The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2015
Systematic donor selection review process improves cardiac transplant volumes and outcomes.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Smith Jason W, O'Brien Kevin D, Dardas Todd, Pal Jay D, Fishbein Daniel P, Levy Wayne C, Mahr Claudius, Masri Sofia C, Cheng Richard K, Stempien-Otero April, Mokadam Nahush A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Heart transplant remains the definitive therapy for advanced heart failure patients but is limited by organ availability. We identified a large number of donor hearts from our organ procurement organization (OPO) being exported to other regions.
METHODS: We engaged a multidisciplinary team including transplant surgeons, cardiologists, and our OPO colleagues to identify opportunities to improve our center-specific organ utilization rate. We performed a retrospective analysis of donor offers before and after institution of a novel review process.
RESULTS: Each donor offer made to our program was reviewed on a monthly basis from July 2013 to June 2014 and compared with the previous year. This review process resulted in a transplant utilization rate of 28% for period 1 versus 49% for period 2 (P = .007). Limiting the analysis to offers from our local OPO changed our utilization rate from 46% to 75% (P = .02). Transplant volume increased from 22 to 35 between the 2 study periods. Thirty-day and 1-year mortality were unchanged over the 2 periods. A total of 58 hearts were refused by our center and transplanted at other centers. During period 1, the 30-day and 1-year survival rates for recipients of those organs were 98% and 90%, respectively, comparable with our historical survival data.
CONCLUSIONS: The simple process of systematically reviewing donor turndown events as a group tended to reduce variability, increase confidence in expanded criteria for donors, and resulted in improved donor organ utilization and transplant volumes.
METHODS: We engaged a multidisciplinary team including transplant surgeons, cardiologists, and our OPO colleagues to identify opportunities to improve our center-specific organ utilization rate. We performed a retrospective analysis of donor offers before and after institution of a novel review process.
RESULTS: Each donor offer made to our program was reviewed on a monthly basis from July 2013 to June 2014 and compared with the previous year. This review process resulted in a transplant utilization rate of 28% for period 1 versus 49% for period 2 (P = .007). Limiting the analysis to offers from our local OPO changed our utilization rate from 46% to 75% (P = .02). Transplant volume increased from 22 to 35 between the 2 study periods. Thirty-day and 1-year mortality were unchanged over the 2 periods. A total of 58 hearts were refused by our center and transplanted at other centers. During period 1, the 30-day and 1-year survival rates for recipients of those organs were 98% and 90%, respectively, comparable with our historical survival data.
CONCLUSIONS: The simple process of systematically reviewing donor turndown events as a group tended to reduce variability, increase confidence in expanded criteria for donors, and resulted in improved donor organ utilization and transplant volumes.