Uncontrolled donation after circulatory death: A cohort study of data from a long‐standing deceased‐donor kidney transplantation program.

Despite good long-term outcomes of kidney transplants from controlled donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors, there are few uncontrolled DCD (uDCD) programs. This longitudinal study compares outcomes for all uDCD (N = 774) and all donation after brain death (DBD) (N = 613) kidney transplants performed from 1996 to 2015 at our center. DBD transplants were divided into those from standard-criteria (SCD) (N = 366) and expanded-criteria (N = 247) brain-dead donors (ECD). One-, 5-, and 10-year graft survival rates were 91.7%, 85.7%, and 80.6% for SCD; 86.0%, 75.8%, and 61.4% for ECD; and 85.1%, 78.1%, and 72.2% for uDCD, respectively. Graft survival was worse in recipients of uDCD kidneys than of SCD (P = .004) but better than in transplants from ECD (P = .021). The main cause of graft loss in the uDCD transplants was primary nonfunction. Through logistic regression, donor death due to pulmonary embolism (OR 4.31, 95% CI 1.65-11.23), extrahospital CPR time ≥75 minutes (OR1.94, 95%CI 1.18-3.22), and in-hospital CPR time ≥50 minutes (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.09-2.93) emerged as predictive factors of primary nonunction. According to the outcomes of our long-standing kidney transplantation program, uDCD could help expand the kidney donor pool.post-print1,71 M

Efficacy and safety of out-of-hospital intravenous metoprolol administration in anterior ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction: insights from the METOCARD-CNIC trial

We seek to examine the efficacy and safety of prereperfusion emergency medical services (EMS)–administered intravenous metoprolol in anterior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing eventual primary angioplasty. This is a prespecified subgroup analysis of the Effect of Metoprolol in Cardioprotection During an Acute Myocardial Infarction trial population, who all eventually received oral metoprolol within 12 to 24 hours. We studied patients receiving intravenous metoprolol by EMS and compared them with others treated by EMS but not receiving intravenous metoprolol. Outcomes included infarct size and left ventricular ejection fraction on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging at 1 week, and safety by measuring the incidence of the predefined combined endpoint (composite of death, malignant ventricular arrhythmias, advanced atrioventricular block, cardiogenic shock, or reinfarction) within the first 24 hours. From the total population of the trial (N=270), 147 patients (54%) were recruited during out-of-hospital assistance and transferred to the primary angioplasty center (74 intravenous metoprolol and 73 controls). Infarct size was smaller in patients receiving intravenous metoprolol compared with controls (23.4 [SD 15.0] versus 34.0 [SD 23.7] g; adjusted difference –11.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] –18.6 to –4.3). Left ventricular ejection fraction was higher in the intravenous metoprolol group (48.1% [SD 8.4%] versus 43.1% [SD 10.2%]; adjusted difference 5.0; 95% CI 1.6 to 8.4). Metoprolol administration did not increase the incidence of the prespecified safety combined endpoint: 6.8% versus 17.8% in controls (risk difference –11.1; 95% CI –21.5 to –0.6). Out-of-hospital administration of intravenous metoprolol by EMS within 4.5 hours of symptom onset in our subjects reduced infarct size and improved left ventricular ejection fraction with no excess of adverse events during the first 24 hours.Sin financiación5.008 JCR (2015) Q1, 2/24 Emergency medicineUE