Julius Weiss1, Andreas Elmer1, Beatriz Mahíllo2, Beatriz Domínguez-Gil2, Danica Avsec3, Alessandro Nanni Costa4, Bernadette J J M Haase-Kromwijk5, Karim Laouabdia6, Franz F Immer1. 1. Swisstransplant, the Swiss National Foundation for Organ Donation and Transplantation, Bern, Switzerland. 2. Organización Nacional de Trasplantes, Madrid, Spain. 3. Institute for Transplantation of Organs and Tissues of the Republic of Slovenia, Ljubljana, Slovenia. 4. Italian National Transplant Centre, Roma, Italy. 5. Dutch Transplantation Foundation, Leiden, Netherlands. 6. Agence de la Biomédecine, Saint Denis la Plaine, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The donation rate (DR) per million population is not ideal for an efficiency comparison of national deceased organ donation programs. The DR does not account for variabilities in the potential for deceased donation which mainly depends on fatalities from causes leading to brain death. In this study, the donation activity was put into relation to the mortality from selected causes. Based on that metric, this study assesses the efficiency of different donation programs. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of 2001 to 2015 deceased organ donation and mortality registry data. Included are 27 Council of Europe countries, as well as the United States. A donor conversion index (DCI) was calculated for assessing donation program efficiency over time and in international comparisons. RESULTS: According to the DCI and of the countries included in the study, Spain, France, and the United States had the most efficient donation programs in 2015. Even though mortality from the selected causes decreased in most countries during the study period, differences in international comparisons persist. This indicates that the potential for deceased organ donation and its conversion into actual donation is far from being similar internationally. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the DR, the DCI takes into account the potential for deceased organ donation, and therefore is a more accurate metric of performance. National donation programs could optimize performance by identifying the areas where most potential is lost, and by implementing measures to tackle these issues.
BACKGROUND: The donation rate (DR) per million population is not ideal for an efficiency comparison of national deceased organ donation programs. The DR does not account for variabilities in the potential for deceased donation which mainly depends on fatalities from causes leading to brain death. In this study, the donation activity was put into relation to the mortality from selected causes. Based on that metric, this study assesses the efficiency of different donation programs. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of 2001 to 2015 deceased organ donation and mortality registry data. Included are 27 Council of Europe countries, as well as the United States. A donor conversion index (DCI) was calculated for assessing donation program efficiency over time and in international comparisons. RESULTS: According to the DCI and of the countries included in the study, Spain, France, and the United States had the most efficient donation programs in 2015. Even though mortality from the selected causes decreased in most countries during the study period, differences in international comparisons persist. This indicates that the potential for deceased organ donation and its conversion into actual donation is far from being similar internationally. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the DR, the DCI takes into account the potential for deceased organ donation, and therefore is a more accurate metric of performance. National donation programs could optimize performance by identifying the areas where most potential is lost, and by implementing measures to tackle these issues.
Authors: Michèle J C de Kok; Alexander F M Schaapherder; Ian P J Alwayn; Frederike J Bemelman; Jacqueline van de Wetering; Arjan D van Zuilen; Maarten H L Christiaans; Marije C Baas; Azam S Nurmohamed; Stefan P Berger; Esther Bastiaannet; Rutger J Ploeg; Aiko P J de Vries; Jan H N Lindeman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Raymond Vanholder; Beatriz Domínguez-Gil; Mirela Busic; Helena Cortez-Pinto; Jonathan C Craig; Kitty J Jager; Beatriz Mahillo; Vianda S Stel; Maria O Valentin; Carmine Zoccali; Gabriel C Oniscu Journal: Nat Rev Nephrol Date: 2021-05-05 Impact factor: 28.314
Authors: Paulo Filipe Severino; Catarina Bolotinha; Ana Luísa Papoila; Carlos Brás-Geraldes; Alexandrina Dos Santos; Vanda Rute Patrício Palmeiro; Ana Paula Fernandes; Ana Franca Journal: MethodsX Date: 2021-10-09
Authors: Matthieu Le Dorze; Sara Martouzet; Etienne Cassiani-Ingoni; France Roussin; Alexandre Mebazaa; Lucas Morin; Nancy Kentish-Barnes Journal: Transpl Int Date: 2022-09-06 Impact factor: 3.842
Authors: Julius Weiss; Andreas Elmer; Markus Béchir; Christian Brunner; Philippe Eckert; Susann Endermann; Renato Lenherr; Mathias Nebiker; Kai Tisljar; Christoph Haberthür; Franz F Immer Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 2.655