Independent organ donor facilities: The future of organ donation?

Since 2001 independent Organ Donor Facilities(OFOs) have been proposed within Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs) with the aim of reducing organ procurement costs 1, cold ischemia time of donor organs and the flight-related risk 2 for donor surgeons, perfusionists and coordinators. An independent OFO has been established in 2001 in St. Louis 3, half away between the 2 Transplant Centers (TCs) (Washington University School of Medicine and St. Louis University) and now includes a two-bed intensive care facility, a complete laboratory, a cardiac catheterization facility, a Computed Tomography (CT) scanner and an operating room. All brain-dead (BD) patients within OPO (Mid-America Transplant Services), after family's informed consent, are transferred, if necessary by an OPO owned and operated airplane, to this facility, where undergo multiorgan harvesting. By doing so the organ acquisition charges (OACs) apparently decreased, as well as delay in recovery, which can affect organ viability and move families to withdraw consent; also risks and tiring of transplant surgeons were reduced. This independent OFO successfully procured in 2001 not only livers, but also pancreas, kidneys, hearts and lungs 4-6. Cold ischemia time was reduced and there was no Primary Non Function (PNF) of harvested organs, but only kidney delayed graft function (DGF). In the past, heart donors were moved to the recipient's hospital. With the development of multiorgan harvesting, usually donor surgeons are sent by the TCs in order to evaluate liver, pancreas, heart and lungs, while the only local surgeons is the "nephrectomist", that in local hospital is not a transplant surgeon. To move a donor, although hemodinamically stable, is always a risk. Finally, the decrease of OAC must balance the extra expenses to create and operate independent OFOs. In all the papers published by the members of this OFO, the control group of the retrospective analysis consisted of less selected BD donors, requiring more vasosuppressor support, which can be a study bias. It has been proposed that OPOs should organize "recovery teams" for multiple TCs but most transplant surgeons, in case of marginal donors, would like to inspect the organ prior to starting recipient surgery or would send their own team to harvest organs. According to literature, there are no other independent OFOs in US, probably because there is no need for them, and increasing their numbers would not increase organ donation rate. Considering Europe, we do not have information about the existence of independent OFOs: this may be a consequence of logistical organization and minor distances, as well as the higher concentration of TCs. However, the acceptance of such a procedure from donors' families may be less enthusiastic in Europe than in USA, particularly from minorities. In Italy would not be acceptable that the maintenance of BD donors and more generally the operation of independent OFO would rely on non-physicians, to save costs. Finally it is not clear from the reviewed papers who pay for transportation of the donor's body from the independent OFO back to home, but donor's family should not be charged for these expenses. At least 5 donors were lost during transportation, confirming that moving of BD donors remains a risky procedure. The potential economical and organizative benefits of independent OFOs could be counterweighted by the perceived (by relatives and public opinion) commodification/ reification of BD patients. Anyway, the authors of these papers should be congratulated for their innovative proposal. However, a prospective randomized trial would be needed to draw more definitive conclusions on the real benefits of independent OFOs.