OBJECTIVE: This study explores the evolution of organ donation from patients treated with extracorporeal-cardiopulmonary-resuscitation (ECPR) for refractory out-of-hospital-cardiac-arrest (OHCA) and evaluates the public health benefits of a mature ECPR program.
METHODS: This retrospective, single-center study included OHCA patients (2016-2023) who had mostly initial shockable rhythms and were treated with ECPR. Organ donation rates from non-survivors through these years were analyzed. The public health benefit of ECPR was determined by the ratio of the sum of survivors with Cerebral Performance Category 1-2 and non-survivors who donated at least 1 solid organ, to the total ECPR patients. Temporal trends were analyzed yearly using linear regression.
RESULTS: Out of 419 ECPR patients presenting with refractory OHCA over the study period, 116 survived neurologically intact (27.7%). Among non-survivors (n=303), families of 41 (13.5%) consented to organ donation (median age 51 years, 75.6% male) and organs from 38 patients were harvested, leading to 74 organ transplants to 73 recipients. The transplanted organs included 43 kidneys (58.1%), 27 livers (36.5%), 3 lungs (4%), and 1 heart (1.4%), averaging 2.4±0.9 accepted organs/donor. The number of organ donors and successful transplants correlated positively with the years since the ECPR program\'s initiation (ptrend=0.009, ptrend=0.01). Overall, 189 patients (116 survivors, 73 organ recipients) benefited from ECPR, achieving organ-failure-free survival. The cumulative public health benefit of ECPR, considering the 116 survivors and 38 donors was 36.8%.
CONCLUSIONS: The public health benefits of an established ECPR program extend beyond individual ECPR patient survival, forming a new, previously under-recognized source of transplant donors.

How to cite this article: Myatra SN, Peter JV, Juneja D, Kulkarni AP. Think Globally, Adapt Locally: The ISCCM Guidelines and Position Statements. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(S2):S1-S3.

BACKGROUND: The 2018 UNOS allocation policy change deprioritized geographic boundaries to organ distribution, and the effects of this change have been widespread. The aim of this investigation was to analyze changes in donor transplant center distance for organ travel and corresponding outcomes before and after the allocation policy change.
METHODS: The UNOS database was utilized to identify all adult patients waitlisted for heart transplants from 2016 to 2021. Transplant centers were grouped by average donor heart travel distance based on whether they received more or less than 50% of organs from >250 miles away. Descriptive statistics were provided for waitlisted and transplanted patients. Regression analyses modeled waitlist mortality, incidence of transplant, overall survival, and graft survival.
RESULTS: Centers with a longer average travel distance had a higher mean annual transplant volume with a reduction in total days on a waitlist (86.6 vs. 149.2 days), an increased cold ischemic time (3.6 vs. 3.2 h), with no significant difference in post-transplant overall survival or graft survival.
CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of reducing waitlist time while preserving post-transplant outcomes extend broadly. The trends observed in this investigation will be useful as we revise organ transplant policy in the era of new organ procurement and preservation techniques.

Although pediatric organ donation represents a small proportion of overall organ donation, children and adolescents make a significant contribution to the pool of donated organs. In this study 252 solid organs were collected from children and adolescent. Two hundred and two recipients benefited from 62 pediatric organ donors, with a recipient/donor ratio of 3.3.
BACKGROUND: Pediatric organ donors represent a small but important portion of the deceased donor pool, helping both children and adults in the transplant waitlist. Despite this, pediatric donation remains an overlooked subject of research.
METHODS: Retrospective, single‐center, descriptive study. All brain death patients under 18 years old who were admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) between January 1st, 2006, and December 31st, 2021, and who were eligible for organ donation were included.
RESULTS: Between January 2006 and December 2021, 200 children/adolescent died in the ICU. From those, 62 patients (31%) were considered eligible for organ donation. The mean age of the donors at the time of death was 8.8 years. Sixty‐three per cent were male. The most frequent cause of death was traumatic brain injury (n = 36). Two hundred and fifty organs were collected benefitting 202 persons with a recipient/donor ratio of 3.3. Kidneys were the most frequent organ donated (n = 116), followed by liver (n = 56) and heart (n = 34). The median number of organs donated per child was four, with a minimum of 1 organ and maximum of 8.
CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric organ donation represents a small proportion of overall organ donation, but children and adolescents have important impact on the lives they save. The field of pediatric organ donation needs more research to better understand the contribution of the pediatric population to both adults and children who wait for an organ.

This paper explores whether directed deceased organ donation should be permitted, and if so under which conditions. While organ donation and allocation systems must be fair and transparent, might it be \"one thought too many\" to prevent directed donation within families? We proceed by providing a description of the medical and legal context, followed by identification of the main ethical issues involved in directed donation, and then explore these through a series of hypothetical cases similar to those encountered in practice. Ultimately, we set certain conditions under which directed deceased donation may be ethically acceptable. We restrict our discussion to the allocation of organs to recipients already on the waiting list.

Simon Rippon, revising an earlier argument against kidney sales, now claims that offers involving the performance of invasive acts, when extended to people under pressure, constitute a kind of rights violation, Impermissibly Disrespectful Demands. Since offers involving kidney sales so qualify, Rippon finds prima facie reason to prohibit them. The present article levels four independent objections to Rippon\'s argument: the account of Impermissibly Disrespectful Demands implausibly condemns kidney donation as much as kidney sales; the normative importance of having autonomous veto control over bodily incursions does not plausibly underwrite a right to not be extended invasive offers under pressure; Impermissibly Disrespectful Demands can easily be transformed into innocuous offers; and the prohibition has greater welfare costs than Rippon acknowledges.

BACKGROUND: In May 2020, England implemented \"deemed consent\" legislation, to make it easier for individuals to donate their organs and convey their decision when alive. Families are supposed to support the decision but can still override it if they disagree. We aimed to learn more about this changed role when families were approached about organ donation.
METHODS: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with families, feedback from nurses, comparisons with audit data, and public involvement. We used framework analysis with a health systems perspective and utilitarian theory to explore if the law worked.
RESULTS: 103 participants were interviewed representing 83 potential donation cases. In 31/83 (37%) cases donation was fully supported, in 41/83 (49%) cases families supported retrieval of some organs, tissues and procedures, and in 11/83 (13%) cases families declined completely. Themes explaining why the law was not (yet) working included: Understanding and agreeing the family\'s role, confusion about deemed consent, not supporting the deceased expressed decisions, organ donation as too much of a harm, the different experiences of donation pathways, transition from end-of-life to organ donation discussions, experiences of \'consent\', paperwork and processes. Families frequently questioned if their relative wanted to have a surgery rather than supporting the person who died to save lives.
CONCLUSIONS: Families use the unique experience of their relative dying in intensive care to create alternate narratives whereby the outcome satisfies their own utility and not necessarily those of the potential donor. New public ongoing media campaigns crafted to be more supportive of organ donation as a benefit to transplant recipients could help families overcome the many difficulties they encounter at the bedside.
CONCLUSIONS: The soft opt-out policy has not empowered nurses to help families at their most vulnerable to increase their support for and consent to deceased organ donation.

Organ transplantation is a life-saving treatment for end-stage organ failure patients, but the US faces a shortage of available organs. US policies incentivize identifying recipients for all recovered organs. Technological advancements have extended donor organ viability, creating new opportunities for long-distance transport and international sharing. We aimed to assess organ exports from deceased US donors to candidates abroad, a component of allocation policy allowed without suitable domestic candidates. Based on national SRTR data from January 2014-September 2023, 388,342 organs were recovered for transplantation, with 511(0.13%) exported. Most exported organs were lungs(80%). Exported lung donors were older(41 vs. 34 years,p<0.001), more likely Hepatitis-C positive(22% vs. 4%,p<0.001), and more likely donors after circulatory death(20% vs 7%,p<0.001). Lungs that were eventually exported were offered to more US PTRs (median=65) than those kept in the US(median=21 and 41 for lungs recovered by non-exporting and exporting OPOs;p<0.001). Our study highlights the necessity for further research and clear policy initiatives to balance the benefits of cross-border sharing while considering potential opportunities for more aggressive organ allocation within the US.

We aimed to assess the impact of hospital characteristics on the outcomes of detected possible brain-dead donors, in our organ procurement network in Iran. Data was collected through twice-daily calls with 57 hospitals\' intensive care units and emergency departments over 1 year. The donation team got involved when there was suspicion of brain death before the hospital officially declared it. The data was categorized by hospital size, presence of neurosurgery/trauma departments, ownership, and referral site. Out of 813 possible donors, 315 were declared brain dead, and 203 were eligible for donation. After conducting family interviews (consent rate: 62.2%), 102 eligible donors became actual donors (conversion rate: 50.2%). While hospital ownership and the presence of trauma/neurosurgery care did not affect donation, early referral from the emergency department had a positive effect. Therefore, we strongly recommend prioritizing possible donor identification in emergency rooms and involving the organ donation team as early as possible. The use of twice-daily calls for donor identification likely contributed to the consistency in donation rates across hospitals, as this approach involves the donation team earlier and mitigates the impact of hospital characteristics. Early detection of possible donors from the emergency department is crucial in improving donation rates.

UNASSIGNED: An increasing population and a shortage of identified potential organ donors are causing the waiting list for organ transplants to grow continuously. Donation after circulatory death (DCD) is a method aimed at meeting the demand for transplantable organs. However, it presents new challenges in nursing care, and there is a lack of studies investigating nurses\' attitudes and knowledge of DCD.
UNASSIGNED: The objective of this study was to determine and describe intensive care nurses\' (ICNs\') knowledge, attitudes, and views on DCD before a national implementation in Sweden.
UNASSIGNED: This study utilized a cross-sectional mixed-method design. A convenience sampling method was employed, targeting ICNs working in four intensive care units in Sweden. A study-specific tool comprising fixed and free-text questions was developed. Fifty-one ICNs participated. Data were analyzed descriptively, and correlation analysis was performed using Spearman\'s correlation. Free-text answers were qualitatively assessed and analyzed. An integrated analysis was conducted to synthesize the quantitative and qualitative findings.
UNASSIGNED: Fifty-three percent reported limited knowledge about DCD. Nurses with previous education on DCD had significantly higher knowledge (r = .380, p = .006), were more engaged with the public debate on organ donation (r = .423, p = .002), and considered the ethical aspects of DCD more thoroughly (r = .386, p = .022). The qualitative analysis identified four key categories: The importance of the team, the need for ethical discussions, increased knowledge of DCD, and unanswered questions and unmet needs. The integrated analysis underscored the need for targeted education, clear guidelines, and ongoing ethical discussions to prepare ICU nurses for DCD.
UNASSIGNED: Nurses educated in organ donor care had better knowledge and a more positive attitude toward DCD implementation. The study also highlights the importance of interprofessional teamwork in DCD implementation. The findings suggest that education on DCD could improve the identification and implementation of DCD donors, addressing the global shortage of transplantable organs.