Key result
Heart transplantation using DCD shows similar primary graft dysfunction and survival rates compared to DBD.
Why the study?
Does heart transplantation from donation after circulatory death (DCD) using TANRP provide similar outcomes to donation after brain death (DBD) in a European ultraperipheral region?
Observational (n=98)
No
Does heart transplantation from donation after circulatory death (DCD) using TANRP provide similar outcomes to donation after brain death (DBD) in a European ultraperipheral region?
Absolute Event Rate: 10% vs 9%
p-value: p=1
Heart transplantation using donation after circulatory death with TANRP is safe and effective, yielding comparable short-term survival to donation after brain death while expanding the donor pool.
Background The creation of a new heart transplant (HT) program in a ultraperipheral region may be limited by a small population and a shortage of cardiac donors. In recent years, controlled donation after circulatory death (DCD) has significantly increased transplant activity. This study aims to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of DCD using thoraco-abdominal normothermic regional perfusion (TANRP) and static cold storage compared to traditional donation after brain death (DBD) in the XXX HT program. Method We performed a single-center, retrospective observational study of all HT performed between December 2019 and December 2024 in the XXX hospital. Data were obtained from medical records and the XXX HT Registry. Results The first DCD transplant was performed in 2021, and in subsequent years 4 ,7 and 8 HT were procured using this technique (Figure 1A). During the study period, 98 HT were performed and 20% were from DCD. These donors had a similar age compared to DBD donors (49.8 vs. 46.4 years, p = 0.321), were mostly male (80%), and one patient had left ventricular dysfunction during the intraoperative DCD process. Mean waitlist time was shorter in the DCD group (27 vs 66 days, p = 0.03). There were no differences in primary graft dysfunction (10% in the DCD group and 9% in DBD, p = 1) or renal replacement therapy (50% vs 26%, p = 0.055). Median total hospital stay was longer in the DCD group (46 vs 36 days, p = 0.021). In the DCD group, at 1, 6, 12 and 24 months the survival rate was 96%, 95%, 93% and 87%, respectively, with no significant differences compared to the DBD group (Figure 1B). Conclusions In the first HT program in a European ultraperipheral and multi-insular region, DCD is performed safely and effectively without compromising outcomes, and with a significant increase in donor pool. This HT program employed older donors, than those reported in previous studies, with excellent short-term outcomes. Future studies are warranted.A: Number of DCD and DBD. B: Survival.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marco et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Heart transplant (n=98). Donation after circulatory death (DCD) vs. Donation after brain death (DBD) was evaluated on Primary graft dysfunction (p=1). Donation after circulatory death for heart transplantation yielded similar rates of primary graft dysfunction (10% vs 9%, p=1) and comparable 24-month survival to donation after brain death.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: