循环死亡移植后的捐献:捐献结果和方法的系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Annals of cardiothoracic surgery Pub Date : 2025-01-26 Epub Date: 2025-01-23 DOI:10.21037/acs-2024-dcd-0132
Jarrod Jolliffe, John Brookes, Michael Williams, Elizabeth Walker, Paul Jansz, Alasdair Watson, Peter MacDonald, Julian Smith, Jayme Bennetts, Massimo Boffini, Antonio Loforte
{"title":"循环死亡移植后的捐献:捐献结果和方法的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Jarrod Jolliffe, John Brookes, Michael Williams, Elizabeth Walker, Paul Jansz, Alasdair Watson, Peter MacDonald, Julian Smith, Jayme Bennetts, Massimo Boffini, Antonio Loforte","doi":"10.21037/acs-2024-dcd-0132","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Heart failure remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality internationally. With significant disparities in supply and demand for donor organs and recipients, there has been a growing need to expand the donor pool. Donation after circulatory death (DCD) heart transplantation offers such a method, with ex-situ machine perfusion (ESMP) and thoracoabdominal normothermic reperfusion (NRP) offering two potential methods of procuring DCD organs. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the current literature and compare DCD with donation after brain death (DBD) as well as DCD methods of transplantation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Primary outcomes were 30-day, 6- and 12-month survival, as well as primary graft dysfunction (PGD) and acute rejection. Secondary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) LOS and temporary dialysis. Weighted averages were utilised to summarise data with funnel plots utilised for comparisons. Reconstructed Kaplan-Meier curves were utilised to evaluate mid-term survival.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 10 studies were included evaluating 923 DCD recipients and 7,236 DBD recipients. Survival for DCD and DBD patients at 6 months was 93% and 91% respectively [odds ratio (OR), 1.5; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.0-2.2; P<0.05] and at 12 months 93% and 91% for DCD and DBD respectively (OR 0.77, 95% CI: 0.1-5.3, P=0.8). Acute rejection was 15% and 19% in DCD and DBD patients respectively (OR, 1.0; 95% CI: 0.6-1.8; P=0.9). Thirty-day survival was similar between NRP (96.9%) and direct procurement and perfusion (DPP) (97%) (OR, 0.8; 95% CI: 0.2-3.9; P=0.8). PGD was higher in DCD (17%) compared with DBD (8%) patients (OR, 1.9; 95% CI: 0.98-3.7; P=0.06) whilst PGD for DPP and NRP was 21% and 14% respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>DCD may offer comparable outcomes to DBD in short and mid-term outcomes, although PGD remains a concern. Further comparative research is required to delineate the role of both techniques in the current transplant landscape.</p>","PeriodicalId":8067,"journal":{"name":"Annals of cardiothoracic surgery","volume":"14 1","pages":"11-27"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11811570/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Donation after circulatory death transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes and methods of donation.\",\"authors\":\"Jarrod Jolliffe, John Brookes, Michael Williams, Elizabeth Walker, Paul Jansz, Alasdair Watson, Peter MacDonald, Julian Smith, Jayme Bennetts, Massimo Boffini, Antonio Loforte\",\"doi\":\"10.21037/acs-2024-dcd-0132\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Heart failure remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality internationally. With significant disparities in supply and demand for donor organs and recipients, there has been a growing need to expand the donor pool. Donation after circulatory death (DCD) heart transplantation offers such a method, with ex-situ machine perfusion (ESMP) and thoracoabdominal normothermic reperfusion (NRP) offering two potential methods of procuring DCD organs. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the current literature and compare DCD with donation after brain death (DBD) as well as DCD methods of transplantation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Primary outcomes were 30-day, 6- and 12-month survival, as well as primary graft dysfunction (PGD) and acute rejection. Secondary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) LOS and temporary dialysis. Weighted averages were utilised to summarise data with funnel plots utilised for comparisons. Reconstructed Kaplan-Meier curves were utilised to evaluate mid-term survival.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 10 studies were included evaluating 923 DCD recipients and 7,236 DBD recipients. Survival for DCD and DBD patients at 6 months was 93% and 91% respectively [odds ratio (OR), 1.5; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.0-2.2; P<0.05] and at 12 months 93% and 91% for DCD and DBD respectively (OR 0.77, 95% CI: 0.1-5.3, P=0.8). Acute rejection was 15% and 19% in DCD and DBD patients respectively (OR, 1.0; 95% CI: 0.6-1.8; P=0.9). Thirty-day survival was similar between NRP (96.9%) and direct procurement and perfusion (DPP) (97%) (OR, 0.8; 95% CI: 0.2-3.9; P=0.8). PGD was higher in DCD (17%) compared with DBD (8%) patients (OR, 1.9; 95% CI: 0.98-3.7; P=0.06) whilst PGD for DPP and NRP was 21% and 14% respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>DCD may offer comparable outcomes to DBD in short and mid-term outcomes, although PGD remains a concern. Further comparative research is required to delineate the role of both techniques in the current transplant landscape.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8067,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of cardiothoracic surgery\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"11-27\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11811570/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of cardiothoracic surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21037/acs-2024-dcd-0132\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of cardiothoracic surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/acs-2024-dcd-0132","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:心力衰竭仍然是国际上发病率和死亡率的重要原因。由于供体器官和受者的供需存在显著差异,因此越来越需要扩大供体库。循环性死亡(DCD)心脏移植后捐赠提供了这样一种方法,离体机器灌注(ESMP)和胸腹恒温再灌注(NRP)提供了两种获取DCD器官的潜在方法。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估现有文献,比较DCD与脑死亡后捐赠(DBD)以及DCD移植方法。方法:根据PRISMA指南进行系统的文献回顾。主要结果是30天、6个月和12个月的生存,以及原发性移植物功能障碍(PGD)和急性排斥反应。次要结局是住院时间(LOS)、重症监护病房(ICU) LOS和临时透析。加权平均值用于汇总数据,漏斗图用于比较。重建Kaplan-Meier曲线用于评估中期生存期。结果:共纳入10项研究,评估923名DCD受者和7236名DBD受者。DCD和DBD患者6个月生存率分别为93%和91%[优势比(OR), 1.5;95%置信区间(CI): 1.0-2.2;结论:尽管PGD仍然值得关注,但DCD在短期和中期结果上可能与DBD具有可比性。需要进一步的比较研究来描述这两种技术在当前移植领域的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Donation after circulatory death transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes and methods of donation.

Donation after circulatory death transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes and methods of donation.

Donation after circulatory death transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes and methods of donation.

Donation after circulatory death transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes and methods of donation.

Background: Heart failure remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality internationally. With significant disparities in supply and demand for donor organs and recipients, there has been a growing need to expand the donor pool. Donation after circulatory death (DCD) heart transplantation offers such a method, with ex-situ machine perfusion (ESMP) and thoracoabdominal normothermic reperfusion (NRP) offering two potential methods of procuring DCD organs. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the current literature and compare DCD with donation after brain death (DBD) as well as DCD methods of transplantation.

Methods: A systematic literature review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Primary outcomes were 30-day, 6- and 12-month survival, as well as primary graft dysfunction (PGD) and acute rejection. Secondary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) LOS and temporary dialysis. Weighted averages were utilised to summarise data with funnel plots utilised for comparisons. Reconstructed Kaplan-Meier curves were utilised to evaluate mid-term survival.

Results: A total of 10 studies were included evaluating 923 DCD recipients and 7,236 DBD recipients. Survival for DCD and DBD patients at 6 months was 93% and 91% respectively [odds ratio (OR), 1.5; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.0-2.2; P<0.05] and at 12 months 93% and 91% for DCD and DBD respectively (OR 0.77, 95% CI: 0.1-5.3, P=0.8). Acute rejection was 15% and 19% in DCD and DBD patients respectively (OR, 1.0; 95% CI: 0.6-1.8; P=0.9). Thirty-day survival was similar between NRP (96.9%) and direct procurement and perfusion (DPP) (97%) (OR, 0.8; 95% CI: 0.2-3.9; P=0.8). PGD was higher in DCD (17%) compared with DBD (8%) patients (OR, 1.9; 95% CI: 0.98-3.7; P=0.06) whilst PGD for DPP and NRP was 21% and 14% respectively.

Conclusions: DCD may offer comparable outcomes to DBD in short and mid-term outcomes, although PGD remains a concern. Further comparative research is required to delineate the role of both techniques in the current transplant landscape.

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
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: Information not localized
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信