BACKGROUND: The majority of pancreases, offered in allocation, are discarded. This pancreas underutilization is not well understood yet. METHODS: We analyzed the detailed allocation protocols of all Eurotransplant-registered German whole-pancreas donors (2005-2009; n=1758). Outcome measures included donor characteristics, number of refusals per organ, and proportion of different refusal reasons in the whole sample and subgroups. RESULTS: Thirty-seven percent of offered pancreases were transplanted; among these, 62% of pancreases were of potentially high quality (favorable donor age and pre-procurement pancreas allocation suitability score, no malignancy, n=290). A pancreas was placed after four offers (median) or withdrawn after eight offers (median). Seventy-five percent of refusal reasons were donor related (e.g., "lab results", "age", "macroscopy", and "long intensive care unit [ICU] stay"). Among pancreases refused for "diabetes" or "malignancy" at least once, the proportion of transplanted organs was less than 10%; pancreases refused due to "trauma", "age", or "resuscitation" were later transplanted in 48%, 32%, and 28%, respectively. The impact of donor age and ICU stay on organ refusal varied substantially: organs were refused due to length of ICU stay even if donors stayed 7 days or less; some organs were transplanted without ever being refused due to ICU stay in donors who stayed 8 days or more in ICU. There were no clinically significant disparities between donors of used and unused pancreases, except age (median, 31 vs. 42 years). DISCUSSION: The loss of several pancreases seems avoidable. Many refusal reasons are not plausible, because there is no evidence supporting the refusal and because many of these organs were transplanted by other centers. This increases inefficiency in the allocation system.
BACKGROUND: The majority of pancreases, offered in allocation, are discarded. This pancreas underutilization is not well understood yet. METHODS: We analyzed the detailed allocation protocols of all Eurotransplant-registered German whole-pancreas donors (2005-2009; n=1758). Outcome measures included donor characteristics, number of refusals per organ, and proportion of different refusal reasons in the whole sample and subgroups. RESULTS: Thirty-seven percent of offered pancreases were transplanted; among these, 62% of pancreases were of potentially high quality (favorable donor age and pre-procurement pancreas allocation suitability score, no malignancy, n=290). A pancreas was placed after four offers (median) or withdrawn after eight offers (median). Seventy-five percent of refusal reasons were donor related (e.g., "lab results", "age", "macroscopy", and "long intensive care unit [ICU] stay"). Among pancreases refused for "diabetes" or "malignancy" at least once, the proportion of transplanted organs was less than 10%; pancreases refused due to "trauma", "age", or "resuscitation" were later transplanted in 48%, 32%, and 28%, respectively. The impact of donor age and ICU stay on organ refusal varied substantially: organs were refused due to length of ICU stay even if donors stayed 7 days or less; some organs were transplanted without ever being refused due to ICU stay in donors who stayed 8 days or more in ICU. There were no clinically significant disparities between donors of used and unused pancreases, except age (median, 31 vs. 42 years). DISCUSSION: The loss of several pancreases seems avoidable. Many refusal reasons are not plausible, because there is no evidence supporting the refusal and because many of these organs were transplanted by other centers. This increases inefficiency in the allocation system.
Authors: Glauco Adrieno Westphal; Valter Duro Garcia; Rafael Lisboa de Souza; Cristiano Augusto Franke; Kalinca Daberkow Vieira; Viviane Renata Zaclikevis Birckholz; Miriam Cristine Machado; Eliana Régia Barbosa de Almeida; Fernando Osni Machado; Luiz Antônio da Costa Sardinha; Raquel Wanzuita; Carlos Eduardo Soares Silvado; Gerson Costa; Vera Braatz; Milton Caldeira Filho; Rodrigo Furtado; Luana Alves Tannous; André Gustavo Neves de Albuquerque; Edson Abdala Journal: Rev Bras Ter Intensiva Date: 2016-09
Authors: Karl Philipp Drewitz; Martin Loss; Julika Loss; Christian Joachim Apfelbacher Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2014-11-25 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Andrea Proneth; Andreas A Schnitzbauer; Florian Zeman; Johanna R Foerster; Ines Holub; Helmut Arbogast; Wolf O Bechstein; Thomas Becker; Carsten Dietz; Markus Guba; Michael Heise; Sven Jonas; Stephan Kersting; Jürgen Klempnauer; Steffen Manekeller; Volker Müller; Silvio Nadalin; Björn Nashan; Andreas Pascher; Falk Rauchfuss; Michael A Ströhlein; Peter Schemmer; Peter Schenker; Stefan Thorban; Thomas Vogel; Axel O Rahmel; Richard Viebahn; Bernhard Banas; Edward K Geissler; Hans J Schlitt; Stefan A Farkas Journal: Transplant Res Date: 2013-07-01
Authors: Yakup Kulu; Elias Khajeh; Omid Ghamarnejad; Mohammadsadegh Nikdad; Mohammadsadegh Sabagh; Sadeq Ali-Hasan-Al-Saegh; Silvio Nadalin; Markus Quante; Przemyslaw Pisarski; Bernd Jänigen; Christoph Reißfelder; Markus Mieth; Christian Morath; Benjamin Goeppert; Peter Schirmacher; Oliver Strobel; Thilo Hackert; Martin Zeier; Rainer Springel; Christina Schleicher; Markus W Büchler; Arianeb Mehrabi Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 1.817