Donors showed poor glucose control in the period between declaration of brain death and organ recovery. The level of hyperglycemia in the donors was associated with a decline in terminal renal function.
Objective—
To determine whether implementation of a quality improvement project improved glucose control and preserved renal function in deceased organ donors.
Methods—
Data collected retrospectively included demographics, medical history, mechanism of death, laboratory values, and data from the United Network for Organ Sharing.
Results—
After implementation of the quality improvement project, deceased donors had significantly lower mean glucose concentrations (mean [SD], 162 [44] vs 212 [42] mg/dL; P < .001) and prerecovery glucose concentration (143 [66] vs 241 [69] mg/dL; P < .001). When the donor cohorts from before and after the quality improvement project were analyzed together, mean glucose concentration remained a significant predictor of terminal creatinine level (P < .001). Multivariate analysis of delayed graft function in kidney recipients matched to donors indicated that higher terminal creatinine level was associated with delayed graft function in recipients (P < .001).
Conclusion—
The quality improvement project improved donor glucose homeostasis, and the data confirm that poor glucose homeostasis is associated with worsening terminal renal function.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CollinsAJFoleyRNChaversB. United States Renal Data System 2011 Annual Data Report: Atlas of chronic kidney disease & end-stage renal disease in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;59(1suppl 1):A7, e1–e420.
2.
CoreshJSelvinEStevensLA. Prevalence of chronic kidney disease in the United States. JAMA. 2007;298(17): 2038–2047.
3.
ChangGJMahantyHDAscherNLRobertsJP. Expanding the donor pool: can the Spanish model work in the United States?Am J Transplant. 2003;3(10):1259–1263.
4.
NathanHMConradSLHeldPJ. Organ donation in the United States. Am J Transplant. 2003;3(suppl 4):29–40.
5.
SaidiRFEliasNKawaiT. Outcome of kidney transplantation using expanded criteria donors and donation after cardiac death kidneys: realities and costs. Am J Transplant. 2007;7(12):2769–2774.
6.
PortFKBragg-GreshamJLMetzgerRA. Donor characteristics associated with reduced graft survival: an approach to expanding the pool of kidney donors. Transplantation. 2002;74(9):1281–1286.
7.
MetzgerRADelmonicoFLFengSPortFKWynnJJMerionRM. Expanded criteria donors for kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2003;3(suppl 4):114–125.
8.
FeldmanHIGaynerRBerlinJA. Delayed function reduces renal allograft survival independent of acute rejection. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1996;11(7):1306–1313.
9.
ShoskesDAHalloranPF. Delayed graft function in renal transplantation: etiology, management and long-term significance. J Urol. 1996;155(6):1831–1840.
10.
ShoskesDACeckaJM. Effect of delayed graft function on short- and long-term kidney graft survival. Clin Transpl. 1997:297–303.
11.
ShoskesDACeckaJM. Deleterious effects of delayed graft function in cadaveric renal transplant recipients independent of acute rejection. Transplantation. 1998;66(12):1697–1701.
12.
FreedlandSJShoskesDA. Economic impact of delayed graft function and suboptimal kidneys. Transplant Rev. 1999;13(1): 23–30.
13.
KyllonenLESalmelaKTEklundBH. Long-term results of 1047 cadaveric kidney transplantations with special emphasis on initial graft function and rejection. Transpl Int. 2000;13(2):122–128.
14.
HalloranPFHunsickerLG. Delayed graft function: state of the art, November 10–11, 2000. Summit meeting, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA. Am J Transplant. 2001;1(2):115–120.
15.
YarlagaddaSGCocaSGFormicaRNJrPoggioEDParikhCR. Association between delayed graft function and allograft and patient survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2009;24(3):1039–1047.
16.
IrishWDMcCollumDATesiRJ. Nomogram for predicting the likelihood of delayed graft function in adult cadaveric renal transplant recipients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2003;14(11): 2967–2974.
17.
IrishWDIlsleyJNSchnitzlerMAFengSBrennanDC. A risk prediction model for delayed graft function in the current era of deceased donor renal transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2010;10(10):2279–2286.
18.
PatelSJDuhartBTJrKraussAG. Risk factors and consequences of delayed graft function in deceased donor renal transplant patients receiving antithymocyte globulin induction. Transplantation. 2008;86(2):313–320.
19.
HiroseRXuFDangK. Transient hyperglycemia affects the extent of ischemia-reperfusion-induced renal injury in rats. Anesthesiology. 2008;108(3):402–414.
20.
van den BergheGWoutersPWeekersF. Intensive insulin therapy in the critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(19):1359–1367.
21.
KrinsleyJS. Effect of an intensive glucose management protocol on the mortality of critically ill adult patients. Mayo Clin Proc. 2004;79(8):992–1000.
22.
Van den BergheGWilmerAHermansG. Intensive insulin therapy in the medical ICU. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(5): 449–461.
23.
BrunkhorstFMEngelCBloosF. Intensive insulin therapy and pentastarch resuscitation in severe sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(2):125–139. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa070716.
24.
PreiserJCDevosPRuiz-SantanaS. A prospective randomised multi-centre controlled trial on tight glucose control by intensive insulin therapy in adult intensive care units: the Glucontrol study. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35(10):1738–1748. doi:10.1007/s00134-009-1585-2.
25.
NICE-SUGAR Study Investigators, FinferSChittockDRSuSY. Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1283–1297. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0810625.
26.
GriesdaleDEde SouzaRJvan DamRM. Intensive insulin therapy and mortality among critically ill patients: a meta-analysis including NICE-SUGAR study data. CMAJ. 2009;180(8):821–827. doi:10.1503/cmaj.090206.
27.
WienerRSWienerDCLarsonRJ. Benefits and risks of tight glucose control in critically ill adults: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008;300(8):933–944. doi:10.1001/jama.300.8.933.
28.
ThomasGRojasMCEpsteinSKBalkEMLiangosOJaberBL. Insulin therapy and acute kidney injury in critically ill patients a systematic review. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2007; 22(10):2849–2855.
29.
SchetzMVanhorebeekIWoutersPJWilmerAvan den BergheG. Tight blood glucose control is renoprotective in critically ill patients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;19(3):571–578. doi:10.1681/ASN.2006101091.
30.
WilsonMWeinrebJHooGW. Intensive insulin therapy in critical care: a review of 12 protocols. Diabetes Care. 2007; 30(4):1005–1011.
31.
FahyBGSheehyAMCoursinDB. Glucose control in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(5):1769–1776. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181a19ceb.
32.
IchaiCPreiserJC, Societe Francaise d'Anesthesie-Reanimation, Societe de Reanimation de langue Francaise, Experts group. International recommendations for glucose control in adult non diabetic critically ill patients. Crit Care. 2010; 14(5):R166. doi:10.1186/cc9258.
33.
Blasi-IbanezAHiroseRFeinerJ. Predictors associated with terminal renal function in deceased organ donors in the intensive care unit. Anesthesiology. 2009;110(2):333–341. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318194ca8a.
34.
MalinoskiDJDalyMCPatelMSOley-GraybillCFosterCE3rdSalimA. Achieving donor management goals before deceased donor procurement is associated with more organs transplanted per donor. J Trauma. 2011;71(4):990–995; discussion 996. doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e31822779e5.
35.
HaganMEMcCleanDFalconeCAArringtonJMatthewsDSummeC. Attaining specific donor management goals increases number of organs transplanted per donor: a quality improvement project. Prog Transplant. 2009;19(3):227–231.
36.
FranklinGASantosAPSmithJWGalbraithSHarbrechtBGGarrisonRN. Optimization of donor management goals yields increased organ use. Am Surg. 2010;76(6):587–594.
37.
BoronBFBoulpaepEL, eds. Medical Physiology. 2nd ed.Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 2009.
38.
OjoAOWolfeRAHeldPJPortFKSchmouderRL. Delayed graft function: risk factors and implications for renal allograft survival. Transplantation. 1997;63(7):968–974.
39.
McLarenAJJassemWGrayDWFuggleSVWelshKIMorrisPJ. Delayed graft function: risk factors and the relative effects of early function and acute rejection on long-term survival in cadaveric renal transplantation. Clin Transplant. 1999;13(3):266–272.
