Summary Donation after circulatory death (DCD) has become an accepted practice in many countries and remains a focus of intense interest in the transplant community. The present study is aimed at providing a description of the current situation of DCD in European countries. Specific questionnaires were developed to compile information on DCD practices, activities and post‐transplant outcomes. Thirty‐five countries completed the survey. DCD is practiced in 18 countries: eight have both controlled DCD (cDCD) and uncontrolled DCD (uDCD) programs, 4 only cDCD and 6 only uDCD. All these countries have legally binding and/or nonbinding texts to regulate the practice of DCD. The no‐touch period ranges from 5 to 30 min. There are variations in ante and post mortem interventions used for the practice of cDCD. During 2008–2016, the highest DCD activity was described in the United Kingdom, Spain, Russia, the Netherlands, Belgium and France. Data on post‐transplant outcomes of patients who receive DCD donor kidneys show better results with grafts obtained from cDCD versus uDCD donors. In conclusion, DCD is becoming increasingly accepted and performed in Europe, importantly contributing to the number of organs available and providing acceptable post‐transplantation outcomes.

The aim of the present study was to describe the current situation of donation after circulatory death (DCD) in the Council of Europe, through a dedicated survey. Of 27 participating countries, only 10 confirmed any DCD activity, the highest one being described in Belgium, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (mainly controlled) and France and Spain (mainly uncontrolled). During 2000-2009, as DCD increased, donation after brain death (DBD) decreased about 20% in the three countries with a predominant controlled DCD activity, while DBD had increased in the majority of European countries. The number of organs recovered and transplanted per DCD increased along time, although it remained substantially lower compared with DBD. During 2000-2008, 5004 organs were transplanted from DCD (4261 kidneys, 505 livers, 157 lungs and 81 pancreas). Short-term outcomes of 2343 kidney recipients from controlled versus 649 from uncontrolled DCD were analyzed: primary non function occurred in 5% vs. 6.4% (P = NS) and delayed graft function in 50.2% vs. 75.7% (P < 0.001). In spite of this, 1 year graft survival was 85.9% vs. 88.9% (P = 0.04), respectively. DCD is increasingly accepted in Europe but still limited to a few countries. Controlled DCD might negatively impact DBD activity. The degree of utilization of DCD is lower compared with DBD. Short-term results of DCD are promising with differences between kidney recipients transplanted from controlled versus uncontrolled DCD, an observation to be further analyzed

The wait time for deceased-donor kidney transplantation has increased to 4-5 years in the Netherlands. Strategies to expand the donor pool include a living donor kidney exchange program. This makes it possible that patients who cannot directly receive a kidney from their intended living donor, due to ABO blood type incompatibility or a positive cross match, exchange donors in order to receive a compatible kidney. All Dutch kidney transplantation centers agreed on a common protocol. An independent organization is responsible for the allocation, cross matches are centrally performed and exchange takes place on an anonymous basis. Donors travel to the recipient centers. Surgical procedures are scheduled simultaneously. Sixty pairs participated within 1 year. For 9 of 29 ABO blood type incompatible and 17 of 31 cross match positive combinations, a compatible pair was found. Five times a cross match positive couple was matched to a blood type incompatible one, where the recipients were of blood type O. The living donor kidney exchange program is a successful approach that does not harm any of the candidates on the deceased donor kidney waitlist. For optimal results, both ABO blood type incompatible and cross match positive pairs should participate.

Background. Considerable differences exist among the living donor Kidney Exchange Programmes (KEPs) that are in use and being built in Europe, contributing to a variation in the number of living donor transplants (Newsletter Transplant; International figures on donation and transplantation 2016). Efforts of European KEPs to exchange (best) practices and share approaches to address challenges have, however, been limited. Methods. Experts from 23 European countries, collaborating on the European Network for Collaboration on Kidney Exchange Programmes Cooperation on Science and Technology Action, developed a questionnaire to collect detailed information on the functioning of all existing KEPs in Europe, as well as their opportunities and challenges. Following a comparative analysis, results were synthesized and interpreted by the same experts. Results. The practices, opportunities and challenges reported by 17 European countries reveal that some of the 10 operating programs are mature, whereas others are in earlier stages of development. Over 1300 transplants were performed through existing KEPs up to the end of 2016, providing approximately 8% of their countries’ living kidney donations in 2015. All countries report challenges to either initiating KEPs or increasing volumes. Some challenges are shared, whereas others differ because of differences in context (eg, country size, effectiveness of deceased donor program) and ethical and legal considerations (eg, regarding living donation as such, nonrelated donors, and altruistic donation). Transnational initiatives have started in Central Europe, Scandinavia, and Southern Europe. Conclusions. Exchange of best practices and shared advancement of national programs to address existing challenges, aided by transnational exchanges, may substantially improve access to the most (cost) effective treatment for the increasing number of patients suffering from kidney disease.

The rapid emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented and poses an unparalleled obstacle in the sixty-five year history of organ transplantation. Worldwide, the delivery of transplant care is severely challenged by matters concerning-but not limited to-organ procurement, risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, screening strategies of donors and recipients, decisions to postpone or proceed with transplantation, the attributable risk of immunosuppression for COVID-19 and entrenched health care resources and capacity. The transplant community is faced with choosing a lesser of two evils: initiating immunosuppression and potentially accepting detrimental outcome when transplant recipients develop COVID-19 versus postponing transplantation and accepting associated waitlist mortality. Notably, prioritization of health care services for COVID-19 care raises concerns about allocation of resources to deliver care for transplant patients who might otherwise have excellent 1-year and 10-year survival rates. Children and young adults with end-stage organ disease in particular seem more disadvantaged by withholding transplantation because of capacity issues than from medical consequences of SARS-CoV-2. This report details the nationwide response of the Dutch transplant community to these issues and the immediate consequences for transplant activity. Worrisome, there was a significant decrease in organ donation numbers affecting all organ transplant services. In addition, there was a detrimental effect on transplantation numbers in children with end-organ failure. Ongoing efforts focus on mitigation of not only primary but also secondary harm of the pandemic and to find right definitions and momentum to restore the transplant programs.