PurposeThere is, in European countries that conduct medical chart review of intensive care unit (ICU) deaths, no consensus on uniform criteria for defining a potential organ donor. Although the term is increasingly being used in recent literature, it is seldom defined in detail. We searched for criteria for determination of imminent brain death, which can be seen as a precursor for organ donation.MethodsWe organized meetings with representatives from the field of clinical neurology, neurotraumatology, intensive care medicine, transplantation medicine, clinical intensive care ethics, and organ procurement management. During these meetings, all possible criteria were discussed to identify a patient with a reasonable probability to become brain dead (imminent brain death). We focused on the practical usefulness of two validated coma scales (Glasgow Coma Scale and the FOUR Score), brain stem reflexes and respiration to define imminent brain death. Further we discussed criteria to determine irreversibility and futility in acute neurological conditions.ResultsA patient who fulfills the definition of imminent brain death is a mechanically ventilated deeply comatose patient, admitted to an ICU, with irreversible catastrophic brain damage of known origin. A condition of imminent brain death requires either a Glasgow Coma Score of 3 and the progressive absence of at least three out of six brain stem reflexes or a FOUR score of E0M0B0R0.ConclusionThe definition of imminent brain death can be used as a point of departure for potential heart-beating organ donor recognition on the intensive care unit or retrospective medical chart analysis.

This study showed that the maximal number of potential organ donors is about three times higher than the number of effective organ donors. The main reason accounting for approximately 60% of the potential donor losses was the high family refusal rate. The year 2007 showed that a higher percentage of deceased organ donors can be procured from the pool of potential donors. All improvements should focus on decreasing the unacceptably high family refusal rates.

Predicting time to death in controlled donation after circulatory death (cDCD) donors following withdrawal of life‐sustaining treatment (WLST) is important but poses a major challenge. The aim of this study is to determine factors predicting time to circulatory death within 60 minutes after WSLT and validate previously developed prediction models. In a single‐center retrospective study, we used the data of 92 potential cDCD donors. Multivariable regression analysis demonstrated that absent cough‐, corneal reflex, lower morphine dosage, and midazolam use were significantly associated with death within 60 minutes (area under the curve [AUC] 0.89; 95% confidenence interval [CI] 0.87‐0.91). External validation of the logistic regression models of de Groot et al (AUC 0.86; 95% CI 0.77‐0.95), Wind et al (AUC 0.62; 95% CI 0.49‐0.76), Davila et al (AUC 0.80; 95% CI 0.708‐0.901) and the Cox regression model by Suntharalingam et al (Harrell's c‐index 0.63), exhibited good discrimination and could fairly identify which patients died within 60 minutes. Previous prediction models did not incorporate the process of WLST. We believe that future studies should also include the process of WLST as an important predictor.

Summary The consent process for organ and tissue donation is complex, both for families and professionals. To help professionals in broaching this subject we performed a multicenter study. We compared family consent to donation in three hospitals between December 2007 and December 2009. In the intervention hospital, trained donation practitioners (TDP) guided 66 families throughout the time in the ICU until a decision regarding donation had been reached. In the first control hospital, without any family guidance or training, 107 families were approached. In the second control hospital ‘hostesses’, who were not trained in donation questions, supported 99 families during admittance. A total of 272 families were requested to donate. We primarily compared consent rates, but also asked families about their experiences through a questionnaire. Family consent rate was significantly higher in the intervention hospital: 57.6% (38/66), than in the control hospitals: 34.6% (37/107) and 39.4% (39/99). The 69% response rate to the questionnaire –∼5 months after death – showed no confounding variables that could have influenced the consent rate. Appointing TDPs in the intervention hospital to guide families during admittance and the donation decision‐making process, results in higher family consent rates.

Many patients with acute devastating brain injury die outside intensive care units and could go unrecognized as potential organ donors. We conducted a prospective observational study in seven hospitals in the Netherlands to define the number of unrecognized potential organ donors outside intensive care units, and to identify the effect that end-of-life care has on organ donor potential. Records of all patients who died between January 2013 and March 2014 were reviewed. Patients were included if they died within 72 h after hospital admission outside the intensive care unit due to devastating brain injury, and fulfilled the criteria for organ donation. Physicians of included patients were interviewed using a standardized questionnaire regarding logistics and medical decisions related to end-of-life care. Of the 5170 patients screened, we found 72 additional potential organ donors outside intensive care units. Initiation of end-of-life care in acute settings and lack of knowledge and experience in organ donation practices outside intensive care units can result in under-recognition of potential donors equivalent to 11-34% of the total pool of organ donors. Collaboration with the intensive care unit and adjusting the end-of-life path in these patients is required to increase the likelihood of organ donation.