External Validation of the DCD-N Score and a Linear Prediction Model to Identify Potential Candidates for Organ Donation After Circulatory Death:A Nationwide Multicenter Cohort Study

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) is a procedure in which after planned withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (WLST), the dying process is monitored. A DCD procedure can only be continued if the potential organ donor dies shortly after WLST. This study performed an external validation of 2 existing prediction models to identify potentially DCD candidates, using one of the largest cohorts. METHODS. This multicenter retrospective study analyzed all patients eligible for DCD donation from 2010 to 2015. The first model (DCD-N score) assigned points for absence of neurological reflexes and oxygenation index. The second model, a linear prediction model (LPDCD), yielded the probability of death within 60 min. This study determined discrimination (c-statistic) and calibration (Hosmer and Lemeshow test) for both models. RESULTS. This study included 394 patients, 283 (72%) died within 60 min after WLST. The DCD-N score had a c-statistic of 0.77 (95% confidence intervals, 0.71-0.83) and the LPDCD model 0.75 (95% confidence intervals, 0.68-0.81). Calibration of the LPDCD 60-min model proved to be poor (Hosmer and Lemeshow test, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS. The DCD-N score and the LPDCD model showed good discrimination but poor calibration for predicting the probability of death within 60 min. Construction of a new prediction model on a large data set is needed to obtain better calibration

Necrotizing fasciitis caused by Salmonella enteritidis

A 57-year-old immunocompromized female developed a necrotizing fasciitis with sepsis a few days after abdominal complaints and diarrhoea. Surgery was performed because of progressive worsening of the patient's situation and during surgery the decision was made to perform an amputation. After surgery the patient was brought to the intensive care department for a few days. She recovered from her sepsis within a few days. Cultures showed Salmonella enteritidis

Prospective Multicenter Observational Cohort Study on Time to Death in Potential Controlled Donation after Circulatory Death Donors - Development and External Validation of Prediction Models: The DCD III Study

Background. Acceptance of organs from controlled donation after circulatory death (cDCD) donors depends on the time to circulatory death. Here we aimed to develop and externally validate prediction models for circulatory death within 1 or 2 h after withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. Methods. In a multicenter, observational, prospective cohort study, we enrolled 409 potential cDCD donors. For model development, we applied the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression and machine learning-artificial intelligence analyses. Our LASSO models were validated using a previously published cDCD cohort. Additionally, we validated 3 existing prediction models using our data set. Results. For death within 1 and 2 h, the area under the curves (AUCs) of the LASSO models were 0.77 and 0.79, respectively, whereas for the artificial intelligence models, these were 0.79 and 0.81, respectively. We were able to identify 4% to 16% of the patients who would not die within these time frames with 100% accuracy. External validation showed that the discrimination of our models was good (AUCs 0.80 and 0.82, respectively), but they were not able to identify a subgroup with certain death after 1 to 2 h. Using our cohort to validate 3 previously published models showed AUCs ranging between 0.63 and 0.74. Calibration demonstrated that the models over- and underestimated the predicted probability of death. Conclusions. Our models showed a reasonable ability to predict circulatory death. External validation of our and 3 existing models illustrated that their predictive ability remained relatively stable. We accurately predicted a subset of patients who died after 1 to 2 h, preventing starting unnecessary donation preparations, which, however, need external validation in a prospective cohort

How clinicians discuss patients’ donor registrations of consent and presumed consent in donor conversations in an opt-out system: a qualitative embedded multiple-case study

Abstract Background The Netherlands introduced an opt-out donor system in 2020. While the default in (presumed) consent cases is donation, family involvement adds a crucial layer of influence when applying this default in clinical practice. We explored how clinicians discuss patients’ donor registrations of (presumed) consent in donor conversations in the first years of the opt-out system. Methods A qualitative embedded multiple-case study in eight Dutch hospitals. We performed a thematic analysis based on audio recordings and direct observations of donor conversations (n = 15, 7 consent and 8 presumed consent) and interviews with the clinicians involved (n = 16). Results Clinicians’ personal considerations, their prior experiences with the family and contextual factors in the clinicians’ profession defined their points of departure for the conversations. Four routes to discuss patients’ donor registrations were constructed. In the Consent route (A), clinicians followed patients’ explicit donation wishes. With presumed consent, increased uncertainty in interpreting the donation wish appeared and prompted clinicians to refer to “the law” as a conversation starter and verify patients’ wishes multiple times with the family. In the Presumed consent route (B), clinicians followed the law intending to effectuate donation, which was more easily achieved when families recognised and agreed with the registration. In the Consensus route (C), clinicians provided families some participation in decision-making, while in the Family consent route (D), families were given full decisional capacity to pursue optimal grief processing. Conclusion Donor conversations in an opt-out system are a complex interplay between seemingly straightforward donor registrations and clinician-family interactions. When clinicians are left with concerns regarding patients’ consent or families’ coping, families are given a larger role in the decision. A strict uniform application of the opt-out system is unfeasible. We suggest incorporating the four previously described routes in clinical training, stimulating discussions across cases, and encouraging public conversations about donation