Objective To investigate the risk factors of early allograft dysfunction (EAD) following C-Ⅱ donation after cardiac death (DCD) liver transplantation. Methods The data of 46 donors and recipients of C-ⅡDCD liver transplantation between March 2012 and August 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. The baseline data such as democracy, death cause, donor warm ischemic time (DWIT) and cold ischemic time (CIT) in EAD group and the non-EAD group (control group) was compared, and whether these factors were risk factors of EAD was investigated by univariate and multivariate analyses. Statistical cut-off values for significant factors of the unfavorable analysis were defined by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. The 6-month and 1-year graft survival rate were compared. Results The EAD group had a longer DWIT compared with the group [(17.6±4.7) and (12.7±6.2) minutes, P=0.009]; meanwhile, the EAD group had a longer CIT compared with the control group [(13.7±4.7) and (11.0±3.5) hours, P=0.020]. The other factors in both groups showed no statistical significance (P>0.05). The ROC curve revealed the cut-off values of DWIT and CIT were 17.50 minutes [area under the curve (AUC)=0.713, P=0.020] and 9.85 hours (AUC=0.723, P=0.015), respectively. The multivariate logistic regression analysis showed the DWIT [odds ratios (OR)=1.340, 95% confidence interval (CI)(1.042, 1.654), P=0.008] and CIT [OR=1.396, 95% CI (1.075, 1.698), P=0.015] were all independent risk factors of EAD. The 6-month and 1-year graft survival rate of the EAD group and the control group was 85.7% vs. 92.3% (P=0.607) and 71.4% vs. 84.6% (P=0.587), respectively. Conclusions EAD may occured in C-Ⅱ donors with DWIT≥17.50 minutes or CIT≥9.85 hours in DCD liver transplantation. The livers can be used as a resource for clinical use and also have a good outcome.
Objective To get the information about the cognition and attitude towards organ transplantation and donation in inpatients. Methods The inpatients were investigated by using a self-designed questionnaire，including general data，cognition and attitude towards organ transplantation and donation. The influence factors of organ transplantation and donation were analyzed by SPSS 18.0. Results A total of 1 000 questionnaires were delivered，973 returned，the effective questionnaire was 906，and the effective rate was 93.1%. In 906 valid questionnaires，788 （87.0%） patients knew organ transplantation；189 （20.9%） patients had transplanted relatives；511 （56.4%） patients were willing to accept the organ transplant surgery，226 （24.9%） patients did not want，169 （18.7%） patients did not know；490 （54.1%） patients agreed to donate organ，173 （19.1%） patients disagreed，243 （26.8%） patients did not know. The age，education，occupation，knowing organ transplants，and with organ transplanted relatives or not had significant influences to the willingness towards organ transplantation and donation （P＜0.01）. The gender had no effect on organ transplantation （P=0.727） and donation （P=0.935） concerned issues，but the age，education，knowing organ transplantation，and with organ transplanted relatives or not had significant influences on it （P＜0.01）. Most concerned factors about organ transplantation were as follows：with an available organ for transplantation 〔28.7% （260/906）〕，postoperative quality of life 〔23.0% （208/906）〕，risk of surgery 〔21.5%（195/906）〕，surgery costs 〔19.5% （177/906）〕，and postoperative rejection 〔7.3% （66/906）〕. Most concerned factors about organ donation were as follows：the reasonable usage of donated organs 〔57.4% （520/906）〕，attitude of relatives 〔23.8% （216/906）〕，and donation compensation 〔17.6% （159/906）〕，and others 〔1.2% （11/906）〕. According to the way of organ donation，403 （44.4%） patients were willing to accept donation after cardiac death （DCD），257 （28.4%） patients accept donation after brain death，246 （27.2%） patients accept living organ donation. The gender，education，and occupation had significant influences on the way of organ donation （P＜0.05），but age，knowing organ transplantation，and with organ transplanted relatives or not had no effects on it （P＞0.05）. Conclusions The lack of propaganda and the high costs of transplantation surgery are the main factors restricting the acceptance rate of organ transplantation. Over time，with continuous improvement of universal education and strengthening the publicity of organ transplantation，the acceptance rate will show a constant increase in the trend. By now，the most accepted way of organ donation is DCD in inpatients. The establishment of a reasonable organ allocation and compensation system is a corner stone to promote organ donation.
Objective To explore the donor maintenance points of donor donation after brain death （DBD）. Methods From December 2011 to January 2012，two cases of organ DBD in our hospital were performed. After diagnosis of brain death，mechanical ventilation，fluid resuscitation，vasoactive drugs，inotropic drugs，and so on were used，and invasive arterial pressure， central venous pressure，heart rate，blood gas exchange，urine output，electrolyte and acid-base balance，body temperature， hematocrit，albumin level were monitored，the donors vital organ perfusion were successfully kept at acceptable level. Results The vital signs of two cases of DBD donors were stable. The livers，kidneys，and corneas were donated，and the functions were stable and normal. Case one was diagnosed for brain death 6h after ICU admitted，the period from diagnosis to organ procurement was 33h. Case two was diagnosed for brain death 8h after ICU admitted，the period from diagnosis to organ procurement was 31h. All transplanted organs，livers，kidneys，and corneas，were working well after operation. Conclusions Donor maintenance process of DBD is the cornerstone to ensuring successfully organ donation and transplantation，which is important to improve the utilization rate of donated organs，and release the severely shortage of organ.
Liver transplantation is currently the only effective curative treatment for end-stage liver disease. In recent years, with advancements in liver transplantation surgery and anti-rejection drugs, the incidence of surgical complications and organ rejection has gradually decreased. Conversely, transplant-related infections have increasingly become a major factor affecting the prognosis of transplant recipients. Furthermore, due to the progress in critical life support technologies, the time spent in the donor’s intensive care unit (ICU) has been extended, and post-transplant infections originating from the donor, especially donor-derived infection (DDI), have become one of the primary sources of infection for recipients. Studies have shown that infections in liver transplant recipients are often caused by Gram-negative pathogens, particularly carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP), which has now become the leading cause of fatal infections in liver transplant recipients. To reduce the risk of donor-derived infections, it is necessary to strengthen donor screening and evaluation, establish standardized testing processes, and adjust the use strategies of post-transplant anti-infective drugs and immunosuppressants. Monitoring the immune status of recipients is also crucial. Multidisciplinary collaboration and the application of new technologies will be key in future infection prevention and control. To promote the prevention and treatment of CRKP-related donor infections, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, in collaboration with international experiences, has organized relevant experts to develop an expert consensus on the prevention and treatment of CRKP-targeted DDI.
Objective To approach the questions of donation after cardiac death （DCD） and transplantation through analyzing the DCD cases in this hospital. Methods The organs were obtained from 4 DCD from 2010 to 2011 in this hospital， the clinical data of DCD were analyzed retrospectively. Results Seven renal transplantations and 3 liver transplantations were performed. Donor warm ischemic time was 10-40 min. The liver and left kidney of the first DCD donator （Maastricht categoryⅣ） were eliminated through biopsy. One patient exhibited delayed graft function of kidney from the first DCD，the nephrectomy had to be done on day 7 after operation due to renal allograft rupture. Nine patients received 3 livers and 6 kidneys from the other 3 DCD donators （Maastricht categoryⅢ），whose patients were alive with excellent graft function. Conclusions The use of controlled DCD （Maastricht categoryⅢ） might be an effective way to increase the number of organs available for transplantation because that it might obtain satisfactory transplant outcomes and acceptable postoperative complications. The widespread implementation of controlled DCD in China should be encouraged.
ObjectiveTo explore the effect of donation after citizen death (DCD) kidney transplantations performed in Sichuan.MethodsThe data of 97 cases of DCD kidney transplantations performed in West China Hospital of Sichuan University between January 2012 and March 2016 was retrospectively reviewed. The 53 donors were aged from 7 months to 54 years (with a median of 28 years, and lower quartile of 15 years and upper quartile of 45 years), including 40 males and 13 females; the causes of death included craniocerebral trauma in 21 cases, craniocerebral tumor in 12 cases, cerebrovascular accident in 15 cases, hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy in 4 cases, and hydrocephalus in 1 case. The 97 recipients were aged from 18 to 66 years (with a median of 39 years, and lower quartile of 30 years and upper quartile of 44 years), including 71 males and 26 females. The recipients were classified into C-Ⅰ (n=36) and C-Ⅲ (n=61) according to type of donation. The baseline and perioperative situation of the donors and recipients, and the postoperative kidney function, infection, recipient survival and kidney survival of the recipients were analyzed.ResultsAfter transplantation, none of primary graft nonfunction occurred but delayed graft function (DGF) occurred in 26 cases. There were no significant differences in creatinine level between C-Ⅰ and C-Ⅲ recipients at 1 week [(226.71±187.46) vs. (249.94±249.84) μmol/L, P=0.636], 1 month [(136.32±63.34) vs. (157.37±147.83) μmol/L, P=0.428], 3 months [(110.51±25.26) vs. (115.02±36.60) μmol/L, P=0.527] and 12 months [(103.42±21.57) vs. (104.18±39.36) μmol/L, P=0.911] after transplantation, as well as acute rejection [13.9% vs. 19.7%, P=0.469] and complications at early time after transplantation. There were no significant differences in 1-year recipient survival rate (91.7% vs. 93.4%) and 1-year kidney survival rate (100.0% vs. 91.8%) between C-Ⅰ and C-Ⅲ recipients.ConclusionDCD kidney transplantation has excellent short-term outcomes despite a high incidence of early DGF, and may represent another potential method to safely expand the donor pool.