ArticleTransplantation direct2025
Eligible DBD Donors Proceeding via the DCD Pathway: Incidence, Cause, and Outcomes in the United Kingdom.
Article in Transplantation direct, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning-Assisted FTIR Spectroscopy Analysis of Kidney Preservation Fluids for Delayed Graft Function Risk Stratification.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Rapid FTIR Spectral Fingerprinting of Kidney Allograft Perfusion Fluids Distinguishes DCD from DBD Donors: A Pilot Machine Learning Study.Metabolites · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Eligible donation after brain death (DBD) donors may rarely proceed via the donation after circulatory death (DCD) pathway. The incidence, reasons for pathway divergence, and graft and recipient outcomes in the United Kingdom of this cohort are unknown. We aimed to establish the incidence of eligible DBD to DCD donors in the United Kingdom, the reasons for pathway divergence, organ donation and utilization rates, and the renal graft and recipient outcomes for this cohort. Methods: UK electronic and article records were reviewed for all eligible DBD donors proceeding via the DCD pathway from 2012 to 2022. Incidence and stated reasons for pathway divergence, including direct family quotations and time to mechanical asystole, were recorded. These data, in addition to organ donation and utilization rates and those pertaining to renal graft and recipient survival rates, were compared with "standard DCD" and "standard DBD" control groups. Results: One hundred twenty-three eligible DBD donors proceeded via the DCD pathway, overwhelmingly due to a familial desire to be present at mechanical asystole. Median time to asystole was comparable between the cohort and DCD control groups, but the range of times was considerably shorter in the cohort group. Donation and utilization rates were similar between all groups except for the notably lower rates in liver donation for DCD control. Graft and recipient survival rates were similar for all groups, but there was a nonsignificant reduction in delayed graft function (DGF) for the cohort versus DCD control and a significant reduction in DGF for the DBD versus DCD control groups. Conclusions: Eligible DBD donors proceeding via the DCD pathway is a rare event in the United Kingdom and overwhelmingly occurs due to a familial desire to witness asystole. This cohort proceeded to asystole more reliably within acceptable time periods for donation, have higher donation and utilization rates for liver grafts, and may show reduced rates of DGF for renal grafts versus "standard DCD" groups.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.