Organ Donor Recovery Performed at an Organ Procurement Organization-Based Facility Is an Effective Way to Minimize Organ Recovery Costs and Increase Organ Yield.

BACKGROUND: A new era in organ donation with national redistricting is being proposed. With these proposals, costs of organ acquisition are estimated to more than double. Traditionally, organ recoveries occur in the donor hospital setting, incurring premium hospital expenses. The aim of the study was to determine organ recovery costs and organ yield for donor recoveries performed at an organ procurement organization (OPO) facility. STUDY DESIGN: In 2001, we established an OPO facility and in 2008 began transferring the donor expeditiously when brain death was declared. The OPO donor and hospital costs on a per donor basis were calculated. Donation after cardiac death donors cannot be transferred and were included in the hospital cost analysis. RESULTS: From January 2009 to December 2014, nine hundred and sixty-three donors originating in our OPO had organs recovered and transplanted. Seven hundred and sixty-six (79.5%) donors were transferred to the OPO facility 8.6 hours (range 0.6 to 23.6 hours) after declaration of brain death. Donor recovery cost was 51% less when donors were transferred to the OPO facility ($16,153 OPO recovery vs $33,161 hospital recovery; p < 0.0001). Organ yield was 27.5% better (3.43 organs) from OPO-recovered donors vs an organ yield of 2.69 from hospital-recovered donors (p < 0.0001). Standard criteria donor organ yield from our OPO was 6% higher than the national average (3.92 vs 3.7 nationally; p = 0.012) and expanded criteria donor organ yield was 18% higher (2.2 vs 1.87 nationally; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: An OPO facility for donor organ recovery increases efficiency and organ yield, reduces costs, and minimizes organ acquisition charge. As we face new considerations with broader sharing, increased efficiencies, cost. and organ use should be considered.

Comparison of high- and low-dose corticosteroid regimens for organ donor management.

PURPOSE: Corticosteroids are used to promote hemodynamic stability and reduce inflammatory organ injury after brain death. High-dose (HD) methylprednisolone has become the standard regimen based on comparisons to untreated/historical controls. However, this protocol may exacerbate hyperglycemia. Our objective was to compare a lower-dose (LD) steroid protocol (adequate for hemodynamic stabilization in adrenal insufficiency and sepsis) to the traditional HD regimen in the management of brain-dead organ donors. METHODS: We evaluated 132 consecutive brain-dead donors managed before and after changing the steroid protocol from 15 mg/kg methylprednisolone (HD) to 300 mg hydrocortisone (LD). Primary outcome measures were glycemic control, oxygenation, hemodynamic stability, and organs transplanted. RESULTS: Groups were balanced except for nonsignificantly higher baseline Pao(2) in the LD cohort. Final Pao(2) remained higher (394 mm Hg LD vs 333 mm Hg HD, P=.03); but improvement in oxygenation was comparable (+37 mm Hg LD vs +28 mm Hg HD, P=.43), as was the proportion able to come off vasopressor support (39% LD vs 47% HD, P=.38). Similar proportions of lungs (44% vs 33%) and hearts (31% vs 27%) were transplanted in both groups. After excluding diabetics, median glucose values at 4 hours (170 mmol/L vs 188 mmol/L, P=.06) and final insulin requirements (2.9 U/h vs 8.4 U/h, P=.01) were lower with LD steroids; and more patients were off insulin infusions (74% LD vs 53% HD, P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: A lower-dose corticosteroid protocol did not result in worsened donor pulmonary or cardiac function, with comparable organs transplanted compared with the traditional HD regimen. Insulin requirements and glycemic control were improved. High-dose methylprednisolone may not be required to support brain-dead donors.

Hospital-independent organ recovery from deceased donors: a two-year experience.

Early experience with deceased donor (DD) organ recovery outside of the hospital setting was found to be safe, efficient and cost effective. A 2-year experience under current practice protocols implemented to further process improvements is now reviewed. From December 1, 2001 to December 31, 2003, 123 criteria eligible DDs were transferred from local and regional hospitals to the Mid-America Transplant Services (MTS) facility for organ and tissue recovery. In this retrospective analysis, outcome comparisons were made with 79 conventional hospital-based recoveries. Compared to hospital recoveries, MTS facility recoveries were associated with significantly reduced critical care unit time (819 vs. 502 min), time to cross-clamp following brain death (966 vs. 731 min), operating room delay (54 vs. 9 min) and a trend toward reduced organ cold ischemia times which reached significance for heart and lungs when compared to regional hospital recoveries (147 vs. 221 and 192 vs. 327 min). MTS facility recovery afforded substantial cost savings over local and regional hospital recoveries (US 6,690 dollars and US 5,452 dollars per donor, respectively). The current practice of DD recovery at the MTS facility was applicable for most recoveries, improved process efficiency, and afforded substantial cost savings without donor compromise.

Cadaveric-donor organ recovery at a hospital-independent facility.

BACKGROUND: Of the many logistic issues addressed throughout the cadaveric organ donation process, timely access to the operating theater for surgical recovery of organs and tissues can be one of the most problematic. Delay in recovery adds to cost, risks organ viability, and compounds donor family anguish with compromise to donation consent. METHODS: From March 1 to November 30, 2001, 25 cadaveric donors were selected and successfully transferred from local donor critical care units to an off-site facility, which was constructed, equipped, and staffed to allow surgical recovery of organs and tissues. Assessment of the recovery process and outcome results was compared to 42 consecutive, hospital-based, organ recoveries within the Mid-American Transplant Services (MTS) organ procurement organization region. RESULTS: Twenty-five MTS-facility and 42 hospital organ recoveries were successfully conducted with no technical losses and satisfactory function in all 206 transplanted organs. From the MTS donor group, 7 hearts, 4 lungs, 21 livers, 28 kidneys, and 5 pancreases were successfully transplanted. Statistically significant in the MTS group was higher donor age (44.1 vs. 30.2 years), shorter total donor management time (539 vs. 718 min), reduced delay in start of surgery (25 vs. 77 min), shorter cold ischemia time for recovered pancreases (355 vs. 630 min), and reduced mean cost per donor ($10,636 vs. $12,918). There was no significant difference in race, gender, cause of death, vasopressor requirements, organs per donor recovered (3.12 vs. 3.62) or transplanted (2.60 vs. 3.36), rate of tissue recoveries (68% vs. 67%), total operating room time (207 vs. 200 min.), or cold ischemia time (excluding pancreas). CONCLUSIONS: Cadaveric-donor multiorgan and tissue recovery at this hospital-independent facility was successfully accomplished in a manner indistinguishable from conventional hospital organ and tissue recovery. The intended objectives of improved access to the operating theater were realized along with the added benefit of significant cost savings and convenience to hospital personnel and surgical recovery teams.