Optimization of Donor Management Goals Yields Increased Organ Use

Multiple strategies have been used in an effort to increase the pool of organs for transplantation. Standardizing donor management has produced promising results. Donor management goals (DMGs) are now being used as end points of intensive care unit care during the prerecovery phase but no prospectiv...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The American surgeon 2010-06, Vol.76 (6), p.587-594
Hauptverfasser: FRANKLIN, Glen A, SANTOS, Ariel P, SMITH, Jason W, GALBRAITH, Susan, HARBRECHT, Brian G, NEAL GARRISON, R
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 594
container_issue 6
container_start_page 587
container_title The American surgeon
container_volume 76
creator FRANKLIN, Glen A
SANTOS, Ariel P
SMITH, Jason W
GALBRAITH, Susan
HARBRECHT, Brian G
NEAL GARRISON, R
description Multiple strategies have been used in an effort to increase the pool of organs for transplantation. Standardizing donor management has produced promising results. Donor management goals (DMGs) are now being used as end points of intensive care unit care during the prerecovery phase but no prospective results have been reported. Data from the United Network for Organ Sharing Region 11 were collected for successful achievement of eight common donor management goals (mean airway pressure [MAP], central venous pressure [CVP], pH, PaO2, sodium, glucose, single pressor use, and urine output) before organ recovery. Two time periods were studied with different panels of DMGs. The analysis identified the success rate of transplantation. Goals were stratified by their statistical correlation with the number of organs transplanted per donor (OTPD) in an effort to identify the most important parameter(s). Eight hundred five organ donors were studied with 2685 organs transplanted. DMGs were assessed through two phases of the study. Achieving DMGs rose from 18 to 66 per cent associated with significant improvement in OTPD (range, 2.96 to 3.45). The success of transplantation was primarily associated with limitations in vasopressor use and PaO2. Tight glucose control did affect the rate of pancreatic transplants. Thoracic organs were the most sensitive to DMGs with a 10- to 15-fold increase in lung transplantation when PaO2 rose above 100 mmHg. MAP, CVP, pH, sodium, and urine output had little effect on transplantation. Standardization of end points of donor management was associated with increased rates of transplantation. Surprisingly, not all standard goals are necessary for optimal organ use. The most significant parameters were the low use of vasopressor agents and oxygenation. Donor management strategies should strive to optimize these goals.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/000313481007600621
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733474601</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2238947051</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c359t-c2a4e891b5c7d4eb9c7f2186c1a4a437b11c097c64f0a2906776bc232b73289f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpl0M9LwzAUB_AgipvTf8CDFEE8VV9-NclxTJ2DyS7u4KmkWTo62mQm7UH_ejs2FfT0ePD5Ph5fhC4x3GEsxD0AUEyZxAAiA8gIPkJDzDlPlST0GA13IN2JATqLcdOvLOP4FA0IcEk5pkM0Xmzbqqk-dVt5l_gyefDOh-RFO722jXVtMvW6jslbZetVTGbOBKujXSWLsNYuWUZ7jk7KXtiLwxyh5dPj6-Q5nS-ms8l4nhrKVZsaopmVChfciBWzhTKiJFhmBmumGRUFxgaUMBkrQRMFmRBZYQglhaBEqpKO0O3-7jb4987GNm-qaGxda2d9F3NBKRMsA9zL6z9y47vg-udyyYBwIUH0iOyRCT7GYMt8G6pGh48cQ76rN_9fbx-6OlzuisaufiLfffbg5gB0NLoug3amir-OSKGYAvoFyG9_DQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>840257807</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Optimization of Donor Management Goals Yields Increased Organ Use</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SAGE Complete</source><creator>FRANKLIN, Glen A ; SANTOS, Ariel P ; SMITH, Jason W ; GALBRAITH, Susan ; HARBRECHT, Brian G ; NEAL GARRISON, R</creator><creatorcontrib>FRANKLIN, Glen A ; SANTOS, Ariel P ; SMITH, Jason W ; GALBRAITH, Susan ; HARBRECHT, Brian G ; NEAL GARRISON, R</creatorcontrib><description>Multiple strategies have been used in an effort to increase the pool of organs for transplantation. Standardizing donor management has produced promising results. Donor management goals (DMGs) are now being used as end points of intensive care unit care during the prerecovery phase but no prospective results have been reported. Data from the United Network for Organ Sharing Region 11 were collected for successful achievement of eight common donor management goals (mean airway pressure [MAP], central venous pressure [CVP], pH, PaO2, sodium, glucose, single pressor use, and urine output) before organ recovery. Two time periods were studied with different panels of DMGs. The analysis identified the success rate of transplantation. Goals were stratified by their statistical correlation with the number of organs transplanted per donor (OTPD) in an effort to identify the most important parameter(s). Eight hundred five organ donors were studied with 2685 organs transplanted. DMGs were assessed through two phases of the study. Achieving DMGs rose from 18 to 66 per cent associated with significant improvement in OTPD (range, 2.96 to 3.45). The success of transplantation was primarily associated with limitations in vasopressor use and PaO2. Tight glucose control did affect the rate of pancreatic transplants. Thoracic organs were the most sensitive to DMGs with a 10- to 15-fold increase in lung transplantation when PaO2 rose above 100 mmHg. MAP, CVP, pH, sodium, and urine output had little effect on transplantation. Standardization of end points of donor management was associated with increased rates of transplantation. Surprisingly, not all standard goals are necessary for optimal organ use. The most significant parameters were the low use of vasopressor agents and oxygenation. Donor management strategies should strive to optimize these goals.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-1348</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1555-9823</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/000313481007600621</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20583513</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AMSUAW</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Atlanta, GA: Southeastern Surgical Congress</publisher><subject><![CDATA[Biological and medical sciences ; Blood & organ donations ; Clinical Protocols ; Compliance ; Critical Care ; General aspects ; Humans ; Lung Transplantation - statistics & numerical data ; Medical sciences ; Multivariate Analysis ; Optimization ; Organ Transplantation - standards ; Organ Transplantation - statistics & numerical data ; Organizational Objectives ; Personal health ; Southeastern United States ; Studies ; Tissue and Organ Procurement - organization & administration ; Tissue Donors - statistics & numerical data ; Transplants & implants]]></subject><ispartof>The American surgeon, 2010-06, Vol.76 (6), p.587-594</ispartof><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Southeastern Surgical Congress Jun 2010</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c359t-c2a4e891b5c7d4eb9c7f2186c1a4a437b11c097c64f0a2906776bc232b73289f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c359t-c2a4e891b5c7d4eb9c7f2186c1a4a437b11c097c64f0a2906776bc232b73289f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=22879490$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20583513$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>FRANKLIN, Glen A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SANTOS, Ariel P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SMITH, Jason W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GALBRAITH, Susan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HARBRECHT, Brian G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>NEAL GARRISON, R</creatorcontrib><title>Optimization of Donor Management Goals Yields Increased Organ Use</title><title>The American surgeon</title><addtitle>Am Surg</addtitle><description>Multiple strategies have been used in an effort to increase the pool of organs for transplantation. Standardizing donor management has produced promising results. Donor management goals (DMGs) are now being used as end points of intensive care unit care during the prerecovery phase but no prospective results have been reported. Data from the United Network for Organ Sharing Region 11 were collected for successful achievement of eight common donor management goals (mean airway pressure [MAP], central venous pressure [CVP], pH, PaO2, sodium, glucose, single pressor use, and urine output) before organ recovery. Two time periods were studied with different panels of DMGs. The analysis identified the success rate of transplantation. Goals were stratified by their statistical correlation with the number of organs transplanted per donor (OTPD) in an effort to identify the most important parameter(s). Eight hundred five organ donors were studied with 2685 organs transplanted. DMGs were assessed through two phases of the study. Achieving DMGs rose from 18 to 66 per cent associated with significant improvement in OTPD (range, 2.96 to 3.45). The success of transplantation was primarily associated with limitations in vasopressor use and PaO2. Tight glucose control did affect the rate of pancreatic transplants. Thoracic organs were the most sensitive to DMGs with a 10- to 15-fold increase in lung transplantation when PaO2 rose above 100 mmHg. MAP, CVP, pH, sodium, and urine output had little effect on transplantation. Standardization of end points of donor management was associated with increased rates of transplantation. Surprisingly, not all standard goals are necessary for optimal organ use. The most significant parameters were the low use of vasopressor agents and oxygenation. Donor management strategies should strive to optimize these goals.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Blood &amp; organ donations</subject><subject>Clinical Protocols</subject><subject>Compliance</subject><subject>Critical Care</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Lung Transplantation - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Multivariate Analysis</subject><subject>Optimization</subject><subject>Organ Transplantation - standards</subject><subject>Organ Transplantation - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Organizational Objectives</subject><subject>Personal health</subject><subject>Southeastern United States</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Tissue and Organ Procurement - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Tissue Donors - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Transplants &amp; implants</subject><issn>0003-1348</issn><issn>1555-9823</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNpl0M9LwzAUB_AgipvTf8CDFEE8VV9-NclxTJ2DyS7u4KmkWTo62mQm7UH_ejs2FfT0ePD5Ph5fhC4x3GEsxD0AUEyZxAAiA8gIPkJDzDlPlST0GA13IN2JATqLcdOvLOP4FA0IcEk5pkM0Xmzbqqk-dVt5l_gyefDOh-RFO722jXVtMvW6jslbZetVTGbOBKujXSWLsNYuWUZ7jk7KXtiLwxyh5dPj6-Q5nS-ms8l4nhrKVZsaopmVChfciBWzhTKiJFhmBmumGRUFxgaUMBkrQRMFmRBZYQglhaBEqpKO0O3-7jb4987GNm-qaGxda2d9F3NBKRMsA9zL6z9y47vg-udyyYBwIUH0iOyRCT7GYMt8G6pGh48cQ76rN_9fbx-6OlzuisaufiLfffbg5gB0NLoug3amir-OSKGYAvoFyG9_DQ</recordid><startdate>20100601</startdate><enddate>20100601</enddate><creator>FRANKLIN, Glen A</creator><creator>SANTOS, Ariel P</creator><creator>SMITH, Jason W</creator><creator>GALBRAITH, Susan</creator><creator>HARBRECHT, Brian G</creator><creator>NEAL GARRISON, R</creator><general>Southeastern Surgical Congress</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20100601</creationdate><title>Optimization of Donor Management Goals Yields Increased Organ Use</title><author>FRANKLIN, Glen A ; SANTOS, Ariel P ; SMITH, Jason W ; GALBRAITH, Susan ; HARBRECHT, Brian G ; NEAL GARRISON, R</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c359t-c2a4e891b5c7d4eb9c7f2186c1a4a437b11c097c64f0a2906776bc232b73289f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Blood &amp; organ donations</topic><topic>Clinical Protocols</topic><topic>Compliance</topic><topic>Critical Care</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Lung Transplantation - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Multivariate Analysis</topic><topic>Optimization</topic><topic>Organ Transplantation - standards</topic><topic>Organ Transplantation - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Organizational Objectives</topic><topic>Personal health</topic><topic>Southeastern United States</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Tissue and Organ Procurement - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Tissue Donors - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Transplants &amp; implants</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>FRANKLIN, Glen A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SANTOS, Ariel P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SMITH, Jason W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GALBRAITH, Susan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HARBRECHT, Brian G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>NEAL GARRISON, R</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The American surgeon</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>FRANKLIN, Glen A</au><au>SANTOS, Ariel P</au><au>SMITH, Jason W</au><au>GALBRAITH, Susan</au><au>HARBRECHT, Brian G</au><au>NEAL GARRISON, R</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Optimization of Donor Management Goals Yields Increased Organ Use</atitle><jtitle>The American surgeon</jtitle><addtitle>Am Surg</addtitle><date>2010-06-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>76</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>587</spage><epage>594</epage><pages>587-594</pages><issn>0003-1348</issn><eissn>1555-9823</eissn><coden>AMSUAW</coden><abstract>Multiple strategies have been used in an effort to increase the pool of organs for transplantation. Standardizing donor management has produced promising results. Donor management goals (DMGs) are now being used as end points of intensive care unit care during the prerecovery phase but no prospective results have been reported. Data from the United Network for Organ Sharing Region 11 were collected for successful achievement of eight common donor management goals (mean airway pressure [MAP], central venous pressure [CVP], pH, PaO2, sodium, glucose, single pressor use, and urine output) before organ recovery. Two time periods were studied with different panels of DMGs. The analysis identified the success rate of transplantation. Goals were stratified by their statistical correlation with the number of organs transplanted per donor (OTPD) in an effort to identify the most important parameter(s). Eight hundred five organ donors were studied with 2685 organs transplanted. DMGs were assessed through two phases of the study. Achieving DMGs rose from 18 to 66 per cent associated with significant improvement in OTPD (range, 2.96 to 3.45). The success of transplantation was primarily associated with limitations in vasopressor use and PaO2. Tight glucose control did affect the rate of pancreatic transplants. Thoracic organs were the most sensitive to DMGs with a 10- to 15-fold increase in lung transplantation when PaO2 rose above 100 mmHg. MAP, CVP, pH, sodium, and urine output had little effect on transplantation. Standardization of end points of donor management was associated with increased rates of transplantation. Surprisingly, not all standard goals are necessary for optimal organ use. The most significant parameters were the low use of vasopressor agents and oxygenation. Donor management strategies should strive to optimize these goals.</abstract><cop>Atlanta, GA</cop><pub>Southeastern Surgical Congress</pub><pmid>20583513</pmid><doi>10.1177/000313481007600621</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0003-1348
ispartof The American surgeon, 2010-06, Vol.76 (6), p.587-594
issn 0003-1348
1555-9823
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733474601
source MEDLINE; SAGE Complete
subjects Biological and medical sciences
Blood & organ donations
Clinical Protocols
Compliance
Critical Care
General aspects
Humans
Lung Transplantation - statistics & numerical data
Medical sciences
Multivariate Analysis
Optimization
Organ Transplantation - standards
Organ Transplantation - statistics & numerical data
Organizational Objectives
Personal health
Southeastern United States
Studies
Tissue and Organ Procurement - organization & administration
Tissue Donors - statistics & numerical data
Transplants & implants
title Optimization of Donor Management Goals Yields Increased Organ Use
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T12%3A31%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Optimization%20of%20Donor%20Management%20Goals%20Yields%20Increased%20Organ%20Use&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20surgeon&rft.au=FRANKLIN,%20Glen%20A&rft.date=2010-06-01&rft.volume=76&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=587&rft.epage=594&rft.pages=587-594&rft.issn=0003-1348&rft.eissn=1555-9823&rft.coden=AMSUAW&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/000313481007600621&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2238947051%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=840257807&rft_id=info:pmid/20583513&rfr_iscdi=true