| Literature DB >> 35919203 |
Behnam Shakerian1, Sanaz Dehghani2,3, Haleh Ashraf4, Shahrokh Karbalai5, Abbas Soleimani5, Atieh Rezaeefar5, Zahra Shajari5, Hamidreza Hekmat6, Marzieh Latifi2, Azadeh Sadatnaseri5.
Abstract
Background: Heart transplantation has been considered the gold-standard treatment for patients with end-stage heart failure. This study assessed the survival outcomes of marginal donor hearts compared with ideal donor hearts in Iran.Entities:
Keywords: Graft survival; Heart transplantation; Organ donation; Organ transplantation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35919203 PMCID: PMC9296973 DOI: 10.4285/kjt.22.0004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Korean J Transplant ISSN: 2671-8790
Factors impacting the definition and usability of ideal cardiac donors
| Factor | Detail |
|---|---|
| Age | <40 yr |
| No history of chest trauma | |
| No history of cardiac disease | |
| No prolonged hypotension or hypoxemia during pre-harvest time | |
| Appropriate hemodynamics | |
| Mean arterial pressure | >60 mmHg |
| Central venous pressure | Between 8 and 12 mmHg |
| Inotropic support (dopamine or dobutamine) | Less than 10 µg/kg/min |
| Normal electrocardiogram | |
| Normal echocardiogram | |
| Normal cardiac angiography (if indicated by donor age and history) | |
| Negative serology (hepatitis B surface antigen, hepatitis C virus, and HIV) |
HIV, human immunodeficiency virus.
Fig. 1Flowchart of study population selection.
Baseline characteristics of brain death cases in marginal donor and ideal donor groups
| Characteristics | Ideal donor group (n=75) | Marginal donor group (n=18) | P-value[ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Donor status | |||
| Age (yr) | 22.91±9.6 (23) | 40.27±6.27 (41.5) | 0.008 |
| Sex | 0.001 | ||
| Male | 58 (77.3) | 16 (88.9) | |
| Female | 17 (22.7) | 2 (11.1) | |
| Smoking | 0.001 | ||
| Yes | 0 | 10 (55.6) | |
| No | 75 (100) | 8 (44.4) | |
| CPR | 0.001 | ||
| Yes | 12 (16) | 4 (22.2) | |
| No | 63 (84) | 14 (77.8) | |
| Cause of brain death | 0.001 | ||
| Head trauma | 50 (66.6) | 14 (77.8) | |
| ICH-IVH | 13 (17.3) | 4 (22.2) | |
| Toxicity | 5 (6.7) | 0 | |
| Tumor | 2 (2.7) | 0 | |
| Others | 5 (6.7) | 0 | |
| Addiction | 0.001 | ||
| Yes | 0 | 4 (22.2) | |
| No | 75 (100) | 14 (77.8) | |
| Recipient status | |||
| Age at transplant (yr) | 29.16±18.1 (27) | 33.5±16.6 (35.5) | 0.001 |
| Sex | 0.001 | ||
| Male | 55 (73.3) | 13 (72.2) | |
| Female | 20 (26.7) | 5 (27.8) | |
| Sex mismatch type | 0.001 | ||
| None | 46 (61.3) | 10 (55.6) | |
| Male to female | 21 (28.0) | 6 (33.3) | |
| Female to male | 8 (10.7) | 2 (11.1) | |
| Status | 0.001 | ||
| Stable | 49 (65.3) | 9 (50.0) | |
| Died in <365 days | 18 (24.0) | 6 (33.3) | |
| Died in >365 days | 8 (10.7) | 3 (16.7) |
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation (median) or number (%).
CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation; ICH, intracranial hemorrhage; IVH, intraventricular hemorrhage.
a)P<0.05 indicates statistical significance.
Linear regression of donor and recipient age, sex, and survival days in group C and D
| Variable | Unstandardized coefficient | Standardized coefficients beta | t | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| B | Beta | ||||
| Survival | 0.000 | 0.000 | –0.123 | –1.055 | 0.295 |
| Donor age | 0.023 | 0.003 | 0.654 | 7.399 | 0.000[ |
| Donor sex | –0.088 | 0.082 | –0.090 | –1.074 | 0.286 |
| Recipient sex | 0.093 | 0.077 | 0.103 | 1.202 | 0.233 |
| Recipient age | –0.003 | 0.002 | –0.153 | –1.614 | 0.110 |
| Recipient status | 0.003 | 0.092 | 0.003 | 0.029 | 0.977 |
group C, recipient from ideal donor; group D, recipient from marginal donor.
a)P<0.05 indicates statistical significance.
| HIGHLIGHTS |
|---|
|
As heart transplantation progresses as an effective treatment, expansion of donor pool is considered to meet the high demand for available organs. The use of marginal donors increases organ availability; however, it should be considered that the results may not replicate those obtained with ideal donors those obtained with ideal donors. Sex matching between donors and recipients can be concluded that it decreases the negative impacts of marginal donor on survival. There was no significant difference between survival rates of ideal and marginal groups. |