Correction to:Expanding controlled donation after the circulatory determination of death: statement from an international collaborative (Intensive Care Medicine, (2021), 47, 3, (265-281), 10.1007/s00134-020-06341-7)

The article “Expanding controlled donation after the circulatory determination of death: statement from an international collaborative”, written by Domínguez-Gil, B., Ascher, N., Capron, A.M. et al. was originally published electronically on the publisher’s internet portal on 21 February 2021 without open access. With the author(s)’ decision to opt for Open Choice the copyright of the article changed on 25 March 2021 to © The Author(s) 2021 and the article is forthwith distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution this article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. The original article has been corrected

DCD liver transplant in patients with a MELD over 35

IntroductionDonation after circulatory death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT) makes up well less than 1% of all LTs with a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD)≥35 in the United States. We hypothesized DCD-LT yields acceptable ischemia-reperfusion and reasonable outcomes for recipients with MELD≥35.MethodsWe analyzed recipients with lab-MELD≥35 at transplant within the UCSF (n=41) and the UNOS (n=375) cohorts using multivariate Cox regression and propensity score matching.ResultsIn the UCSF cohort, five-year patient survival was 85% for DCD-LTs and 86% for matched-Donation after Brain Death donors-(DBD) LTs (p=0.843). Multivariate analyses showed that younger donor/recipient age and more recent transplants (2011-2021 versus 1999-2010) were associated with better survival. DCD vs. DBD graft use did not significantly impact survival (HR: 1.2, 95%CI 0.6-2.7). The transaminase peak was approximately doubled, indicating suggesting an increased ischemia-reperfusion hit. DCD-LTs had a median post-LT length of stay of 11 days, and 34% (14/41) were on dialysis at discharge versus 12 days and 22% (9/41) for DBD-LTs. 27% (11/41) DCD-LTs versus 12% (5/41) DBD-LTs developed a biliary complication (p=0.095). UNOS cohort analysis confirmed patient survival predictors, but DCD graft emerged as a risk factor (HR: 1.5, 95%CI 1.3-1.9) with five-year patient survival of 65% versus 75% for DBD-LTs (p=0.016). This difference became non-significant in a sub-analysis focusing on MELD 35-36 recipients. Analysis of MELD≥35 DCD recipients showed that donor age of <30yo independently reduced the risk of graft loss by 30% (HR, 95%CI: 0.7 (0.9-0.5), p=0.019). Retransplant status was associated with a doubled risk of adverse event (HR, 95%CI: 2.1 (1.4-3.3), p=0.001). The rejection rates at 1y were similar between DCD- and DBD-LTs, (9.3% (35/375) versus 1,541 (8.7% (1,541/17,677), respectively).DiscussionIn highly selected recipient/donor pair, DCD transplantation is feasible and can achieve comparable survival to DBD transplantation. Biliary complications occurred at the expected rates. In the absence of selection, DCD-LTs outcomes remain worse than those of DBD-LTs

Emergent Orthotopic Liver Transplantation for Hemorrhage from a Giant Cavernous Hepatic Hemangioma: Case Report and Review

IntroductionCavernous hemangiomas represent the most common benign primary hepatic neoplasm, often being incidentally detected. Although the majority of hepatic hemangiomas remain asymptomatic, symptomatic hepatic hemangiomas can present with abdominal pain, hemorrhage, biliary compression, or a consumptive coagulopathy. The optimal surgical management of symptomatic hepatic hemangiomas remains controversial, with resection, enucleation, and both deceased donor and living donor liver transplantation having been reported.Case reportWe report the case of a patient found to have a unique syndrome of multiorgan cavernous hemangiomatosis involving the liver, lung, omentum, and spleen without cutaneous involvement. Sixteen years following her initial diagnosis, the patient suffered from intra-abdominal hemorrhage due to her giant cavernous hepatic hemangioma. Evidence of continued bleeding, in the setting of Kasabach-Merritt Syndrome and worsening abdominal compartment syndrome, prompted MELD exemption listing. The patient subsequently underwent emergent liver transplantation without complication.ConclusionAlthough cavernous hemangiomas represent the most common benign primary hepatic neoplasm, hepatic hemangioma rupture remains a rare presentation in these patients. Management at a center with expertise in liver transplantation is warranted for those patients presenting with worsening DIC or hemorrhage, given the potential for rapid clinical decompensation

Expanding controlled donation after the circulatory determination of death: statement from an international collaborative.

A decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment (WLST) is derived by a conclusion that further treatment will not enable a patient to survive or will not produce a functional outcome with acceptable quality of life that the patient and the treating team regard as beneficial. Although many hospitalized patients die under such circumstances, controlled donation after the circulatory determination of death (cDCDD) programs have been developed only in a reduced number of countries. This International Collaborative Statement aims at expanding cDCDD in the world to help countries progress towards self-sufficiency in transplantation and offer more patients the opportunity of organ donation. The Statement addresses three fundamental aspects of the cDCDD pathway. First, it describes the process of determining a prognosis that justifies the WLST, a decision that should be prior to and independent of any consideration of organ donation and in which transplant professionals must not participate. Second, the Statement establishes the permanent cessation of circulation to the brain as the standard to determine death by circulatory criteria. Death may be declared after an elapsed observation period of 5 min without circulation to the brain, which confirms that the absence of circulation to the brain is permanent. Finally, the Statement highlights the value of perfusion repair for increasing the success of cDCDD organ transplantation. cDCDD protocols may utilize either in situ or ex situ perfusion consistent with the practice of each country. Methods to accomplish the in situ normothermic reperfusion of organs must preclude the restoration of brain perfusion to not invalidate the determination of death

Expanding controlled donation after the circulatory determination of death: statement from an international collaborative

Abstract: A decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment (WLST) is derived by a conclusion that further treatment will not enable a patient to survive or will not produce a functional outcome with acceptable quality of life that the patient and the treating team regard as beneficial. Although many hospitalized patients die under such circumstances, controlled donation after the circulatory determination of death (cDCDD) programs have been developed only in a reduced number of countries. This International Collaborative Statement aims at expanding cDCDD in the world to help countries progress towards self-sufficiency in transplantation and offer more patients the opportunity of organ donation. The Statement addresses three fundamental aspects of the cDCDD pathway. First, it describes the process of determining a prognosis that justifies the WLST, a decision that should be prior to and independent of any consideration of organ donation and in which transplant professionals must not participate. Second, the Statement establishes the permanent cessation of circulation to the brain as the standard to determine death by circulatory criteria. Death may be declared after an elapsed observation period of 5 min without circulation to the brain, which confirms that the absence of circulation to the brain is permanent. Finally, the Statement highlights the value of perfusion repair for increasing the success of cDCDD organ transplantation. cDCDD protocols may utilize either in situ or ex situ perfusion consistent with the practice of each country. Methods to accomplish the in situ normothermic reperfusion of organs must preclude the restoration of brain perfusion to not invalidate the determination of death

Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation

There is compelling evidence that more diverse ecosystems deliver greater benefits to people, and these ecosystem services have become a key argument for biodiversity conservation. However, it is unclear how much biodiversity is needed to deliver ecosystem services in a cost-effective way. Here we show that, while the contribution of wild bees to crop production is significant, service delivery is restricted to a limited subset of all known bee species. Across crops, years and biogeographical regions, crop-visiting wild bee communities are dominated by a small number of common species, and threatened species are rarely observed on crops. Dominant crop pollinators persist under agricultural expansion and many are easily enhanced by simple conservation measures, suggesting that cost-effective management strategies to promote crop pollination should target a different set of species than management strategies to promote threatened bees. Conserving the biological diversity of bees therefore requires more than just ecosystem-service-based arguments

Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Alcoholic Liver Disease.

Alcoholic liver disease (ALD) is now a well-recognized indication for liver transplantation. This paper reviews existing literature on living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for ALD and presents data from a single, high volume United States liver transplant center.For the literature review, a PubMed search was undertaken using the search terms 'living donor' and 'alcoholic liver disease'. Studies were included that presented outcome data for patients who underwent LDLT for ALD. For the single-center data collection, all patients who underwent LDLT from 2003 to 2016 at our center were reviewed and the data for recipients with ALD was subsequently analyzed and compared with those patients who underwent LDLT for other indications.Of 110 studies that resulted from the PubMed query, only 5 contained data that was relevant to this manuscript. These studies represented data collected from two Asian countries: one single center in Korea and a collection of centers in Japan. The relapse rate following LDLT for ALD ranged from 7.9% to 22%, and pre-transplant abstinence did not impact post-transplant relapse in any of these studies. For the single-center data, of 136 LDLT performed at our institution during the time period, 22 were performed for ALD. There was no difference in 1- or 5-year survival between patients transplanted for ALD and those transplanted for other etiologies (94.7% vs. 93.4%, P = 0.79 and 78.9% vs. 87.5%, P = 0.6).There is a very limited amount of data available on LDLT for ALD. Existing data suggests that LDLT for ALD results in excellent outcomes.Published data on living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for alcoholic liver disease (ALD) are limited. One- and five-year survival rates range from 82% to 100% and 78% to 87%, respectively. Rates of alcohol relapse following transplant appear low, ranging from 7% to 23%; 6-month abstinence periods prior to LDLT for ALD do not appear to have a significant impact on relapse

Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Alcoholic Liver Disease.

AimsAlcoholic liver disease (ALD) is now a well-recognized indication for liver transplantation. This paper reviews existing literature on living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for ALD and presents data from a single, high volume United States liver transplant center.MethodsFor the literature review, a PubMed search was undertaken using the search terms 'living donor' and 'alcoholic liver disease'. Studies were included that presented outcome data for patients who underwent LDLT for ALD. For the single-center data collection, all patients who underwent LDLT from 2003 to 2016 at our center were reviewed and the data for recipients with ALD was subsequently analyzed and compared with those patients who underwent LDLT for other indications.ResultsOf 110 studies that resulted from the PubMed query, only 5 contained data that was relevant to this manuscript. These studies represented data collected from two Asian countries: one single center in Korea and a collection of centers in Japan. The relapse rate following LDLT for ALD ranged from 7.9% to 22%, and pre-transplant abstinence did not impact post-transplant relapse in any of these studies. For the single-center data, of 136 LDLT performed at our institution during the time period, 22 were performed for ALD. There was no difference in 1- or 5-year survival between patients transplanted for ALD and those transplanted for other etiologies (94.7% vs. 93.4%, P = 0.79 and 78.9% vs. 87.5%, P = 0.6).ConclusionThere is a very limited amount of data available on LDLT for ALD. Existing data suggests that LDLT for ALD results in excellent outcomes.Short summaryPublished data on living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for alcoholic liver disease (ALD) are limited. One- and five-year survival rates range from 82% to 100% and 78% to 87%, respectively. Rates of alcohol relapse following transplant appear low, ranging from 7% to 23%; 6-month abstinence periods prior to LDLT for ALD do not appear to have a significant impact on relapse