Addenda: Mar. 29, 2005
Reactivated: Oct. 3, 2005
Links Updated: July 13, 2011
Addenda: Mar. 29, 2005
Reactivated: Oct. 3, 2005
Links Updated: July 13, 2011
Drs. Colleen Gilstad, Paul Mintz and Ira Shulman (attributions used with permission) wonder if those who have read the New England Journal of Medicine article by Wood KE et al entitled "Care of the Potential Organ Donor" (N Engl J Med 2004;351:2730-2739) share the concern that Wood and colleagues provided arbitrary laboratory-based guidelines (triggers) for when 'brain-dead' potential organ donors should be transfused, such as a hematocrit below 30% for red-cell transfusions. The authors did not provide references or data supporting arbitrary triggers. Does any colleague know of data that support arbitrary transfusion triggers for 'brain dead' organ donors? If so, please share the data or references. Questioning the need for references or data is not merely rhetorical, since there is currently debate over the use of laboratory-based transfusion triggers to save lives of patients who are NOT brain dead, much less their organs. For example, a published study concluded that a restrictive strategy of red-cell transfusion (using a trigger of 7.0 g/dL) is at least as effective as a liberal transfusion strategy (using a trigger of 10.0 g/dL) for critically ill patients, with the possible exception of patients with acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina. (Hebert PC et al, A multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial of transfusion requirements in critical care. N Engl J Med 1999;340:409-417). Using transfusion trigger guidelines proposed by Wood and colleagues, one might find it ironic for an ICU patient who has been maintained at a hemoglobin level close to 7 g/dL to suddenly 'need' a transfusion when s\he was declared brain dead. Furthermore, in the context of avoiding transmission of infectious diseases to transplant recipients, it seems prudent to minimize transfusions for brain-dead potential organ donors, to the extent possible, since fewer transfusions generally mean less exposure to infectious agents. For example, in the evaluation of the case where an organ donor transmitted West Nile Virus to four recipients, it was determined that blood transfusion from one of 63 blood donors was the probable source of the infection (Iwamoto M et al. Transmission of West Nile Virus from an organ donor to transplant recipients. N Engl J Med, 2003;348:2196-203)
Finally, any recommendation to use CMV seronegative blood products for potential organ donors must take into consideration whether or not the potential organ donor was receiving CMV low risk blood products before being declared brain-dead. There may be no benefit to the organ recipient to switch the organ donor from 'standard' blood products to CMV seronegative blood products, if the organ donor received numerous blood product transfusions before being declared brain dead.
ADDENDA Mar 29, 2005
The following comments have been received.
Submit comments to the e-Network Forum at enetworkforum@cbbsweb.org
Ira A. Shulman, MD
CBBS e-Network Forum Senior Editor & Moderator
W. Tait Stevens, MD
CBBS e-Network Forum Editor & Moderator
Elizabeth M. St. Lezin, MD
CBBS e-Network Forum Associate Editor & Moderator