Single‐centre experience of donation after cardiac death

Coulson, Tim G; Pilcher, David; Graham, S.; Snell, Gregory I; Levvey, Bronwyn; Philpot, Steve; Teo, Alvin; Davies, Andrew R.

doi:10.5694/mja11.11028

Cited by 17 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If implemented more widely, DCD will not only expand the donor pool, but will also fulfil the wishes of the many potential donors and their families. Our experience 2 and that of Coulson and colleagues 1 highlight how DCD programs can be successfully implemented in an appropriately resourced institution.…”

mentioning

confidence: 86%

“…T o the Editor: We congratulate Coulson and colleagues for sharing their single‐centre experience of donation after cardiac death (DCD) 1 . Our recently published Queensland DCD data 2 reflect their experience and highlight the efficacy of DCD in augmenting the pool of donors with organs available for transplantation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They reported that brain death occurred in four patients while being considered for DCD. These patients provided 17 of a total of 62 organs 1 . In the absence of an institutional DCD service, these patients were unlikely to have donated, as they were likely to have been given palliative care after withdrawal of cardiorespiratory support (WCRS).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clinicians may find the process of DCD more challenging, as it involves active WCRS based on the futility of ongoing care to facilitate organ donation, as opposed to DBrD which is essentially a consideration once a patient has died. Coulson and colleagues describe a case in which a patient being considered for DCD returned to reasonable functional survival 1 . Such occurrences within a small group of patients may justify some apprehension about DCD.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Single‐centre experience of donation after cardiac death

Kumar

Shekar²

2013

Medical Journal of Australia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 86%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Single‐centre experience of donation after cardiac death

Kumar

Shekar²

2013

Medical Journal of Australia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In reply: The Alfred Hospital's donation after cardiac death (DCD) program was developed in full knowledge of ethical concerns such as those raised by Kennedy and Kennedy. All are covered under “DCD guideline development and implementation” in the methods section of our article 1 . Specifically, no patient was denied a chance of survival, because all would have undergone withdrawal of cardiorespiratory support even if donation were not considered.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Single‐centre experience of donation after cardiac death

Coulson

Pilcher

2013

Medical Journal of Australia

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Musculoskeletal conditions are the leading contributors to disability burden globally and account for 27.4% of total disability burden in Australia. Timely research that addresses important questions relevant to consumers, clinicians and policymakers is critical for reducing the burden associated with these conditions. Clinical trials are particularly important for providing information about whether interventions are effective and safe. They are also needed to test strategies for reducing the sizeable delays in translating evidence into practice. A review of the current scope of musculoskeletal clinical trials in Australia found that National Health and Medical Research Council funding is disproportionally low compared with the burden of these conditions (averaging 5.8 new trials per year through the project grant scheme over the past 5 years, representing 0.8% of all project grants and funding, and 5% of NHMRC clinical trial funding). In the past 2 years, 128 Australian‐initiated trials were registered in a trial registry, while about one in 20 randomised trials published in 37 leading general medical and musculoskeletal‐specific journals was initiated in Australia. None were implementation trials. Relative to the burden of musculoskeletal conditions in Australia, investment in clinical trials is not ideal. While Australian musculoskeletal trialists are productive and internationally competitive, we may not be addressing the most critical issues. There is an urgent need for Australian researchers, clinicians, policymakers and consumers to work collaboratively to prioritise the most important questions, secure appropriate research funding, and undertake well designed trials to ensure we deliver best evidence‐informed care and optimal outcomes for people with musculoskeletal conditions.

show abstract