Background: Organ donation (OD) remains the only therapeutic option for end-stage disease in some cases. Unfortunately, the gap between donors and recipients is still substantial. Trauma patients represent a potential yet underestimated pool of organ donors. In this article, we present our data on OD after damage control strategy (DCS). Materials and Methods: A retrospective, observational cohort study was conducted through a complete revision of data of consecutive adult trauma patients (>18 years old) who underwent OD after DCS between January 2018 and May 2021. Four subgroups were created [Liver (Li), Lungs (Lu), Heart (H), Kidneys (K)] to compare variables between those who donated the organ of interest and those who did not. Results: Thirty-six patients underwent OD after DCS. Six patients (16.7%) were excluded: 2(5.6%) for missing data about admission; 4(11.1%) didn’t receive DCS. Mean ISS was 47.2 (SD ± 17.4). Number of donated organs was 113 with an organs/patient ratio of 3.8. The functional response rate was 91.2%. Ten organs (8.8%) had primary nonfunction after transplantation: 2/15 hearts (13.3%), 1/28 livers (3.6%), 4/53 kidneys (7.5%) and 3/5 pancreases (60%). No lung primary nonfunction were registered. Complete results of subgroup analysis are reported in supplementary materials. Conclusion: Organ donation should be considered a possible outcome in any trauma patient. Aggressive damage control strategy doesn’t affect the functional response rate of transplanted organs.

No abstract

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the centralization of patients allowed trauma and transplants referral centers to continue their routine activity, ensuring the best access to health care. This study aims to analyze how the centralization of trauma is linked with liver allocation in Northern Italy. Methods: Cluster analysis was performed to generate patient phenotype according to trauma-related variables. Comparison between clusters was performed to evaluate differences in damage control strategy procedures (DCS) performed and the 30-day graft dysfunction. Results: During the pandemic period, the centralization of major trauma has deeply impaired the liver procurement and allocation between the transplant centers in the metropolitan area of Milan (Niguarda: 22 liver procurement; other transplant centers: 2 organ procurement). Two clusters were identified the in Niguarda’s series: cluster 1 is represented by 17 (27.4%) trauma donors, of which 13 (76.5%) were treated with DCS procedures, and 4 (23.5%) did not; cluster 2 is represented by 45 trauma donors (72.6%), of which 22 (48.8%) underwent DCS procedures. A significant difference was found in the number of DCS procedures performed between clusters (3.18 ± 2.255 vs. 1.11 ± 1.05, p = 0.0001). Comparative analysis did not significantly differ in the number of transplanted livers (cluster1/cluster2 94.1%/95.6% p = 0.84) and the 30-day graft dysfunction rate (cluster1/cluster2 0.0%/4.8% p = 0.34). Conclusions: The high level of care guaranteed by first-level trauma centers could reduce the loss of organs suitable for donation, maintaining the good outcomes of transplanted ones, even in case of multiple organ injuries. The pandemic period underlined that the centralization of major trauma impairs the liver allocation between transplant centers.