K O'Connor

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States

Are you K O'Connor?

Claim your profile

Publications (16)109.55 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To maximize deceased donation, it is necessary to facilitate organ recovery from expanded criteria donors (ECDs). Utilization of donors meeting the kidney definition for ECDs increases access to kidney transplantation and reduces waiting times; however, ECDs often do not proceed to kidney recovery. Based on a prospective study of three Organ Procurement Organizations in the United States, we describe the characteristics of donors meeting the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN) ECD kidney definition (donor age 60+ or donor age 50-60 years with two of the following: final serum creatinine > 1.5 mg/dL, history of hypertension, or death from cerebral vascular accident) who donated a liver without kidney recovery. ECDs with organs recovered between February 2003 and September 2005 by New England Organ Bank, Gift of Life Michigan, and LifeChoice Donor Services were studied (n = 324). All donors were declared dead by neurological criteria. Data on a wide range of donor characteristics were collected, including donor demographics, medical history, cause of death, donor status during hospitalization, serological status, and donor kidney quality. Logistic regression models were used to identify donor characteristics predictive of liver-alone donation. Seventy-four of the 324 donors fulfilling the ECD definition for kidneys donated a liver alone (23%). History of diabetes, final serum creatinine > 1.5 mg/dL, age 70+, and presence of proteinuria were associated with liver-alone donation in univariate models. On multivariate analysis, only final serum creatinine > 1.5 mg/dL and age 70+ were independently predictive of liver donation alone. Older age and elevated serum creatinine may be perceived as stronger contraindications to kidney donation than the remaining elements of the ECD definition. It is likely that at least a proportion of these liver-alone donors represent missed opportunities for kidney transplantation.
    Transplantation Proceedings 09/2012; 44(7):2223-6. · 0.95 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Organ procurement organizations (OPOs) report a nearly fourfold difference in donor availability as measured by eligible deaths per million population (PMP) based on hospital referrals. We analyzed whether mortality data help explain geographic variation in organ supply as measured by the number of eligible deaths for organ donation. Using the 2007 National Center for Health Statistics' mortality data, we analyzed deaths occurring in acute care hospitals, aged ≤ 70 years from cerebrovascular accidents and trauma. These deaths were mapped at the county level and compared to eligible deaths reported by OPOs. In 2007, there were 2 428 343 deaths reported in the United States with 42 339 in-hospital deaths ≤ 70 years from cerebrovascular accidents (CVA) or trauma that were correlated with eligible deaths PMP (r(2) = 0.79.) Analysis revealed a broad range in the death rate across OPOs: trauma deaths: 44-118 PMP; deaths from CVA: 34-118 PMP; and combined CVA and trauma: 91-229 PMP. Mortality data demonstrate that deaths by neurologic criteria of people who are likely to be suitable deceased donors are not evenly distributed across the nation. These deaths are correlated with eligible deaths for organ donation. Regional availability of organs is affected by deaths which should be accounted for in the organ allocation system.
    American Journal of Transplantation 03/2012; 12(6):1598-602. · 6.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Joint Commission requires all hospitals have a policy regarding donation after cardiac death. To this date however, a quantitative analysis of adult hospital donation after cardiac death (DCD) policies and its impact on transplantation outcomes has not been reported. Specific characteristics for DCD polices were identified from 90 of the 164 (54.9%) hospitals within the New England Organ Bank's donor service area. Forty-five policies (50.0%) allow family members to be present during withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy (WLST) whereas eight (8.9%) prohibit this. Seventeen policies (18.9%) require WLST to occur in the operating room (OR); 20 (22.2%) specify a location outside of the OR. Fifty-six (62.2%) policies fail to state the method of determining death; however, some require arterial line (15 policies, 16.6%) and/or EKG (10 policies, 11.1%). These variables were not associated with organ recovery, utilization or donor ischemia time. Our regional analysis highlights the high degree of variability of hospital DCD policies, which may contribute to misunderstanding and confusion among providers and patients that may influence acceptance of this mode of donation.
    American Journal of Transplantation 08/2011; 11(8):1719-26. · 6.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Donation after cardiac death (DCD) has proven effective at increasing the availability of organs for transplantation.We performed a retrospective examination of Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) records of all 201 donors from 1/1/98 to the 11/2008, including 54 DCD, 115 DBD and 32 DCD candidates that did not progress to donation (DCD-dnp). Comparing three time periods, era 1 (01/98-12/02), era 2 (01/03-12/05) and era 3 (01/06-11/08), DCD’s comprised 14.8,48.4% and 60% of donors, respectively (p = 0.002). A significant increase in the incidence of cardiovascular/cerebrovascular as cause of death was evident in era 3 versus eras 1 and 2; 74% versus 57.1% (p<0.001),as was a corresponding decrease in the incidence of traumatic death. Interestingly, we noted an increase in utilization of aggressive neurological management over time, especially in the DCD group.We detected significant changes in the make-up of the donor pool over the past decade. That the changes in diagnosis over time did not differ between DCD and DBD groups suggests this difference is not responsible for the increase in DCD rates. Instead, we suggest that changes in clinical practice, especially in management of patients with severe brain injury may account for the increased proportion of DCD.
    American Journal of Transplantation 11/2010; 10(11):2536-40. · 6.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Nucleic acid testing (NAT) for HIV, HBV and HCV shortens the time between infection and detection by available testing. A group of experts was selected to develop recommendations for the use of NAT in the HIV/HBV/HCV screening of potential organ donors. The rapid turnaround times needed for donor testing and the risk of death while awaiting transplantation make organ donor screening different from screening blood-or tissue donors. In donors with no identified risk factors, there is insufficient evidence to recommend routine NAT, as the benefits of NAT may not outweigh the disadvantages of NAT especially when false-positive results can lead to loss of donor organs. For donors with identified behavioral risk factors, NAT should be considered to reduce the risk of transmission and increase organ utilization. Informed consent balancing the risks of donor-derived infection against the risk of remaining on the waiting list should be obtained at the time of candidate listing and again at the time of organ offer. In conclusion, there is insufficient evidence to recommend universal prospective screening of organ donors for HIV, HCV and HBV using current NAT platforms. Further study of viral screening modalities may reduce disease transmission risk without excessive donor loss.
    American Journal of Transplantation 04/2010; 10(4):889-99. · 6.19 Impact Factor
  • Paul Morrissey, Kevin O'Connor, Posy During
    New England Journal of Medicine 12/2006; 355(21):2258-9; author reply 2259-60. · 54.42 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To stimulate organ donation, an organ procurement organization (OPO)-wide effort was undertaken to increase donors after cardiac death (DCD) over a 5-year period. This included commonality of protocols, pulsatile perfusion of kidneys, centralization of data and a regional allocation variance designed to minimize cold ischemia times and encourage adoption of DCD protocols at transplant centers. In one OPO, eight centers initiated DCD programs in 11 hospitals. A total of 52 DCD donors were procured, increasing from four in 1999 to 21 in 2003. Eleven donors had care withdrawn in the operating room, whereas 41 had care withdrawn in the ICU. In all, 91 patients received renal transplants from these 52 donors (12 kidneys discarded, one double transplant), whereas 5 patients received liver transplants. One-, two-, and three-year kidney graft survival rates were 90%, 90%, and 82%, respectively. Fifty-five percent of patients needed at least one session of hemodialysis postoperatively. Mean recipient hospital length of stay was 11.1+/-6 days. Mean creatinine levels at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months were 1.65, 1.40, 1.41, and 1.40, respectively. DCD donors can be an important source of donor organs and provide excellent overall outcomes. Regional cooperation and a prospectively considered allocation and distribution system are important considerations in stimulating DCD programs.
    Transplantation 06/2006; 81(10):1368-71. · 3.78 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A national conference on organ donation after cardiac death (DCD) was convened to expand the practice of DCD in the continuum of quality end-of-life care. This national conference affirmed the ethical propriety of DCD as not violating the dead donor rule. Further, by new developments not previously reported, the conference resolved controversy regarding the period of circulatory cessation that determines death and allows administration of pre-recovery pharmacologic agents, it established conditions of DCD eligibility, it presented current data regarding the successful transplantation of organs from DCD, it proposed a new framework of data reporting regarding ischemic events, it made specific recommendations to agencies and organizations to remove barriers to DCD, it brought guidance regarding organ allocation and the process of informed consent and it set an action plan to address media issues. When a consensual decision is made to withdraw life support by the attending physician and patient or by the attending physician and a family member or surrogate (particularly in an intensive care unit), a routine opportunity for DCD should be available to honor the deceased donor's wishes in every donor service area (DSA) of the United States.
    American Journal of Transplantation 03/2006; 6(2):281-91. · 6.19 Impact Factor
  • Kevin J O'Connor, Francis L Delmonico
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Kidney transplantation confers a survival advantage for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) when compared to dialysis and improves the quality of life in a cost-effective manner. Currently there are more than 60,000 patients on the U.S. waiting list for kidney transplantation. In 2004, 16,879 kidney transplants, including 880 simultaneous kidney and pancreas transplants, were performed in this country. Recent strategies for increasing the supply of kidneys hold promise, such as systematic programs designed to improve consent rates for deceased donor organ procurement. Efforts to increase donation after cardiac death (DCD) have been highly successful and now account for more than 5% of all deceased organ donors. Transplantation of kidneys from DCD donors yields 1-year graft and patient survival rates equivalent to kidneys from brain-dead donors. Expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys from donors > or = 60 years of age (or donors age 50-59 years with certain comorbidities) confer a survival benefit for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients compared to remaining on dialysis on the waiting list. The number of live donor kidney transplants, both from biologically related and unrelated donors, is increasing. Paired live donor kidney transplants provide yet another transplantation opportunity for ESRD patients with willing but incompatible (by ABO or direct antibody) living donors.
    Seminars in Dialysis 01/2005; 18(6):460-2. · 2.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Liver allocation remains problematic because current policy prioritizes status 2B or 3 patients by waiting time rather than medical urgency. On February 21, 2000, we implemented a variance to the United Network for Organ Sharing liver allocation policy that redefined status 2A by much more rigid, definable criteria and prioritized status 2B patients by using a continuous medical urgency score based on the Child-Turcotte-Pugh score and other medical conditions. In this system, waiting time is used only to differentiate status 2B candidates with equal medical urgency scores. Comparing the 6-month period (period 1; n = 67) before implementation of this system to the 6-month period after implementation (period 2; n = 75), there was a significant reduction in the number of transplantations performed for patients listed as status 2A (46.3% to 14.7%; P =.002) and an increase in the number of patients listed as status 2B who received transplants (44.8% to 70.7%; P =.10). Most dramatically, there was a 37.1% reduction in overall deaths on the waiting list from 94 deaths in period 1 to 62 deaths in period 2 (P =.005), with the most significant reduction for patients removed from this list at status 2B (52 v 18 patients; P =.04). There were 3 postoperative deaths in each period, with only 1 graft lost in period 2. Status 2B patients with the greatest degree of medical urgency received transplants without multiple peer reviews requesting elevation to 2A status. We conclude that a continuous medical urgency score system allocates donor livers much more fairly to those in medical need and reduces waiting list mortality without sacrificing efficacy.
    Liver Transplantation 04/2001; 7(3):173-8. · 3.94 Impact Factor
  • Transplantation Proceedings 01/2001; 33(1-2):827-8. · 0.95 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background. Transplantation of organs from donors who are bacteremic is controversial. We examined the outcome of recipients of solid organs from donors with bacteremia and/or fungemia at the time of organ recovery. Methods. All organ donors from a single organ procurement organization between January 1990 and December 1996 were retrospectively analyzed. We calculated rates of transmission from bacteremic or fungemic donors to their recipients and compared the graft and patient survival rates for recipients of these organs with those for recipients of organs from nonbacteremic donors. Results. There were 95 (5.1%) bacteremic donors from a total of 1775, from whom 212 recipients received organs. Forty-six (48%) of the bacteremic donors had pathogens in their blood. Among the 101 recipients of organs from these, no evidence of transmission could be documented. (0% transmission rate, 95% CI 0-3). The remaining 49 donors had either Staphylococcus epidermidis or other unlikely pathogens recovered from the blood. Examination of the 111 recipients of organs from these donors also found no evidence for transmission (0% transmission rate, 95% CI 0-3). Of the 212 recipients, 193 (91%) received a mean of 3.8±2.5 days of antibiotics postoperatively. The 30-day graft and patient survival for recipients of organs from bacteremic donors was not significantly different from recipients of organs from nonbacteremic donors (P=0.695 for patient survival, and P=0.310 for graft survival). Conclusions. Organs transplanted from bacteremic donors do not transmit bacterial infection or result in poorer outcomes. Use of organs from these donors could help increase organ availability.
    Transplantation 10/1999; 68(8):1107-1111. · 3.78 Impact Factor
  • Transplantation 01/1999; 67(7). · 3.78 Impact Factor
  • Transplantation Proceedings 01/1999; 31(1-2):353-5. · 0.95 Impact Factor
  • Kevin J. O'Connor, Francis L. Delmonico
    Transplantation Reviews. 01/1999; 13(1):52-54.
  • Transplantation 01/1998; 65(12). · 3.78 Impact Factor