Search

In the United States, the discrepancy between organ availability and need has persisted despite changes in allocation, innovations in preservation, and policy initiatives. Living donor liver transplant remains an underutilized means of improving access to timely liver transplantation and decreasing waitlist mortality. Liver paired exchange (LPE) represents an opportunity to overcome living donor liver transplant pair incompatibility due to size, anatomy, or blood type. LPE was adopted as a strategy to augment access to liver transplantation at our institution. Specific educational materials, consent forms, and selection processes were developed to facilitate LPE. From 2019 through October 2023, our center performed 11 LPEs, resulting in 23 living donor liver transplant pairs. The series included several types of LPE: those combining complementary incompatible pairs, the inclusion of compatible pairs to overcome incompatibility, and the use of altruistic nondirected donors to initiate chains. These exchanges facilitated transplantation for 23 recipients, including 1 pediatric patient. LPE improved access to liver transplantation at our institution. The ethical application of LPE includes tailored patient education, assessment and disclosure of exchange balance, mitigation of risk, and maximization of benefit for donors and recipients., (Copyright © 2024 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Advances in microbiome therapeutics have been motivated by a deeper understanding of the role that the gastrointestinal microbiome plays in human health and disease. The FDA approval of two stool-derived live biotherapeutic products (LBPs), REBYOTA® 150 mL enema (fecal microbiota, live-jslm; formerly RBX2660) and VOWST® oral capsules (fecal microbiota spores, live-brpk; formerly SER-109), for the prevention of recurrent CDI in adults following antibiotic treatment for recurrent CDI provides promise and insights for the development of LBPs for other diseases associated with microbiome dysfunction. Donor-derived products carry risk of disease transmission that must be mitigated through a robust donor screening program and downstream manufacturing controls. Most published recommendations for donor screening practices are prescriptive and do not include a systematic, risk-based approach for donor stool-derived products. A general framework for an end-to-end donor screening program is needed using risk management strategies for donor-derived microbiome therapeutic using a matrixed approach, combining the elements of donor screening with manufacturing controls that are designed to minimize risk to patients. A donor screening paradigm that incorporates medical history, physical examination, laboratory testing, and donor sample inspection are only the first steps in reducing risk of transmission of infectious agents. Manufacturing controls are the cornerstone of risk mitigation when screening unwittingly fails. Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) can be used as a tool to assess for residual risk that requires further donor or manufacturing controls. Together, a well-reasoned donor program and manufacturing controls are complementary strategies that must be revisited and reexamined frequently with constant vigilance to mitigate risk to patients. In the spirit of full disclosure and informed consent, physicians should discuss any limitations in the donor screening and manufacturing processes with their patients prior to treatment with microbiome-based therapeutics.

Background: Due to the increasing rise of C. difficile infection, stool banks and donor programs have been launched to grant access to fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT). Our aim is to describe characteristics and outcomes of the donor program at our stool bank., Methods: Donor candidates underwent a four-step selection process, including a clinical interview, blood and stool testing, a further questionnaire and a direct stool testing the day of each donation. From March 2020, specific changes to this process were introduced to avoid the potential transmission of COVID-19. We evaluated the rate of excluded candidates at each step of the screening, as well as the number of total fecal aliquots provided by qualified donors., Results: Overall, 114 donor candidates were evaluated. Seventy-five candidates declined to join the program for logistic or personal issues, three were excluded after the questionnaire and seven for positive stool exams. Finally, 29 (25%) subjects qualified as stool donors, and provided 70 stool samples. Fifteen samples were excluded after direct molecular stool testing. A total of 127 aliquots was finally obtained., Conclusions: Donor recruitment for FMT is a challenging process, and only a small rate of candidates are eligible as donors., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: The application of a temporary deferral often leads to donor lapse. Contributing factors may be donors not knowing when their deferral ends or not being contacted and asked to return. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a reminder message notifying donors that their deferral is coming to an end in increasing donors' postdeferral return rates. We evaluated the optimal time, content, and mode of delivery of the reminder message., Study Design and Methods: Two studies were conducted with deferred donors. Study 1: donors (n = 1676) were randomized to be sent a reminder message at one of three time points (4 weeks before, 1 week before, and 1 week after their deferral ended) or to a no contact control condition. Study 2: donors (n = 1973) were randomized to three message type conditions (emotive email, nonemotive email, nonemotive SMS). Attempted return behavior was extracted (appointments, attendances) at 1 month., Results: In Study 1, being sent the reminder message increased odds of donors attempting to return within 3 months compared with the control group (OR:2.01). Sending the reminder 1 week before the deferral ended was the most effective time point. In Study 2, the nonemotive message increased the odds of attempting to return compared with the emotive message (OR:1.38). No differences were found between email and SMS messages., Discussion: Sending a reminder message to donors when their deferral is coming to an end is a simple, effective, and cost-effective method to retain donors., (© 2021 AABB.)

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, due to infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which began in March 2020, affected organ donor acceptance and rates of heart, lung, kidney, and liver transplants worldwide. According to data reported to POLTRANSPLANT, the number of solid organ transplants decreased by over 35% and the number of patients enlisted de novo for organ transplantation was reduced to 70% of its pre-COVID-19 volume in Poland. Most transplant centers in Western Europe and the USA have also drastically reduced their activity when compared to the pre-pandemic era. Areas of high SARS-CoV-2 infection incidence, like Italy, Spain, and France, were most affected. Significant decreases in organ donation and number of transplant procedures and increase in waitlist deaths have been noted due to overload of the healthcare system as well as uncertainty of donor SARS-CoV-2 status. Intensive care unit bed shortages and less intensive care resources available for donor management are major factors limiting access to organ procurement. The impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on transplant activities was not so adverse in Asia, as a result of a strategy based on experience gained during a previous SARS pandemic. This review aims to compare the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on solid organ transplantation during 2020 in Poland with countries in Western Europe, North America, and Asia.

Background: Traditionally, during crises the number of new blood donors increases. However, the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic created additional barriers to donate due to governmental prevention measures and increased personal health risks. In this report, we examined how the pandemic affected new donor registrations in the Netherlands, especially among groups with higher risk profiles for severe COVID-19. Additionally, we explored the role of media for blood donation and new donor registrations., Study Design and Methods: We analyzed new donor registrations and attention for blood donation in newspapers and on social media from January until May 2020, in comparison to the same period in 2017 to 2019., Results: After the introduction of nationwide prevention measures, several peaks in new donor registrations occurred, which coincided with peaks in media attention. Interestingly, people with a higher risk profile for COVID-19 (e.g., due to age or region of residence) were overrepresented among new registrants., Discussion: In sum, the first peak of the current pandemic has led to increased new blood donor registrations, despite the associated increased health risks. Time and future studies will have to tell whether these new donors are one-off 'pandemic' donors or if they will become regular, loyal donors., (© 2021 The Authors. Transfusion published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of AABB.)

Despite high efficacy rates, significant costs and logistical challenges associated with procuring stool from healthy donors for fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) have presented barriers to broader institutional adoption and limited the availability of this life-saving treatment. Published outcomes for donor screening programs report donor deferral rates between 90% and 96%. Due to the paucity of FMT donor screening data, a secondary analysis on a cohort of previously screened donors (n = 7,968) was conducted to provide a synopsis of the observed trends and rationales for prospective stool donor deferrals. Upon completion of the evaluation, 1.7% of prospective donors (n = 134) qualified for stool donation. Over 50% of donors who completed the online pre-screen were deferred, primarily for a body mass index of 30 kg/m 2 or greater (n = 1,516, 37.0%), logistics (n = 841, 20.5%), and travel history (n = 638, 15.5%). Despite pre-screening, 569 donors (72.8%) who completed the in-person clinical assessment were ultimately deferred due primarily to potentially microbiome-mediated diseases (n = 187, 32.9%). A notably small portion of donors (n = 46, 25.6%) were deferred during the laboratory assessment process suggesting the clinical assessment was effective at deferring donors at higher risk for transmissible diseases. Donors lost to follow-up throughout the screening process presented a significant challenge and contributed to a notable (n = 3,117; 39.1%) portion of donor attrition. Findings were used to support recommendations for improving prospective stool donor screening programs and to provide suggestions for future research.

The 25th Annual Congress of the International Liver Transplantation Society was held in Toronto, Canada, from May 15 to 18, 2019. Surgeons, hepatologists, anesthesiologists, critical care intensivists, radiologists, pathologists, and research scientists from all over the world came together with the common aim of improving care and outcomes for liver transplant recipients and living donors. Some of the featured topics at this year's conference included multidisciplinary perioperative care in liver transplantation, worldwide approaches to organ allocation, donor steatosis, and updates in pediatrics, immunology, and radiology. This report presents excerpts and highlights from invited lectures and select abstracts, reviewed and compiled by the Vanguard Committee of International Liver Transplantation Society. This will hopefully contribute to further advances in clinical practice and research in liver transplantation.

Background: We examined the 10-year experience of Mayo Clinic's kidney paired donation (KPD).We aimed to determine the benefits for the recipients of enrolled ABO/HLA compatible pairs and determine the factors associated with prolonged KPD waiting time., Methods: We performed a retrospective study of 332 kidney transplants facilitated by the Mayo 3-site KPD program from September 2007 to June 2018., Results: The median (interquartile range) time from KPD entry to transplantation was 89 days (42-187 days). The factors independently associated with receiving a transplant >3 months after KPD entry included recipient blood type O and calculated panel reactive antibodies ≥98%. Fifty-four ABO/HLA compatible pairs participated in KPD for the following reasons: cytomegalovirus mismatch (18.5% [10/54]), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) mismatch (EBV) (9.3% [5/54]), age/size mismatch (51.9% [28/54]), or altruistic reasons (20.3% [11/54]). Cytomegalovirus and EBV mismatch were avoided in 90% (9/10) and 100% (5/5) of cases. Recipients who entered KPD for age/size mismatch and altruistic reasons received kidneys from donors with lower Living Kidney Donor Profile Index scores than their actual donor (median [interquartile range] 31.5 [12.3-47]; P < 0.001 and 26 (-1 to 46); P = 0.01 points lower, respectively). Median time to transplant from KPD entry for compatible pair recipients was 70 days (41-163 days), and 44.4% (24/54) of these transplants were preemptive. All chains/swaps incorporating compatible pairs included ABO/HLA incompatible pairs., Conclusions: KPD should be considered for all living donor/recipient pairs because the recipients of these pairs can derive personal benefit from KPD while increasing the donor pool for difficult to match pairs.

Background: It is estimated that 19.2% of kidneys exported for candidates with >98% calculated panel reactive antibodies are transplanted into unintended recipients, most commonly due to positive physical crossmatch (PXM). We describe the application of a virtual crossmatch (VXM) that has resulted in a very low rate of transplantation into unintended recipients., Methods: We performed a retrospective review of kidneys imported to our center to assess the reasons driving late reallocation based on the type of pretransplant crossmatch used for the intended recipient., Results: From December 2014 to October 2017, 254 kidneys were imported based on our assessment of a VXM. Of these, 215 (84.6%) were transplanted without a pretransplant PXM. The remaining 39 (15.4%) recipients required a PXM on admission using a new sample because they did not have an HLA antibody test within the preceding 3 months or because they had a recent blood transfusion. A total of 93% of the imported kidneys were transplanted into intended recipients. There were 18 late reallocations: 9 (3.5%) due to identification of a new recipient medical problem upon admission, 5 (2%) due to suboptimal organ quality on arrival, and only 4 (1.6%) due to a positive PXM or HLA antibody concern. A total of 42% of the recipients of imported kidneys had a 100% calculated panel reactive antibodies. There were no hyperacute rejections and very infrequent acute rejection in the first year suggesting no evidence for immunologic memory response., Conclusions: Seamless sharing is within reach, even when kidneys are shipped long distances for highly sensitized recipients. Late reallocations can be almost entirely avoided with a strategy that relies heavily on VXM.

Umbilical cord blood is an important cellular therapy product used for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, but the US Food and Drug Administration guidance regarding donor screening to reduce the risk of Zika transmission has decreased the number of licensed, eligible cord blood units available for transplantation. There is a crucial need for updated travel risk assessment for Zika virus transmission, validated screening tests for Zika virus in umbilical cord blood, and further research on Zika virus transmissibility due to umbilical cord blood products to ensure that umbilical cord blood and related tissues are safe and available for transplantation., (© 2020 AABB.)

Implementing uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death (uDCDD) in the United States could markedly improve supply of donor lungs for patients in need of transplants. Evidence from US pilot programs suggests families support uDCDD, but only if they are asked permission for using invasive organ preservation procedures prior to initiation. However, non-invasive strategies that confine oxygenation to lungs may be applicable to the overwhelming majority of potential uDCDD donors that have airway devices in place as part of standard resuscitation. We propose an ethical framework for lung uDCDD by: (a) initiating post mortem preservation without requiring prior permission to protect the opportunity for donation until an authorized party can be found; (b) using non-invasive strategies that confine oxygenation to lungs; and (c) maintaining strict separation between the healthcare team and the organ preservation team. Attempting uDCDD in this way has great potential to obtain more transplantable lungs while respecting donor autonomy and family wishes, securing public support, and enabling authorized persons to affirm or cease preservation decisions without requiring evidence of prior organ donation intent. It ensures prioritization of life-saving, the opportunity to allow willing donors to donate, and respect for bodily integrity while adhering to current ethical norms., (© 2019 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Direct acting antivirals (DAAs) have fundamentally changed the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and reduced the discard rate of HCV-infected organs by offering a treatment option with a high likelihood of cure posttransplant. This has spurred increased interest in transplanting organs from HCV-positive donors into recipients both with and without HCV. In this chapter, we examine data from 2007 to 2018 to determine trends in HCV (+) donor transplants across various organ types. Since 2015, willingness to accept HCV (+) organs increased for candidates waitlisted for kidney, lung, heart, and pancreas transplant, but decreased for those listed for intestine transplant. For candidates listed for liver transplant, willingness to accept HCV (+) organs decreased from 2007 to 2017, but began increasing in 2017. Willingness to accept was not concentrated in a single US geographic area, and there was substantial variation among transplant programs and donation service areas. Numbers of anti-HCV (+) donor kidney, heart, lung, and liver transplants have increased considerably in the past few years. Short-term allograft survival for kidney and liver transplant recipients of anti-HCV (+) organs appears to be comparable to that for recipients of anti-HCV (-) organs in an unadjusted analysis. However, an unadjusted analysis indicates that long-term allograft survival may be worse. Kidney transplant between HCV-infected donors and uninfected recipients with posttransplant DAA treatment is an emerging area. Short-term data are promising, with similar 1-year allograft survival compared with HCV-uninfected donor to HCV-uninfected recipient kidney transplants in unadjusted analyses. However, long-term data are lacking and close monitoring in the future is warranted., (.)

Background: To date, no living donation program has simultaneously addressed the needs of both transplant candidates and living donors by separating the advocacy role from the candidate and improving potential donor comfort with the evaluation process. We hypothesized that the development of a novel program designed to promote both advocacy and systems training among transplant candidates and their potential living kidney donors would result in sustained increases in living-donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). To this end, we developed and implemented a Living Donor Navigator (LDN) Program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham., Methods: We included adult patients awaiting kidney-only transplant in a retrospective cohort analysis. Using time-varying Cox proportional hazards regression, we explored likelihood of living donor screening and approval by participation in the LDN program., Results: There were 56 LDN participants and 1948 nonparticipants (standard of care). LDN was associated with a 9-fold increased likelihood of living donor screenings (adjusted hazard ratio, 9.27; 95% confidence interval, 5.97-14.41, P < 0.001) and a 7-fold increased likelihood of having an approved living donor (adjusted hazard ratio, 7.74; 95% confidence interval, 3.54-16.93; P < 0.001) compared with the standard of care. Analyses by participant race demonstrated higher likelihood of screened donors and a similar likelihood of having an approved donor among African Americans compared with Caucasians., Conclusions: These data suggest that both advocacy and systems training are needed to increase actual LDKT rates, and that LDN programs may mitigate existing racial disparities in access to LDKT.

Background: Confidential unit exclusion (CUE) is a mechanism developed in the1980s to increase blood safety by allowing donors to indicate confidentially if they think their blood is not safe for transfusion. While it has been used widely around the world, the efficacy of this strategy is still unclear. The present study evaluated the efficacy of the CUE system at the Blood Transfusion Center of Kohgiluyeh and Boyer Ahmad Province (KBTC), Iran by comparing the prevalence of transfusion-transmitted infectious (TTIs) in CUE and non-CUE groups., Methods: This descriptive study used data from all volunteer blood donors over a ten-year period. Donors were classified in two groups: CUE and non-CUE. Screening tests were performed for hepatitis B surface antigens (HBs-Ag), hepatitis C virus antibody (HCV-Ab), and Human immunodeficiency virus antibody (HIV-Ab) and any repeatedly reactive results were confirmed by standard methods. Significant differences were determined by Chi 2 test. The sensitivity, specificity and PPV of the CUE system were also calculated., Results: In the present study, the non-CUE and CUE groups consisted of 98.94% and 1.06% of volunteer blood donors, respectively. First-time donors selected the CUE option more often than repeated and regular donors. The prevalence of TTIs was significantly higher in the CUE group and CUE sensitivity, specificity, and PPV were 5.5%, 98.95%, and 0.96%, respectively., Conclusion: We recommend the CUE system be pursued for further enhancement of blood safety. However, further studies are needed to establish the overall usefulness of this procedure throughout the whole country., (Copyright © 2019 Société française de transfusion sanguine (SFTS). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Objective: In this study, we sought to assess likelihood of living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) within a single-center kidney transplant waitlist, by race and sex, after implementation of an incompatible program., Summary Background Data: Disparities in access to LDKT exist among minority women and may be partially explained by antigen sensitization secondary to prior pregnancies, transplants, or blood transfusions, creating difficulty finding compatible matches. To address these and other obstacles, an incompatible LDKT program, incorporating desensitization and kidney paired donation, was created at our institution., Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed among our kidney transplant waitlist candidates (n = 8895). Multivariable Cox regression was utilized, comparing likelihood of LDKT before (era 1: 01/2007-01/2013) and after (era 2: 01/2013-11/2018) implementation of the incompatible program. Candidates were stratified by race [white vs minority (nonwhite)], sex, and breadth of sensitization., Results: Program implementation resulted in the nation's longest single-center kidney chain, and likelihood of LDKT increased by 70% for whites [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.70; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.46-1.99] and more than 100% for minorities (aHR 2.05; 95% CI, 1.60-2.62). Improvement in access to LDKT was greatest among sensitized minority women [calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) 11%-49%: aHR 4.79; 95% CI, 2.27-10.11; cPRA 50%-100%: aHR 4.09; 95% CI, 1.89-8.82]., Conclusions: Implementation of an incompatible program, and the resulting nation's longest single-center kidney chain, mitigated disparities in access to LDKT among minorities, specifically sensitized women. Extrapolation of this success on a national level may further serve these vulnerable populations.

Background: Controlled donation after circulatory death (cDCD) has been associated with a high incidence of ischemic cholangiopathy and other perioperative complications. In an attempt to avoid these complications, we implemented an active protocol of cDCD liver transplant (LT) with normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) preservation., Methods: This is a descriptive analysis of data collected from a prospective date base of cDCD LT preserved with NRP from January 2015 to June 2017 with a minimum follow up of 9 months., Results: Fifty-seven potential cDCD donors were connected to the NRP system. Of these, 46 livers were transplanted over a 30-month period (80% liver recovery rate). The median posttransplant peak in alanine transaminase was 1136 U/L (220-6683 U/L). Seven (15%) patients presented postreperfusion syndrome and 11 (23%) showed early allograft dysfunction. No cases of ischemic cholangiopathy were diagnosed, and no graft loss was observed over a medium follow-up period of 19 months. Of note, 13 donors were older than 65 years, achieving comparable perioperative and midterm results to younger donors., Conclusions: As far as we know, this represents the largest published series of cDCD LT with NRP preservation. Our results demonstrate that cDCD liver grafts preserved with NRP appear far superior to those obtained by the conventional rapid recovery technique.

Rationale & Objective: Increased access to transplantation for highly sensitized candidates following implementation of the kidney allocation system (KAS) has been mostly due to higher use of organs with a lower kidney donor profile index (KDPI; a quality metric for donated kidneys), although changes in allocation of these organs was not intended. It is unclear whether clinical outcomes have changed in association with these changes. We investigated the use of kidneys with low and high KDPI scores over time and whether KDPI score affects patient and graft survival differently across varying levels of allosensitization., Study Design: Observational cohort study., Setting & Participants: Adult (aged ≥18 years) recipients of a deceased donor kidney transplant between October 1, 2009, and September 30, 2017 (Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing database; n = 84,451)., Predictors: Calculated panel-reactive antibody (cPRA) level (0%, 1%-79%, 80%-89%, 90%-98%, and 99%-100%) and KDPI score (≤20%, 21%-85%, and >85%)., Outcomes: Death, graft loss., Analytical Approach: Time to event., Results: Allocation of kidneys with KDPI scores ≤ 20% and KDPI scores of 21% to 85% to recipients with cPRA levels ≥ 99% increased 4-fold following implementation of the KAS with little change in allocation of kidneys with KDPI scores > 85%. Patient survival and graft loss were strongly associated with KDPI score, whereas the association with cPRA level was minimal. There was no evidence of a differential effect of KDPI scores across the range of cPRA levels on patient survival (P for interaction=0.06-0.9) or graft loss (P for interaction=0.5-0.9). Patient survival at 5 years among the 5 cPRA groups ranged from 87.2% to 89.8% for recipients of kidneys with KDPI scores ≤ 20% (P=0.2), 82.8% to 85.5% for KDPI scores of 21% to 85% (P=0.04), and 70.2% to 79.2% for KDPI scores > 85% (P=0.2). Cumulative incidence of graft loss by cPRA level ranged from 7.7% to 10.6% for recipients of kidneys with KDPI scores ≤ 20% (P=0.2), 11.8% to 15.0% for KDPI scores of 21% to 85% (P < 0.001), and 19.8% to 29.7% for KDPI scores > 85% (P = 0.4)., Limitations: Lack of data for crossmatches, donor-specific antibodies, and immunomodulation., Conclusions: Highly sensitized recipients received kidneys with lower KDPI scores following implementation of the KAS, reducing access to these kidneys by less-sensitized candidates. KDPI score has a stronger association with patient survival and graft loss than cPRA level. The association of KDPI score with these outcomes was not modified by the recipient's level of sensitization. The impact of the redistribution of kidneys with low KDPI scores on outcomes among less-sensitized recipients needs further evaluation., (Copyright © 2019 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The shift toward using a transfusion strategy in a ratio to mimic whole blood (WB) functionality has revitalized WB as a viable option to replace severe blood loss in civilian health care. A military-civilian collaboration has contributed to the reintroduction of WB at Haukeland University Hospital in Bergen, Norway. WB has logistical and hemostatic advantages in both the pre- and in-hospital settings where the goal is a perfectly timed balanced transfusion strategy. In this paper, we describe an event leading to activation of our emergency WB collection strategy for the first time. We evaluate the feasibility of our civilian walking blood bank (WBB) to cover the need of a massive amount of blood in an emergency situation. The challenges are discussed in relation to the different stages of the event with the recommendations for improvement in practice. We conclude that the use of pre-screened donors as a WBB in a civilian setting is feasible. The WBB can provide platelet containing blood components for balanced blood resuscitation in a clinically relevant time frame., (© 2019 AABB.)

Background: Hemorrhage is the leading cause of death on the battlefield. Damage control resuscitation guidelines in the US military recommend whole blood as the preferred resuscitation product. The Armed Services Blood Program (ASBP) has initiated low-titer group O whole blood (LTOWB) production and predeployment donor screening to make whole blood more available to military forces., Study Design and Methods: ASBP donor centers updated procedures and labeling for LTOWB production. Donors are screened according to US Food and Drug Administration regulations and standard operating procedures. Group O donors are tested for anti-A and anti-B titer levels. Additionally, military personnel notified for pending deployment coordinate with their local ASBP donor center to complete whole blood donor prescreening. The process consists of completing a donor history questionnaire, processing of blood samples for blood group and infectious disease testing, and titer determination for group O personnel., Results: Since March 2016, 7940 LTOWB units have been manufactured at ASBP donor centers and shipped in support of combat operations. Additionally, ASBP donor centers have screened several thousand service members before deployment. From these screenings, the donor low titer rate was 68% and infectious disease reactive test rate was extremely low (≤0.004)., Conclusion: Whole blood is now the preferred blood product for resuscitation of combat trauma patients. The ASBP partnered with combat forces to screen personnel before deployment. Additionally, LTOWB is manufactured and shipped in support of combat operations. These efforts are expanding the availability of LTOWB for the warfighter., (© 2019 AABB.)

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is a significant health care burden. Although kidney transplantation is the optimal treatment modality, less than 25% of waiting list patients are transplanted because of organ shortage. Living kidney donation can lead to better recipient and graft survival and increase the number of donors. Not all ESRD patients have potential living donors, and not all living donors are a compatible match to recipients. Kidney paired exchanges allow incompatible pairs to identify compatible living donors for living donor kidney transplants for multiple recipients. Innovative modifications of kidney paired donation can increase the number of kidney transplants, with excellent outcomes., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The practice of kidney paired donation (KPD) is expanding annually, offering the opportunity for live donor kidney transplant to more patients. We sought to identify if voluntary KPD networks such as the National Kidney Registry (NKR) were selecting or attracting a narrower group of donors or recipients compared with national registries. For this purpose, we merged data from the NKR database with the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) database, from February 14, 2008, to February 14, 2017, encompassing the first 9 years of the NKR. Compared with all United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) live donor transplant patients (49 610), all UNOS living unrelated transplant patients (23 319), and all other KPD transplant patients (4236), the demographic and clinical characteristics of NKR transplant patients (2037) appear similar to contemporary national trends. In particular, among the NKR patients, there were a significantly (P < .001) greater number of retransplants (25.6% vs 11.5%), hyperimmunized recipients (22.7% vs 4.3% were cPRA >80%), female recipients (45.9% vs 37.6%), black recipients (18.2% vs 13%), and those on public insurance (49.7% vs 41.8%) compared with controls. These results support the need for greater sharing and larger pool sizes, perhaps enhanced by the entry of compatible pairs and even chains initiated by deceased donors, to unlock more opportunities for those harder-to-match pairs., (© 2018 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

One criticism of kidney paired donation (KPD) is that easy-to-match candidates leave the registry quickly, thus concentrating the pool with hard-to-match sensitized and blood type O candidates. We studied candidate/donor pairs who registered with the National Kidney Registry (NKR), the largest US KPD clearinghouse, from January 2012-June 2016. There were no changes in age, gender, BMI, race, ABO blood type, or panel-reactive antibody (PRA) of newly registering candidates over time, with consistent registration of hard-to-match candidates (59% type O and 38% PRA ≥97%). However, there was no accumulation of type O candidates over time, presumably due to increasing numbers of nondirected type O donors. Although there was an initial accumulation of candidates with PRA ≥97% (from 33% of the pool in 2012% to 43% in 2014, P = .03), the proportion decreased to 17% by June 2016 (P < .001). Some of this is explained by an increase in the proportion of candidates with PRA ≥97% who underwent a deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) after the implementation of the Kidney Allocation System (KAS), from 8% of 2012 registrants to 17% of 2015 registrants (P = .02). In this large KPD clearinghouse, increasing participation of nondirected donors and the KAS have lessened the accumulation of hard-to-match candidates, but highly sensitized candidates remain hard-to-match., (© 2018 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Background: Live donor nephrectomy is an operation that places the donor at risk of complications without the possibility of medical benefit. Rigorous donor selection and assessment is therefore essential to ensure minimization of risk and for this reason robust national guidelines exist. Previous studies have demonstrated poor adherence to donor guidelines., Methods: We developed a clinical decision support system (CDSS), based on national living donor guidelines, to facilitate the identification of contraindications, additional investigations, special considerations, and the decision as to nephrectomy side in potential living donors. The CDSS was then tested with patient data from 45 potential kidney donors., Results: The CDSS comprises 17 core tasks completed by either patient or nurse, and 17 optional tasks that are triggered by certain patient demographics or conditions. Decision rules were able to identify contraindications, additional investigations, special considerations, and predicted operation side in our patient cohort. Seventeen of 45 patients went on to donate a kidney, of whom 7 had major contraindications defined in the national guidelines, many of which were not identified by the clinical team. Only 43% of additional investigations recommended by national guidelines were completed, with the most frequently missed investigations being oral glucose tolerance testing and routine cancer screening., Conclusions: We have demonstrated the feasibility of turning a complex set of national guidelines into an easy-to-use machine-readable CDSS. Comparison with real-world decisions suggests that use of this CDSS may improve compliance with guidelines and informed consent tailored to individual patient risks.

Objectives: To systematically review the global published literature defining a potential deceased organ donor and identifying clinical triggers for deceased organ donation identification and referral., Data Sources: Medline and Embase databases from January 2006 to September 2017., Study Selection: All published studies containing a definition of a potential deceased organ donor and/or clinical triggers for referring a potential deceased organ donor were eligible for inclusion. Dual, independent screening was conducted of 3,857 citations., Data Extraction: Data extraction was completed by one team member and verified by a second team member. Thematic content analysis was used to identify clinical criteria for potential deceased organ donation identification from the published definitions and clinical triggers., Data Synthesis: One hundred twenty-four articles were included in the review. Criteria fell into four categories: Neurological, Medical Decision, Cardiorespiratory, and Administrative. Distinct and globally consistent sets of clinical criteria by type of deceased organ donation (neurologic death determination, controlled donation after circulatory determination of death, and uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death) are reported., Conclusions: Use of the clinical criteria sets reported will reduce ambiguity associated with the deceased organ donor identification and the subsequent referral process, potentially reducing the number of missed donors and saving lives globally through increased transplantation.

Background: Targeted donor screening for strongyloidiasis performed at the time of organ procurement can prevent this life-threatening donor-derived infection., Method: The Association of Organ Procurement Organizations surveyed members to determine the number of US organ procurement organizations (OPOs) performing donor screening for Strongyloides infection and their screening practices., Results: All 58 OPOs responded to the survey. Only 6 (10%) currently screen donors for strongyloidiasis; most OPOs started 6-36 months before the survey and one started 6 years prior. All used risk-based criteria to determine which donors to screen, though the criteria varied among OPOs. A median of 56 donors have been screened at each OPO since initiating their screening programs, with a median of 2 infected donors (range 0-13) identified. Overall, 53 organs have been transplanted from 22 infected donors, including hearts, lungs, kidneys, and livers. Of 52 OPOs not currently screening, 20 had considered screening and one plans to start screening in the near future. Of those considering risk-based screening, most had not decided on the criteria. Uncertainty about the benefits of and guidelines for screening and misconceptions about the interpretation of test results were concerns shared by non-screening OPOs., Conclusion: Continued education and advocacy on the importance of targeted donor screening are needed., (Published 2018. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

Kidney paired exchange (KPE) constitutes 12% of all living donor kidney transplantations (LDKTs) in the United States. The success of KPE programs has prompted many in the liver transplant community to consider the possibility of liver paired exchange (LPE). Though the idea seems promising, the application has been limited to a handful of centers in Asia. In this article, we consider the indications, logistical issues, and ethics for establishing a LPE program in the United States with reference to the principles and advances developed from experience with KPE. Liver Transplantation 24 677-686 2018 AASLD., (© 2018 by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

The tragedy of the national opioid epidemic has resulted in a significant increase in the number of opioid-related deaths and accordingly an increase in the number of potential donors designated Public Health Service (PHS) increased risk. Previous studies have demonstrated reluctance to use these PHS organs, and as a result, higher discard rates for these organs have been observed. All patients listed for liver transplantation in the United States from January 2005 to December 2016 were investigated. Patients on the waiting list were divided into 2 groups: those in which a PHS liver was used for transplantation (accepted PHS group) and those in which a PHS liver was declined and transplanted into a recipient lower on the match run (declined PHS group). Intention-to-treat patient survival from the time of PHS offer was significantly higher in the accepted PHS compared with the declined PHS group (P < 0.001). On Cox multivariate regression, declining a PHS donor liver was associated with a hazard ratio of 2.36 (95% confidence interval, 2.23-2.49; P < 0.001). For patients in which a PHS organ offer was declined, 11.6% died or were delisted for being too sick within the subsequent year. Donor liver allografts implanted in the accepted PHS group were of a lower donor risk index (1.28 versus 1.44) compared with the non-PHS organs that patients in the declined PHS group ultimately received if they underwent transplantation. In conclusion, there is a significantly higher survival for patients in which a PHS liver is accepted and used compared with those patients in which a PHS organ is declined. These data will help inform decisions about whether or not to accept a PHS donor liver for both patients and transplant professionals. Liver Transplantation 24 497-504 2018 AASLD., (© 2018 by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

This review is intended to be a guide for the physician to evaluate and prepare a donor / recipient couple for living kidney transplantation. Although it is intended to be exhaustive, it will not be able to respond at all possible and different cases, but it may apply at most of them. Renal transplantation is considered the choice treatment for patients with chronic renal failure and if the kidney transplant is performed pre-emptive it is associated with better organ and patient survival. The main aim of the program is to evaluate the risks of donor and recipient and to ensure the donor safety and well-being. Eligibility for living transplant can only be granted when the risks are acceptable, well defined and the couple is adequately informed. The review includes clinical and legal procedures needed to transplantation. Early conditions that contraindicate the transplant must be removed, to avoid unnecessary exams, excessive waste of time, money. The sequence of the exams has been ordered so that costly and invasive surveys are carried out only after other simple and essential investigations have confirmed the transplant suitability. Special attention should be paid to the renal function measurement, proteinuria, hematuria, hypertension, obesity, pre diabetes, renal calculus, and cancers. To give eligibility for living transplant is often not easy, but a careful study can avoid many complications and improve the transplant outcome., (Copyright by Società Italiana di Nefrologia SIN, Rome, Italy.)

Haematopoietic stem cell transplantation-coordinating nurses (HSCT-CNs) play an important role in informing related donors (RDs) and in organising human leucocyte antigen (HLA) tests, pre-donation workup and stem cells collection. Our pilot study aimed to explore French HSCT-CNs' perceptions of RD care issues. Twenty-nine French HSCT adult units were sent a questionnaire on the subject of donation procedures, HSCT-CNs' data and their professional experience of related donation issues. Twenty-two HSCT-CNs returned a completed questionnaire, and 90% of HSCT units were involved to some degree in both patient and donor care. Responses indicated that the provision of information to potential donors prior to HLA tests was insufficient, while donors were given a medical consultation only during the pre-donation workup. Questions were raised about the consent and voluntary status of RDs. None of the HSCT teams organised a post-donation consultation, while 57% provided follow-up by phone or via a questionnaire. Our results draw attention to the conflict of interest experienced by HSCT-CNs when caring simultaneously for patients and donors. The specific psychosocial difficulties associated with becoming an RD are also highlighted. French HSCT-CNs' perceptions of related donation reveal many ethical and clinical problems that have yet to be fully explored. Data on this topic remain scarce, and our pilot study may contribute to the current debate on the organisation of RD care., (© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The waiting list for kidney transplantation is long. The creation of "vouchers" for future kidney transplants enables living donation to occur when optimal for the donor and transplantation to occur later, when and if needed by the recipient., Methods: The donation of a kidney at a time that is optimal for the donor generates a "voucher" that only a specified recipient may redeem later when needed. The voucher provides the recipient with priority in being matched with a living donor from the end of a future transplantation chain. Besides its use in persons of advancing age with a limited window for donation, vouchers remove a disincentive to kidney donation, namely, a reluctance to donate now lest one's family member should need a transplant in the future., Results: We describe the first three voucher cases, in which advancing age might otherwise have deprived the donors the opportunity to provide a kidney to a family member. These 3 voucher donations functioned in a nondirected fashion and triggered 25 transplants through kidney paired donation across the United States., Conclusions: The provision of a voucher to potential recipients whose need for a transplant makes them "chronologically incompatible" with their donors may increase the number of living donor transplants.

Of the 40 million donations screened with Nucleic acid testing (NAT) between July 2001 and December 2015 in France, 20 HIV-positive, 13 HCV-positive and 17 HBV (HBV-NAT was initiated in 2005 and extended to the whole country in 2010) donations were discarded thanks to NAT. The main benefit in terms of discarded donations is related to HBV with a yield of 0.88 per million donations, which is 12.5 and 1.8 times higher than for HCV and HIV respectively. The main risk factor found in these donors during the post donation interview was having sex with men for males (n=11, all repeat blood donors), having a partner HCV positive (n=6) or at-risk partner (originated from endemic area or HBV positive) for HBV (n=8) for HIV, HCV and HBV, respectively. Although the mean viral load was high for HIV (5.6 log copies/mL) and HCV (7 log IU/mL), HBV cases show low level of DNA (1.8 log IU/mL) demonstrating the need of a highly sensitive NAT assay. Overall, the clinical benefit for recipients remains those related to the prevention of HIV contaminations since HCV avoided transmissions are extremely rare (only one case in the last 5 years thanks to NAT) and the potential infectivity of HBV-NAT only positive cases is questionable due to the low level of HBV DNA and the presence of anti-HBs in more than a half of DNA positive/HBsAg and anti-HBc negative donors., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: The value of importing expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys is uncertain., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed our single-center experience with ECD kidney transplants (KT)., Results: Over 12.8 years, we performed 497 ECD KTs including 247 local and 250 imported from other donor service areas. The import ECD group had more donors (16% vs 9%) ≥ age 70, more zero human leukocyte antigen mismatches (14% vs 2%), more KTs with a cold ischemia time >30 hours (46% vs 19%), and fewer kidneys managed with pump preservation (78% vs 92%, all P≤.05) compared to the local ECD group. Mean Kidney Donor Profile Index were 80% import vs 84% local. With a mean follow-up of 55 months, actual patient and graft survival rates were 71% and 58% in import vs 76% and 58% in local ECD KTs, respectively. Death-censored graft survival rates were 70% in import vs 69% in local ECD KTs. Delayed graft function occurred in 28% import vs 23% local ECD KTs (P=NS) whereas the incidence of primary nonfunction was slightly higher with import ECD kidneys (4.8% vs 2.4%, P=.23)., Conclusions: Midterm outcomes are remarkably similar for import vs local ECD KTs, suggesting that broader sharing of ECD kidneys may improve utilization without compromising outcomes., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Growing evidence supporting the health benefits of human milk, particularly in the preterm population, has led to rising demand for donor human milk in NICUs and pediatric hospitals. There are no previous reports describing the use of unpasteurized shared human milk (USHM) in the hospital setting, but the use of USHM solicited from community donors through social networks appears to be common. Many pediatric hospitals permit inpatients to receive breast milk that has been screened and pasteurized by a human milk banking organization and will provide pasteurized donor human milk (PDHM) only to infants who are preterm or have specific medical conditions. These policies are designed to minimize potential adverse effects from improperly handled or screened donor milk and to target patients who would experience the greatest benefit in health outcomes with donor milk use. We explore the ethical and health implications of 2 cases of medically complex infants who did not meet criteria in our tertiary care hospital for the use of PDHM from a regulated human milk bank and were incidentally found to be using USHM. These cases raise questions about how best to balance the ethical principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, and patient autonomy in the provision of PDHM, a limited resource. Health care staff should ask about USHM use to provide adequate counseling about the risks and benefits of various feeding options in the context of an infant's medical condition., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Ms Sussman-Karten is a member of the Board of Directors of the Mother’s Milk Bank Northeast, Dr Huh is a member of the medical advisory board of the Mother’s Milk Bank Northeast, and Ms Barbas and Dr Kamin have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2017 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Compatible pairs of living kidney donors and their intended recipients can enter into kidney paired donation (KPD) and facilitate additional living donor kidney transplants (LDKTs). We examined 11 compatible pairs (the intended recipients and their intended, compatible donors) who participated in KPD, along with the recipients' 11 matched, exchange donors. The 11 pairs participated in 10 separate exchanges (three were multicenter exchanges) that included 33 total LDKTs (22 additional LDKTs). All the intended donors were blood group O and female, with a mean living kidney donor profile index (LKDPI) of 27.6 (SD 16.8). The matched donors had a mean LKDPI of 9.4 (SD 31.7). Compatible pairs entered KPD for altruistic reasons (N=2) or due to mismatch of age (N=7) or body/kidney size (N=2) between the recipient and intended donor. In four cases, retrospective calculation of the LKDPI revealed that the matched donor had a higher LKDPI than the intended donor. Of the 22 recipients of LDKTs enabled by the compatible pairs, three were highly sensitized, with PRA >80%. In conclusion, most compatible pairs entered into KPD so that the recipient could receive a LDKT transplant from a donor whose age or body/kidney size were more favorable to post-transplant outcomes., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Since the establishment of People's Republic of China in 1949, the Chinese government has encountered several catastrophes related to transfusion transmitted diseases. The government's increasing attention to blood safety has prompted the initiation of a series of policies and measures that have enhanced the level of safety for the blood supply and met the basic clinical demands of blood for 1.3 billion people in the country. Blood donation screening strategies in China predominantly comprise donor screening and donor testing. Donor screening includes selection of low-risk blood donors by the use of a donor history questionnaire, predonation physical examination, and initial rapid donor testing. Donor testing includes direct pathogen detection and serology tests. The year 1998 marked the most transformative change in blood donor selection and screening policies in China. Before 1998, paid donation was the predominant mode of blood donation. Donor screening and donor testing were conducted before donation, and only those who were eligible were allowed to donate. To ensure the safety of blood, donor testing was performed again after donation. After the implementation of the Blood Donation Law in 1998, to promote voluntary and unpaid donation, predonation donor testing was eliminated to reduce the amount of waiting time and to provide a more convenient donation experience for blood donors. However, it is the national requirement that donated blood should undergo 2 rounds of testing using different equipment or reagents, conducted by different personnel. Donor selection has transitioned from paid donation and obligatory donation to voluntary donation with fixed volunteer groups, as the latter mode of donation provides the lowest risks. Donations are currently screened for syphilis, hepatitis C virus, HIV, and hepatitis B virus (HBV). Units, previously typed only for ABO, are now routinely tested for both ABO and Rh(D). Innovations in testing technologies and methods have also brought changes to screening parameters. For instance, screening for HBV pathogens evolved from the early use of hemagglutination method to the later use of radioimmunoassay, independent enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and now the widespread application of nucleic acid test (NAT). Since 2010, the Chinese government has established NAT capacity in several blood centers; and in 2015, the government invested 900 million RMB on the nationwide expansion of NAT. Although the Chinese government has worked to enhance blood safety, many challenges remain. Concern exists for rising rates of HIV infection. The existence of occult HBV infection and the transmission of emerging blood-borne diseases continue to challenge the safety of the blood supply., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Syphilis testing conventionally relies on a combination of non-treponemal and treponemal tests. The primary objective of this study was to describe the positive predictive value (PPV) of a screening algorithm in a combination of a treponemal rapid diagnostic test (RDT) and rapid plasma reagin (RPR) test at Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital (KATH), Ghana., Materials and Methods: From February 2014 to January 2015, 5 mL of venous blood samples were taken from 16 016 blood donors and tested with a treponemal RDT; 5 mL of venous blood was taken from 526 consenting initial syphilis sero-reactive blood donors. These RDT reactive samples were confirmed with an algorithm, applying the Vitros ® /Abbott-Architect ® algorithm as gold standard., Results: A total of 478 of 526 RDT reactive donors were confirmed positive for syphilis, making a PPV of 90·9%. Of the 172 (32·7%) donors who were also RPR positive, 167 were confirmed, resulting in a PPV of 97·1%. The PPV of the combined RDT and RPR (suspected active syphilis) testing algorithm was highest among donors at an enhanced risk of syphilis, family/replacement donors (99·9%), and among voluntary donors above 25 years (98·6%)., Discussion: Screening of blood donors by combining syphilis RDT and RPR with relatively good PPV may provide a reasonable technology for LMIC that has a limited capacity for testing and can contribute to the improvement of blood safety with a minimal loss of donors., (© 2016 British Blood Transfusion Society.)

Objectives: This study investigated a fixed coordinator-directed donor management strategy's impact on donated liver quality, as determined by definitive biopsy results., Materials and Methods: We collected donated liver biopsy results from donations both before and after implementing a fixed coordinator-directed donor management strategy. This strategy involved full-time attendance by a donor coordinator and continued resuscitation of brain-dead donors. All donations took place in a single organ procurement unit. We also followed up results of biopsies from the Liver Transplantation Center database of Namazi Hospital in Shiraz, Iran., Results: We compared biopsy findings of 192 livers donated from 2012 to 2013 (group A) with 276 livers donated from 2015 until August 2016 (group B). Data analysis showed that 67 livers (34.9%) in group A were rejected for transplant owing to severe steatosis in 17 (8.9%), moderate/severe fibrosis in 9 (4.7%), moderate/severe necrosis in 28 (14.6%), and 13 (6.8%) rejected for other pathologies. Among group B livers, 59 (21.4%) were not deemed suitable for transplant owing to severe steatosis in 37 (13.5%), moderate/severe fibrosis in 6 (2.1%), and moderate/ severe necrosis in 16 (5.7%). Overall, steatosis was found in 94 livers (49.2%) in group A versus 175 livers (63.3%) in group B (P = .007). Donor age in group A averaged 36.5 years versus 47.9 years in group B (P = .02). Necrosis was found in 33 livers (17.2%) in group A and 22 livers (7.9%) in group B (P = .008). One-month survival rates were 95.3% and 96.3% for groups A and B (P = .08)., Conclusions: Donated liver disqualification before transplant noticeably decreased despite the shift in demographic patterns from 2012 to 2016. In group A, brain-dead liver donors were younger and more often died from trauma, whereas group B donors had more cerebrovascular accident-induced deaths. This achievement took place alongside increased rates of steatosis and decreased rates of necrosis.

Objective: The aim of the study was to determine the frequency and reasons for donor deferral prior to the blood donation process in our population., Background: Transfusion is an irreversible event that carries potential risks as well as benefits to the recipient. Therefore, donor selection prior to blood donation is one of the most important steps in ensuring the safety of blood and blood products., Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out at the blood bank department in our hospital from January 2012 to December 2014. All the blood donors who visited our department in the study period were included in this study., Results: A total of 25 901 potential donations were recorded during the study period, comprising 24 309 (93·8%) replacement and 1592 (6·2%) voluntary donations. Females accounted for only 222 (0·9%) of potential donations. Deferral occurred in 3156 (12·2%) of attempts; 280 (1·1%) were permanently deferred, while 2876 (11·1%) were temporarily deferred. The most common reason for permanent deferral was a history of hepatitis B infection (n = 147, 4·7% of all deferrals). Major reasons for temporary donor deferral were low levels of haemoglobin (n = 971, 30·76%), low levels of platelets (n = 611, 19·35%) and previous history of jaundice (n = 192, 6·1%)., Conclusions: This study reported a fairly similar pattern of donor deferrals as in other regional studies. Low haemoglobin levels and a history of hepatitis B infection were the most common factors for temporary and permanent donor deferrals, respectively., (© 2016 British Blood Transfusion Society.)

Objective: To describe the current practice of pediatric organ donor management in the United States for donors declared dead based upon neurologic criteria. The study directs particular attention to how pediatric donors are defined, the use of donor management guidelines, the use of donor management goals, and the involvement of pediatric critical care or transplantation expertise., Design: Cross-sectional observational study using a web-based survey and follow-up telephone interview with respondents from U.S. organ procurement organizations. The study also incorporated organ procurement organization-specific data on organ yield for the 4-year period (2010-2013) preceding the study., Setting: The 58 U.S. organ procurement organizations., Subjects: Respondents chosen by each organ procurement organization., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: All 58 U.S. organ procurement organizations participated in the study. Fifty-two respondents (90%) indicated that their organ procurement organization distinguished pediatric from adult donors resulting in 28 unique pediatric definitions. Thirty-nine organ procurement organizations utilized some form of written pediatric management guidelines, and 27 (47%) maintained pediatric donor management goals; compliance was infrequently monitored for both guidelines (28%) and goals (33%). A pediatric intensivist was always or usually involved in pediatric donor management at 47 organ procurement organizations (81%); transplant/organ recovery surgeons were always or usually involved at 12 organ procurement organizations (21%). There was an increase in the number of organs transplanted per donor among donors 11-17 years old for organ procurement organizations that used donor management goals for the duration of the period studied (p < 0.01). There was also an increase in the ratio of observed/expected organs transplanted among donors of 0-10 years old for organ procurement organizations that always or usually consulted a transplant/organ recovery surgeon (p = 0.02) although this did not reach our threshold for statistical significance.., Conclusions: There is little consensus among organ procurement organizations regarding the definition of "pediatric" during organ donor management. Most organ procurement organizations employ written pediatric guidelines and use pediatric intensive care physicians for assistance in managing these donors. There is a positive association between the use of donor management goals and organ yield among pediatric donors in the 11- to 17-year age group.