死亡器官捐献者中的药物过量和心血管死亡:对捐献者利用和数据报告的影响。

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY Annals of Transplantation Pub Date : 2023-07-04 DOI:10.12659/AOT.940255
Michie A Adjei, Steven A Wisel, Irene K Kim, Justin A Steggerda
{"title":"死亡器官捐献者中的药物过量和心血管死亡:对捐献者利用和数据报告的影响。","authors":"Michie A Adjei,&nbsp;Steven A Wisel,&nbsp;Irene K Kim,&nbsp;Justin A Steggerda","doi":"10.12659/AOT.940255","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BACKGROUND The present study evaluated expanded cause of death (COD) definitions and its implications on donor utilization for solid organ transplantation. MATERIAL AND METHODS The OPTN Standard Transplant and Research file was queried for potential donors between 2005 and 2019. Donor- and organ-specific utilization were evaluated. Expanded donor COD were identified: trauma, cardiovascular (CV), cerebrovascular accident (CVA) or stroke, drug intoxication (DI), anoxia not otherwise specified (NOS), and other. Descriptive analyses and multivariable logistic regression analyses for donor utilization were performed. RESULTS Among 132 783 potential donors identified, the most common COD was CVA/Stroke (n=44 707, 33.7%), followed by trauma (n=43 356, 32.7%), CV (n=20 053, 15.1%), anoxia-NOS (n=12 261, 9.2%), DI (n=10 205, 7.7%), and other causes (n=2201, 1.7%). Significant differences between CV, DI, and anoxia-NOS groups existed for donor age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index, and comorbidities. Donors from trauma had the highest unadjusted utilization rate (97.2%) while CV donors had the lowest (90.1%). Multivariable analysis of brain-dead donors (DBD) showed that compared to trauma, donors from DI had higher likelihood of utilization (odds ratio 1.217, 95% 1.025-1.446) while CV donors were lower (OR 0.717, 95% CI 0.642-0.800, P<0.001). Among donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors, there was decreased utilization compared to trauma for both CV (OR 0.607, 95% CI 0.523-0.705) and DI (OR 0.754, 95% CI 0.603-0.914, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Current COD definitions should be expanded to capture significant differences in the donor population. DI donors are the fastest growing cohort and the most likely utilized DBD donors, while trauma donors remain the most likely utilized DCD donors.</p>","PeriodicalId":7935,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Transplantation","volume":"28 ","pages":"e940255"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/dc/2b/anntransplant-28-e940255.PMC10329409.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Drug Overdose and Cardiovascular Deaths Among Deceased Organ Donors: Implications for Donor Utilization and Data Reporting.\",\"authors\":\"Michie A Adjei,&nbsp;Steven A Wisel,&nbsp;Irene K Kim,&nbsp;Justin A Steggerda\",\"doi\":\"10.12659/AOT.940255\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>BACKGROUND The present study evaluated expanded cause of death (COD) definitions and its implications on donor utilization for solid organ transplantation. MATERIAL AND METHODS The OPTN Standard Transplant and Research file was queried for potential donors between 2005 and 2019. Donor- and organ-specific utilization were evaluated. Expanded donor COD were identified: trauma, cardiovascular (CV), cerebrovascular accident (CVA) or stroke, drug intoxication (DI), anoxia not otherwise specified (NOS), and other. Descriptive analyses and multivariable logistic regression analyses for donor utilization were performed. RESULTS Among 132 783 potential donors identified, the most common COD was CVA/Stroke (n=44 707, 33.7%), followed by trauma (n=43 356, 32.7%), CV (n=20 053, 15.1%), anoxia-NOS (n=12 261, 9.2%), DI (n=10 205, 7.7%), and other causes (n=2201, 1.7%). Significant differences between CV, DI, and anoxia-NOS groups existed for donor age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index, and comorbidities. Donors from trauma had the highest unadjusted utilization rate (97.2%) while CV donors had the lowest (90.1%). Multivariable analysis of brain-dead donors (DBD) showed that compared to trauma, donors from DI had higher likelihood of utilization (odds ratio 1.217, 95% 1.025-1.446) while CV donors were lower (OR 0.717, 95% CI 0.642-0.800, P<0.001). Among donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors, there was decreased utilization compared to trauma for both CV (OR 0.607, 95% CI 0.523-0.705) and DI (OR 0.754, 95% CI 0.603-0.914, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Current COD definitions should be expanded to capture significant differences in the donor population. DI donors are the fastest growing cohort and the most likely utilized DBD donors, while trauma donors remain the most likely utilized DCD donors.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7935,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Transplantation\",\"volume\":\"28 \",\"pages\":\"e940255\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/dc/2b/anntransplant-28-e940255.PMC10329409.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Transplantation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12659/AOT.940255\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Transplantation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12659/AOT.940255","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究评估了扩展死因(COD)定义及其对实体器官移植供体利用的影响。材料和方法在2005年至2019年期间查询OPTN标准移植和研究文件中的潜在捐赠者。评估供体和器官特异性利用。扩大供体COD:外伤、心血管(CV)、脑血管意外(CVA)或中风、药物中毒(DI)、无其他原因缺氧(NOS)等。对供体利用情况进行描述性分析和多变量logistic回归分析。结果在132783例潜在供者中,最常见的COD是CVA/卒中(n=44 707, 33.7%),其次是创伤(n=43 3556, 32.7%)、CV (n=20 053, 15.1%)、缺氧- nos (n=12 261, 9.2%)、DI (n=10 205, 7.7%)和其他原因(n=2201, 1.7%)。CV组、DI组和缺氧- nos组在供者年龄、性别、种族、体重指数和合并症方面存在显著差异。创伤供者未经调整的使用率最高(97.2%),而CV供者最低(90.1%)。脑死亡供者(DBD)的多变量分析显示,与创伤供者相比,脑死亡供者的利用可能性更高(比值比1.217,95% 1.025-1.446),而CV供者的利用可能性更低(比值比0.717,95% CI 0.642-0.800, P
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Drug Overdose and Cardiovascular Deaths Among Deceased Organ Donors: Implications for Donor Utilization and Data Reporting.

BACKGROUND The present study evaluated expanded cause of death (COD) definitions and its implications on donor utilization for solid organ transplantation. MATERIAL AND METHODS The OPTN Standard Transplant and Research file was queried for potential donors between 2005 and 2019. Donor- and organ-specific utilization were evaluated. Expanded donor COD were identified: trauma, cardiovascular (CV), cerebrovascular accident (CVA) or stroke, drug intoxication (DI), anoxia not otherwise specified (NOS), and other. Descriptive analyses and multivariable logistic regression analyses for donor utilization were performed. RESULTS Among 132 783 potential donors identified, the most common COD was CVA/Stroke (n=44 707, 33.7%), followed by trauma (n=43 356, 32.7%), CV (n=20 053, 15.1%), anoxia-NOS (n=12 261, 9.2%), DI (n=10 205, 7.7%), and other causes (n=2201, 1.7%). Significant differences between CV, DI, and anoxia-NOS groups existed for donor age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index, and comorbidities. Donors from trauma had the highest unadjusted utilization rate (97.2%) while CV donors had the lowest (90.1%). Multivariable analysis of brain-dead donors (DBD) showed that compared to trauma, donors from DI had higher likelihood of utilization (odds ratio 1.217, 95% 1.025-1.446) while CV donors were lower (OR 0.717, 95% CI 0.642-0.800, P<0.001). Among donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors, there was decreased utilization compared to trauma for both CV (OR 0.607, 95% CI 0.523-0.705) and DI (OR 0.754, 95% CI 0.603-0.914, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Current COD definitions should be expanded to capture significant differences in the donor population. DI donors are the fastest growing cohort and the most likely utilized DBD donors, while trauma donors remain the most likely utilized DCD donors.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
79
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Transplantation is one of the fast-developing journals open to all scientists and fields of transplant medicine and related research. The journal is published quarterly and provides extensive coverage of the most important advances in transplantation. Using an electronic on-line submission and peer review tracking system, Annals of Transplantation is committed to rapid review and publication. The average time to first decision is around 3-4 weeks. Time to publication of accepted manuscripts continues to be shortened, with the Editorial team committed to a goal of 3 months from acceptance to publication. Expert reseachers and clinicians from around the world contribute original Articles, Review Papers, Case Reports and Special Reports in every pertinent specialty, providing a lot of arguments for discussion of exciting developments and controversies in the field.
期刊最新文献
Ten-Year Retrospective Analysis of Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy in Burn Patients: Impact on Survival and Timing of Initiation. Biopsychosocial Effects of Donor Traits on Heart Transplant Recipients. The Long-Acting Glucagon-Like Peptide-2 Analog Apraglutide Enhances Intestinal Protection and Survival After Chemotherapy and Allogeneic Transplantation in Mice. Predictive Model for Post-Transplant Renal Fibrosis Using Ultrasound Shear Wave Elastography. Early Post-Transplant Serum Ferritin Levels as Predictive Biomarkers for Severe Acute Graft-Versus-Host Disease in Pediatric Umbilical Cord Blood Transplantation for Acute Leukemia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1