ABSTRACT
The safety and liver utilization with prerecovery liver biopsy (PLB) in extended criteria liver donors are unclear. We conducted a retrospective cohort study in 1323 brain death donors (PLB = 496) from 3 organ procurement organizations (OPOs). Outcomes were complications, preempted liver recovery (PLR), and liver transplantation (LT). Additional analyses included liver-only and propensity score-matched multiorgan donor subgroups. PLB donors were older (57 versus 53 years; P < 0.001). Hepatitis C antibody positivity (14.3% versus 9.6%, P = 0.01) and liver-only donors (42.6% versus 17.5%; P < 0.001) were more prevalent. The PLB cohort had fewer complications (31.9% versus 42.3%; P < 0.001). In the PLB cohort, PLR was significantly higher (odds ratio [OR], 3.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.42-4.92) and LT lower (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52-0.91). In liver-only and propensity score-matched multiorgan donor subgroups, PLR was significantly higher (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.06-2.94 and OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.37-3.82, respectively) without a decrease in LT (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.43-1.18 and OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.63-1.33, respectively) in PLB subgroups. In conclusion, in extended criteria liver donors, PLB is safe and decreases futile liver recovery without decreasing LT. Increased use of PLB, especially in liver-only donors, is likely to save costs to OPOs and transplant centers and improve efficiencies in organ allocation. Liver Transplantation 24 182-191 2018 AASLD.
Subject(s)
Brain Death , Donor Selection , Liver Transplantation/methods , Liver/pathology , Tissue Donors/supply & distribution , Adult , Aged , Biopsy , Chi-Square Distribution , Female , Humans , Liver Transplantation/adverse effects , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Multivariate Analysis , Odds Ratio , Predictive Value of Tests , Propensity Score , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , United StatesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to identify steps during family approach for organ donation that may be modified to improve consent rates of potential organ donors. METHODS: Retrospective study of our local organ procurement organization (OPO) database of potential organ donors. Modifiable variables involved in the family approach of potential organ donors were collected and included race and sex of OPO representative, individual initiating approach discussion with family (RN or MD vs. OPO), length of donation discussion, use of a translator, and time of day of approach. RESULTS: Of 1137 potential organ donors, 661 (58%) consented and 476 (42%) declined. Consent rates were higher with matched race of donor and OPO representative (66% vs. 52%, p < 0.001), family approach by female OPO representative (67% vs. 56%, p = 0.002), if approach was initiated by OPO representative (69% vs. 49%, p < 0.001), and if consent rate was dependent on time of day the approach occurred: 6:00 am to noon (56%), noon to 6:00 pm (67%), 6:00 pm to midnight (68%), and midnight to 6:00 am (45%), p = 0.04. Family approach that led to consent lasted longer than those declining (67 vs. 43 minutes, p < 0.001). Independent predictors of consent to donation included female OPO representative (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; p = 0.006), approach discussion initiated by OPO representative (OR, 1.9; p = 0.001), and longer approach discussions (OR, 1.02; p < 0.001). The independent predictor of declined donation was the use of a translator (OR, 0.39; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Variables such as race and sex of OPO representative and time of day should be considered before approaching a family for organ donation. Avoiding translators during the approach process may improve donation rates. Education for health care providers should reinforce the importance of allowing OPO representatives to initiate the family approach for organ donation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level IV. Therapeutic study, level IV.
