771.
90. Pawlak J, Nyckowski P, Malkowski P, et al. Correlation between the function of
transplanted liver and the quality of procured organ. Transplant Proc. 2002;34:616620.
91. Marsman WA, Wiesner RH, Rodriguez L, et al. Use of fatty donor liver is associated
with diminished early patient and graft survival. Transplantation. 1996;62:12461251.
92. Afonso RC, Saad WA, Parra OM, Leitao R, Ferraz-Neto BH. Impact of steatotic
grafts on initial function and prognosis after liver transplantation. Transplant Proc.
2004;36:909-911.
93. Totsuka E, Fung JJ, Ishii T, et al. Influence of donor condition on postoperative graft
survival and function in human liver transplantation. Transplant Proc. 2000;32:322326.
94. delaTorre AN, Kuo PC, Plotkin JS, et al. Influence of donor base deficit status on
recipient outcomes in liver transplantation. Transplant Proc. 1997;29:474.
95. Feng S, Goodrich NP, Bragg-Gresham JL, et al. Characteristics associated with liver
graft failure: the concept of a donor risk index. Am J Transplant. 2006;6:783-790.
96. Tector AJ, Mangus RS, Chestovich P, et al. Use of extended criteria livers decreases
wait time for liver transplantation without adversely impacting posttransplant
survival. Ann Surg. 2006;244:439-450.
97. Yoo HY, Molmenti E, Thuluvath PJ. The effect of donor body mass index on primary
graft nonfunction, retransplantation rate, and early graft and patient survival after
liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2003;9:72-78.
98. Moss J, Lapointe-Rudow D, Renz JF, et al. Select utilization of obese donors in living
donor liver transplantation: implications for the donor pool. Am J Transplant.
2005;5:2974-2981.
99. Merion RM, Goodrich NP, Feng S. How can we define expanded criteria for liver
donors? J Hepatol. 2006;45:484-488.
100.
Busuttil RW, Tanaka K. The utility of marginal donors in liver transplantation.
Liver Transpl. 2003;9:651-663.
101.
Hoofnagle JH, Lombardero M, Zetterman RK, et al. Donor age and outcome of
liver transplantation. Hepatology. 1996;24:89-96.
102.
Ferraz-Neto BH, Zurstrassen MP, Hidalgo R, et al. Donor liver dysfunction:
application of a new scoring system to identify the marginal donor. Transplant Proc.
2007;39:2516-2518.
103.
Bonney GK, Aldersley MA, Asthana S, et al. Donor risk index and MELD
interactions in predicting long-term graft survival: a single-centre experience.
Transplantation. 2009;87:1858-1863.