Neuroimaging Augments DCD-N Score in Predicting Time from Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Measures to Death Among Potential Organ Donors

Overview

Journal Neurocrit Care

Date 2025 Jan 8

PMID 39776350

Authors

Andreas H Kramer

Philippe L Couillard

Christopher J Doig

Julie A Kromm

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Controlled donation after circulatory determination of death (DCD) is feasible only if circulatory arrest occurs soon after withdrawal of life-sustaining measures (WLSM). When organ recovery cannot proceed because this time interval is too long, there are potential negative implications, including perceptions of "secondary loss" for patients' families and significant resource consumption. The DCD-N score is a validated clinical tool for predicting rapid death following WLSM. We hypothesized that neuroimaging evidence of effaced perimesencephalic cisterns improves prediction of time to death compared with the DCD-N score alone.

Methods: In a retrospective population-based cohort study, DCD-N scores were prospectively determined in patients for whom consent for DCD had been obtained. Perimesencephalic cisterns on last available neuroimaging were assessed in duplicate and classified as normal, partially effaced, or completely effaced. Multivariable logistic regression assessed the capacity of DCD-N score and effaced cisterns to predict death within 1, 2, or 3 h of WLSM.

Results: Of 164 consecutive patients, 49 (30%) progressed to death by neurologic criteria and were excluded. Of the remaining 115 patients, 81 (70%) died within 2 h of WLSM. When perimesencephalic cisterns were patent, this occurred in 48% of patients, compared with 88% and 93%, respectively, of patients with partially and completely effaced cisterns (p < 0.0001). In multivariable analysis, the odds ratio for prediction of death within 2 h was 7.2 (2.8-18.3) for each incremental DCD-N score and 15.4 (4.1-58.1) for the presence of either partially or completely effaced cisterns (c = 0.92 vs. 0.75-0.84 for univariate models). Results were comparable for prediction of death within 1 or 3 h. With patent cisterns, median time to death was 132.5 (21-420) minutes, compared with 23.5 (16-32) and 22 (19-30) minutes, respectively, with partially and completely effaced cisterns (p = 0.0002).

Conclusions: Cerebral edema with effaced perimesencephalic cisterns predicts rapid death following WLSM in potential DCD organ donors and improves on performance of the DCD-N score alone. Although originally validated for the prediction of death within 1 h, the DCD-N score remains predictive up to 3 h following WLSM.

References

Port F, Wolfe R, Mauger E, Berling D, Jiang K . Comparison of survival probabilities for dialysis patients vs cadaveric renal transplant recipients. JAMA. 1993; 270(11):1339-43. View

Wolfe R, Ashby V, Milford E, Ojo A, Ettenger R, Agodoa L . Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation, and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant. N Engl J Med. 1999; 341(23):1725-30. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199912023412303. View

Martin P, DiMartini A, Feng S, Brown Jr R, Fallon M . Evaluation for liver transplantation in adults: 2013 practice guideline by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the American Society of Transplantation. Hepatology. 2014; 59(3):1144-65. DOI: 10.1002/hep.26972. View

Leard L, Holm A, Valapour M, Glanville A, Attawar S, Aversa M . Consensus document for the selection of lung transplant candidates: An update from the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2021; 40(11):1349-1379. PMC: 8979471. DOI: 10.1016/j.healun.2021.07.005. View

Kramer A, Hornby K, Doig C, Armstrong D, Grantham L, Kashuba S . Deceased organ donation potential in Canada: a review of consecutive deaths in Alberta. Can J Anaesth. 2019; 66(11):1347-1355. DOI: 10.1007/s12630-019-01437-1. View

Kramer A, Holliday K, Keenan S, Isac G, Kutsogiannis D, Kneteman N . Donation after circulatory determination of death in western Canada: a multicentre study of donor characteristics and critical care practices. Can J Anaesth. 2020; 67(5):521-531. DOI: 10.1007/s12630-020-01594-8. View

Sarti A, Sutherland S, Meade M, Shemie S, Landriault A, Vanderspank-Wright B . The experiences of family members of deceased organ donors and suggestions to improve the donation process: a qualitative study. CMAJ. 2022; 194(30):E1054-E1061. PMC: 9365431. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.220508. View

Munshi L, Dhanani S, Shemie S, Hornby L, Gore G, Shahin J . Predicting time to death after withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy. Intensive Care Med. 2015; 41(6):1014-28. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-015-3762-9. View

10.

Yee A, Rabinstein A, Thapa P, Mandrekar J, Wijdicks E . Factors influencing time to death after withdrawal of life support in neurocritical patients. Neurology. 2010; 74(17):1380-5. DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181dad5f0. View

11.

Rabinstein A, Yee A, Mandrekar J, Fugate J, de Groot Y, Kompanje E . Prediction of potential for organ donation after cardiac death in patients in neurocritical state: a prospective observational study. Lancet Neurol. 2012; 11(5):414-9. DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(12)70060-1. View

12.

de Groot Y, Lingsma H, Bakker J, Gommers D, Steyerberg E, Kompanje E . External validation of a prognostic model predicting time of death after withdrawal of life support in neurocritical patients. Crit Care Med. 2011; 40(1):233-8. DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31822f0633. View

13.

Shemie S, Baker A, Knoll G, Wall W, Rocker G, Howes D . National recommendations for donation after cardiocirculatory death in Canada: Donation after cardiocirculatory death in Canada. CMAJ. 2006; 175(8):S1. PMC: 1635157. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.060895. View

14.

Leiden H, Haase-Kromwijk B, Hoitsma A, Jansen N . Controlled donation after circulatory death in the Netherlands: more organs, more efforts. Neth J Med. 2016; 74(7):285-91. View

15.

Snyder R, Moore D, Moore D . More donors or more delayed graft function? A cost-effectiveness analysis of DCD kidney transplantation. Clin Transplant. 2013; 27(2):289-96. DOI: 10.1111/ctr.12073. View

16.

Shemie S, Robertson A, Beitel J, Chandler J, Ferre E, Evans J . End-of-Life Conversations With Families of Potential Donors: Leading Practices in Offering the Opportunity for Organ Donation. Transplantation. 2017; 101(5S Suppl 1):S17-S26. DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000001696. View

17.

He X, Xu G, Liang W, Liu B, Xu Y, Luan Z . Nomogram for Predicting Time to Death After Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Treatment in Patients With Devastating Neurological Injury. Am J Transplant. 2015; 15(8):2136-42. DOI: 10.1111/ajt.13231. View

18.

Reid A, Harper S, Jackson C, Wells A, Summers D, Gjorgjimajkoska O . Expansion of the kidney donor pool by using cardiac death donors with prolonged time to cardiorespiratory arrest. Am J Transplant. 2011; 11(5):995-1005. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2011.03474.x. View

19.

Law J, Hornby K, Payne C, Sener A, Luke P . Missed opportunities for DCD kidney donors: Evaluation of warm ischemic time and associated functional warm ischemic time. Clin Transplant. 2019; 33(11):e13724. DOI: 10.1111/ctr.13724. View

20.

Ho K, Owens C, Johnson S, Khwaja K, Curry M, Pavlakis M . Donor postextubation hypotension and age correlate with outcome after donation after cardiac death transplantation. Transplantation. 2008; 85(11):1588-94. DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e318170b6bb. View

21.

Abt P, Praestgaard J, West S, Hasz R . Donor hemodynamic profile presages graft survival in donation after cardiac death liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2013; 20(2):165-72. DOI: 10.1002/lt.23777. View