SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • Allograft function;
  • brain death;
  • cardiac allograft;
  • cardiac transplant;
  • cohort study;
  • donor evaluation;
  • donor management;
  • donor outcomes;
  • genetic polymorphism;
  • genotyping

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. Disclosure
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information

Prior studies have demonstrated associations between beta-adrenergic receptor (βAR) polymorphisms and left ventricular dysfunction—an important cause of allograft nonutilization for transplantation. We hypothesized that βAR polymorphisms predispose donor hearts to LV dysfunction after brain death. A total of 1043 organ donors managed from 2001–2006 were initially studied. The following βAR single nucleotide polymorphisms were genotyped: β1AR 1165C/G (Arg389Gly), β1AR 145A/G (Ser49Gly), β2AR 46G/A (Gly16Arg) and β2AR 79C/G (Gln27Glu). In multivariable regression analyses, the β2AR46 SNP was significantly associated with LV systolic dysfunction, with each minor allele additively decreasing the odds for LV ejection fraction <50%. The β1AR1165 and β2AR46 SNPs were associated with higher dopamine requirement during the donor management period: donors with the GG and AA genotypes had ORs of 2.64 (95% CI 1.52–4.57) and 2.70 (1.07–2.74) respectively for requiring >10 μg/kg/min of dopamine compared to those with the CC and GG genotypes. However, no significant associations were found between βAR SNPs and cardiac dysfunction in 364 donors managed from 2007–2008, perhaps due to changes in donor management, lack of power in this validation cohort, or the absence of a true association. βAR polymorphisms may be associated with cardiac dysfunction after brain death, but these relationships require further study in independent donor cohorts.


Abbreviations: 
βAR

beta-adrenergic receptor

CTDN

California Transplant Donor Network

HWE

Hardy Weinberg Equilibrium

LV

left ventricular

LVEF

left ventricular ejection fraction

RWMA

regional wall motion abnormalities

SNP

single nucleotide polymorphism

Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. Disclosure
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information

Left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction has been well described in the setting of brain death (1), and is likely a multifactorial process resulting from activation of the sympathetic nervous system, diffuse loss of vasomotor tone, endothelial dysfunction, and hormone depletion (2,3). Classic baboon studies have demonstrated that the initial Cushing reaction that accompanies brainstem herniation results in direct myocardial injury. Within minutes after brain death, an “autonomic storm” occurs (4) in which serum epinephrine levels increase by 1100%, norepinephrine by 300% and dopamine by 200% (5,6). Endomyocardial biopsy specimens have shown contraction band necrosis—histologic evidence of microinfarction secondary to catecholamine-mediated calcium overload. This initial period of heightened sympathetic activity may then be followed by a period of parasympathetic dominance characterized by reduced catecholamine sensitivity (7).

It is unknown why only a subgroup of people develops LV dysfunction after brain death. This phenomenon, however, appears to affect acceptance of allografts for cardiac transplantation, leading to refusal of donor organs in approximately 25% of cases (8), even for organs from young, otherwise healthy donors (4). The beta-adrenergic receptors (βAR) are major mediators of catecholamine effects on the heart, and βAR polymorphism genotypes are associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes in the general population (9–14). We hypothesized that specific βAR polymorphism genotypes increase cardiac sensitivity to circulating catecholamines in the setting of brain death, and are therefore associated with a higher prevalence of LV dysfunction in potential organ donors for cardiac transplantation.

Materials and Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. Disclosure
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information

Subjects

This is a retrospective genetics study utilizing a cohort of 2048 consecutive organ donors managed by the California Transplant Donor Network (CTDN, Oakland, CA) from 2001–2008. The inclusion criteria included availability of stored DNA samples from brain dead organ donors and consent for at least one organ to be donated (n = 1624). Our discovery cohort was comprised of 1043 donors managed from 2001–2006; we then studied an additional 364 donors managed from 2007–2008 as a validation cohort, recognizing that changes in donor management protocols had been implemented after 2006. CTDN is the largest organ procurement agency in Northern California and supplies donor organs mainly to transplant centers in northern and central California and occasionally to neighboring states. Potential brain dead organ donors were identified by treating physicians at hospitals throughout the region, and consent for organ donation was obtained from family members or next-of-kin. Management of the organ donor was subsequently assumed by CTDN staff, and consent was obtained from the donor's family to collect patient data and biological samples. This study was approved by CTDN, the Committee on Human Research at the University of California San Francisco, and by the Research Compliance Office at Stanford University.

Measurement of phenotypic and echocardiographic parameters

Upon assumption of donor management, comprehensive data on donor-level variables were recorded by CTDN staff in a standardized fashion, including demographic variables, cause of death, health-related behaviors and past medical history. Data on comprehensive laboratory testing were also recorded, including serologies; hematologic, hepatic and renal function indices; and cardiac troponin assays. Standard testing for potential donors who were not immediately ruled-out for cardiac graft donation (due to known coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous stents or bypass surgery, prior cardiac valve surgery, age > 65 years, lack of consent for donation or coroner exclusion) included an electrocardiogram; one or more echocardiograms; and a coronary angiogram for male donors over 40 years and female donors over 45 years. All cardiac testing was performed and interpreted at the donor hospital and results were recorded by CTDN personnel. Data on vital signs, invasive hemodynamics and medications were also recorded.

Donor data were extracted from the medical records and were entered into the study database by three CTDN study investigators (V.H., R.L.M. and J.N.) who were blinded to outcomes. A subsequent quality-assessment review of 5% of the medical records was performed (K.K., J.Z., R.L.M.), reviewing 177 fields per donor chart and demonstrated 97% accuracy of data collection.

Polymorphism selection and genotyping

Four βAR polymorphisms previously reported to be functionally significant were chosen for analysis (Table 1). The uncommon β2AR 491C/T (Thr164Ile) SNP was also genotyped, but was not chosen for analysis due to the very low frequency of the T allele (1.7%) at this locus. Genomic DNA was isolated from the blood or spleen of deceased donors using the salting out method or commercial product (QIAmp DNA kits, Valencia, CA, USA) at the Immunogenetics and Transplantation Laboratory at the University of California, San Francisco. Polymorphisms were genotyped by template-directed dye-terminator incorporation assay with fluorescence polarization detection (FP–TDI), using the AcycloPrime-FP kit (Perkin-Elmer, Waltham, MA, USA) (15), as previously described (14). β1AR 1165C/G (Arg389Gly) was genotyped using the TaqMan SNP Genotyping Assay (Applied Biosystems [Foster City, CA, USA], Assay ID: C_8898494_10) per the manufacturer's protocol. Positive (duplicates) and negative controls were included in all plates. The genotyping call rates were as follows: β1AR 1165 = 98.7%, β1AR 145 = 93.7%, β2AR 46 = 95.3%, β2AR 79 = 96.9%. Genotyping was performed by investigators blinded to clinical variables.

Table 1.  Rationale for polymorphism selection
GeneVariantdbSNP IDFunctional rationaleClinical rationaleRefs.
  1. AMI, acute myocardial infarction; HF, heart failure; CAD, coronary artery disease.

β1AR (ADRB1)1165 C > Grs 1801252C allele:[UPWARDS ARROW] response toCC genotype associated with(11, 13, 21)
 (Arg 389Gly) β-agonist stimulation[UPWARDS ARROW] risk of AMI 
    CC genotype associated with 
    [UPWARDS ARROW] risk of HF 
 145 A > Grs1801253G allele: [DOWNWARDS ARROW] response toGG or AG genotype associated(22, 28)
 (Ser49Gly) β-agonist stimulationwith improved survival in HF 
β2AR (ARDB2)46 G > Ars1042713G allele: alters agonist-promotedGG genotype associated with(9, 10, 12)
 (Gly16Arg) downregulation[UPWARDS ARROW] left ventricular ejection fraction 
 79 C > Grs1042714G allele: alters agonist-promotedCC genotype associated with(9, 10, 12, 18)
 Gln27Glu downregulation[UPWARDS ARROW] risk of CAD events 

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed with R (version 2.13). The primary outcome variable in this study was donor LV ejection fraction (LVEF), which was treated as a dichotomous variable (LVEF < or ≥ 50%). Secondary outcome variables included any LV regional wall motion abnormalities (RWMA) and maximum dopamine requirement during the donor management period (≤ or >10 μg/kg/min). The threshold values for dichotomization of LVEF and dopamine requirement were determined a priori, based on the collective clinical experience of the study investigators with respect to donor management and organ allocation (8,16,17). Each polymorphism was tested for Hardy Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) by χ2 test within each of the four main racial/ethnic groups (Caucasian, African American, Hispanic and Asian). A racial group was dropped from analysis for that SNP if the HWE p value was less than 0.001.

Multivariable logistic regression models were fit to estimate the association between the polymorphisms in each gene and the outcome of interest. Genotypes were coded as additive effects (0–1-2) with each level indicating the presence of an additional minor allele. Models were adjusted for donor age, sex, race (treated as a categorical variable, with Caucasians as the reference group) and cause of death (dichotomized into death due to intracranial hemorrhage/stroke versus all other causes). Interactions between SNPs in the same gene were also explored. Individuals with missing covariates or genotypes were dropped from the analysis. Sensitivity analyses were then performed, restricting the cohort to the largest racial-ethnic subgroup (Caucasians), to investigate potential population stratification effects.

For those genes and outcomes that passed the nominal significance threshold in the additive model (p < 0.05), we also present results from a codominant model treating genotypes as a categorical variable to allow for nonlinear effects and to further explore the patterns of association (Table S1). This strategy is analogous to performing an ANOVA and then follow-up t-tests only if the overall association is significant. No correction for multiple testing was performed.

The above-described models were initially fit for donors managed by CTDN from 2001 to 2006. We then refit the models for donors managed from 2007 to 2008 as a validation cohort. Finally, we calculated our power to replicate associations in the validation cohort empirically, assuming an alpha level of 0.05 and 10 000 simulations using the effect estimates, along with the upper and lower boundaries of their 95% confidence intervals.

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. Disclosure
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information

Subjects

A total of 1407 of the 2048 potential organ donors managed by CTDN from 2001 to 2008 had stored DNA and complete genotyping available for analysis and defined the two study cohorts: a discovery cohort of 1043 donors from 2001 to 2006 and a validation cohort of 364 donors managed in 2007 and 2008. Eight hundred ninety-four donors (75%) in the discovery cohort and 288 (67%) in the validation cohort had an echocardiogram. Donor characteristics, by cohort, are summarized in Table 2. Median values and the associated interquartile ranges (IQR) are shown for continuous variables and percentages for dichotomous variables. Note that p values were calculated by Wilcoxon rank-sum and χ2 tests, respectively. Differences in donor management protocols between the two study cohorts included use of higher doses of phenylephrine and corticosteroids, and greater use of thyroid hormone in the latter cohort. The clinical characteristics of the genetics study cohorts did not differ significantly from the entire CTDN donor cohort (data not shown).

Table 2.  Donor characteristics, by study cohort
 Discovery cohort 2001–2006Validation cohort 2007–2008p-Value*
  1. ALT = alanine aminotransferase; AST = aspartate aminotransferase; CPK-MB = creatine phosphokinase, myocardial fraction; EF = ejection fraction; LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction.

  2. *Wilcoxon Test for continuous variables (median with interquartile range), χ2 test for categorical variables.

  3. 1Defined as septal or posterior wall thickness > 1.1 cm.

Donors, n1043364 
 Age (years)42 (24, 52)41 (25.5, 51)0.85
 Female41%37%0.13
 Body mass index (kg/m2)25.5 (22.2, 29.4)26.4 (23.0, 30.7)0.0025
Race/ethnicity  0.9300
 Caucasian55%53% 
 African American10%11% 
 Hispanic25%26% 
 Asian 8% 8% 
 Other 2% 2% 
Cause of death  <0.0001
 Anoxia11%19% 
 Cerebrovascular Accident/stroke48%42% 
 Head trauma40%38% 
 CNS0.3%0.5% 
 Other0.6%0.5% 
Medical history   
 Hypertension28%30%0.16
 Diabetes 7%11%0.01
 Smoking51%52%0.35
 History of coronary artery disease 4% 6%0.32
 Drug use (cocaine, methamphetamines, inhaled drugs)41%38%0.41
Hemodynamics
 Peak heart rate (bpm)124 (110, 137)122 (110, 136)0.12
 Final heart rate (bpm)100 (90, 111)100 (88, 110)0.11
 Peak systolic blood pressure (mmHg)157 (144, 178)161 (149, 180)0.01
 Final systolic blood pressure (mmHg)124 (110, 139)125 (114, 139)0.10
 Peak diastolic blood pressure (mmHg)90 (78, 100)89 (76, 100)0.97
 Final diastolic blood pressure (mmHg)68 (60, 77)69 (60, 76)0.52
 Peak central venous pressure (mmHg)11 (9, 13)12 (10, 15)<0.001
 Final central venous pressure (mmHg)7 (6, 9)9 (7, 10)<0.001
Laboratory values
 Peak sodium (mmol/L)153 (148, 160)155 (149, 161)0.0007
 Peak creatinine (mg/dL)1.3 (1.0, 1.6)1.4 (1.1, 2.0)<0.001
 Peak ALT (U/L)44 (28, 84)59 (36, 133.5)<0.001
 Peak AST (U/L)66 (40, 128)82 (46, 204.5)<0.001
 Lowest hemoglobin (g/dL)9.8 (8.4, 11.6)9.1 (8.1, 10.7)<0.001
 Peak troponin (ng/mL)0.38 (0.10, 1.84)0.29 (0.05, 1.69)0.04
 Peak CPK-MB (ng/mL)1.6 (0.8, 3.1)0.07 (0.04, 1.3)0.12
Echocardiogram
 Echocardiogram performed, %76%71.0% 0.06
 Median LVEF, %65 (57, 70)64 (55, 70)0.07
 EF < 50%, %11%15%%0.05
 Regional wall motion abnormalities, %20%20%0.96
 Left ventricular hypertrophy1, %11%9%%0.35
Vasoactive medications
 Dopamine (%)83%65%<0.001
 Peak dopamine dose, μg/kg/min5.2 (3.0, 10.0)5.0 (3.9, 8.8)0.87
 Peak dopamine > 10 μg/kg/min, %18%14%0.18
 Phenylephrine (%)74%78%0.13
 Peak phenylephrine dose, μg/min67 (8, 140)109 (50, 200)<0.0001
 Epinephrine (%) 6% 7%0.57
 Esmolol (%)17%17%0.99
Hormone replacement
 Steroids98%95%0.0012
 Solumedrol dose over 24 h (g)2.0 (1.0, 2.0)3.0 (2.0, 3.0)<0.0001
 Thyroid hormone (T4), %14%54%<0.0001
Cardiac allograft acceptance for transplantation47%39%0.0062

Genotype frequencies of the four adrenergic receptor polymorphisms, by cohort and racial group, are shown in Table 3. Genotype distributions differed across the racial groups but were consistent with HWE within racial groups, except for the β2AR79 SNP in African Americans in the validation cohort (2007–2008 donors, p < 0.0003); this group was dropped from further analysis. Within each racial group, genotype frequencies were similar across the two study cohorts.

Table 3.  Beta-adrenergic receptor polymorphism genotype frequency, by study cohort and race
βAR receptor polymorphismDiscovery cohort 2001–2006Validation cohort 2007–2008
OverallCaucasianHispanicAfrican AmericanAsianOverallCaucasianHispanicAfrican AmericanAsian
β1AR 1165 (Arg389Gly)
 CC59%56%70%44%61%63%63%73%39%61%
 CG34%37%25%42%32%32%33%24%41%36%
 GG7%7%5%14%7%6%5%3%20%3%
β1AR 145 (Ser49Gly)
 AA71%78%56%63%74%67%77%46%64%71%
 AG25%20%35%29%21%28%22%45%26%21%
 GG4%1%9%8%5%5%1%10%10%9%
β2AR 46 (Gly16Arg)
 GG36%39%36%25%27%40%40%37%43%27%
 AG46%45%47%54%45%38%39%40%36%39%
 AA18%15%18%21%28%22%21%24%21%33%
β2AR 79 (Gln27Glu)
 CC50%37%63%66%69%50%35%65%64%73%
 CG38%43%32%29%29%37%48%27%18%20%
 GG13%20%5%5%2%14%17%8%18%7%

Association of adrenergic receptor genotypes with outcomes

Table 4 summarizes associations between specific βAR genotypes and cardiac outcomes, by study cohort. No significant interactions were identified between SNPs in the same gene or across genes.

Table 4.  Associations between beta-adrenergic receptor polymorphisms and cardiac allograft dysfunction, by study cohort
 Discovery cohort 2001–2006Validation cohort 2007–2008
OR (95% CI)p-ValueOR (95% CI)p-Value
  1. LV = left ventricular.

  2. Multivariable regression models assuming additivity in minor allele adjusted for donor age, sex, race, cause of death and the other polymorphism (SNP) within the same gene.

  3. The point estimate is the odds ratio for each additional minor allele.

LV ejection fraction < 50%N = 778N = 249
 β1AR 1165G1.14 (0.77–1.71)0.511.04 (0.55–1.95)0.91
 β1AR 145G1.04 (0.65–1.66)0.862.00 (0.86–4.70)0.11
 β2AR 46A0.60 (0.40, 0.89)0.0121.68 (0.89–3.17)0.11
 β2AR 79G1.04 (0.67 – 1.63)0.861.17 (0.63–2.19)0.62
LV regional wall motion abnormalitiesN = 776N = 261
 β1AR 1165G0.72 (0.53–0.99)0.0460.86 (0.48–1.51)0.59
 β1AR 145G0.92 (0.65–1.30)0.640.75 (0.39–1.44)0.38
 β2AR 46A1.06 (0.78–1.43)0.711.03 (0.60–1.77)0.90
 β2AR 79G0.73 (0.53–1.02)0.061.22 (0.71–2.10)0.48
Peak dopamine > 10 μg/kg/minN = 977N = 234
 β1AR 1165G1.37 (1.05–1.78)0.0200.45 (0.19–1.07)0.07
 β1AR 145G0.80 (0.57–1.14)0.230.87 (0.42–1.82)0.72
 β2AR 46A1.39 (1.04–1.85)0.0261.03 (0.56–1.89)0.92
 β2AR 79G1.15 (0.85–1.57)0.361.21 (0.63–2.33)0.57

Discovery cohort: 2001–2006 donors

LV ejection fraction:  Seven hundred and seventy-eight donors had an echocardiogram that included measurement of LVEF and complete covariate information. The median LVEF was 65%, with 10% of donors having an LVEF less than 50%. Figures 1 and 2 show boxplots for the β1AR and β2AR genotypes. Donors who were homozygous for the minor G allele for both β1AR SNPs had lower LVEF compared to heterozygotes and major allele homozygous groups. Similarly, for the β2AR46 SNP, the AA genotype group had a lower median LVEF than heterozygotes or major allele homozygous groups. Conversely, for the β2AR79 SNP, the CC genotype group had a lower median LVEF than heterozygotes or minor allele homozygous groups.

image

Figure 1. LV ejection fraction, by β1-adrenergic receptor genotypes, in CTDN donors (2001–2006 cohort).

Download figure to PowerPoint

image

Figure 2. LV ejection fraction, by β2-adrenergic receptor genotypes, in CTDN donors (2001–2006 cohort).

Download figure to PowerPoint

In multivariable analysis, the β2AR46 SNP was significantly associated with donor LV systolic dysfunction, defined as having LVEF < 50%, after adjusting for the effects of age, sex, race and cause of death. Assuming an additive model, each additional minor allele A of β2AR46 (Gly16Arg) decreased the odds of LVEF < 50% by 40% (p = 0.012, Table 4). Figure 3A shows the results of the codominant model for each of the β2AR SNPs (without the presence of the other). Compared to the β2AR46 GG genotype group, the odds ratio (OR) for LVEF < 50% was 0.45 (95% CI 0.25–0.80) for the AG genotype and 0.34 (95% CI 0.17–0.67) for the AA genotype group, consistent with an additive genetic model. The β2AR79 (Gln27Glu) SNP also suggests an additive relationship with LV dysfunction, with ORs for the CG and GG alleles being 1.42 (95% CI 0.85–2.35) and 2.07 (95% CI 0.88–4.89), though this association is not significant in the presence of the β2AR46 SNP (Table 4). The β1AR SNPs did not show a significant association with LVEF. Restricting the cohort to Caucasians yielded similar results (Table S2).

image

Figure 3. Odds ratio for (A) LV ejection fraction <50%, (B) LV regional wall motion abnormalities and (C) peak dopamine requirement >10 μg/kg/min, by donor β-adrenergic receptor genotype in CTDN donors (2001-2006 cohort).

Download figure to PowerPoint

LV regional wall motion abnormalities:  Seven hundred and seventy-six donors had echocardiograms with RWMA data as well as complete covariate information. Twenty percent of donors exhibited LV RWMA. The β1AR1165 SNP (p < 0.05) showed a marginal association with each minor allele associated with a 28% decrease in the odds of having RWMA (p = 0.046, Table 4). Figure 3B shows that the association of β1AR1165 genotypes and RWMA follows an additive model whereas a dominant model might be a better fit for the β2AR79 SNP, as one additional minor allele has the same protective effect as having both alleles.

Peak dopamine requirement:  Dopamine dosing and complete covariate information was available for 977 donors. The median maximum dopamine dose required during the donor management period was 5.2 (IQR: 3.0, 10.0) μg/kg/min. A donor dopamine requirement of >10 μg/kg/min is often considered a contraindication for cardiac allograft acceptance for transplantation, and 18% of donors managed from 2001–2006 exhibited this high dopamine requirement. SNPs from both β1AR and β2AR genes showed significant association with peak dopamine dose (Table 4). Compared to the β1AR 1165CC genotype, the GG genotype group shows a significant association with peak dopamine dose > 10 μg/kg/min (OR = 2.63 [95% CI 1.51–4.57]), while the CG genotype was not associated (OR = 1.12 [95% CI 0.78–1.62]), suggestive a recessive model. The β2AR46 SNP also shows a recessive effect, with the AA (but not GA) genotype significantly associated with peak dopamine requirement (OR = 2.63 [95% CI 1.51–4.57]) compared to the GG genotype group.

Validation cohort: 2007–2008 donors

After 2006, significant staffing changes occurred at CTDN, including the hiring of many new coordinators responsible for donor management. Several major changes in donor management strategies ensued. Donors in this latter cohort had a higher incidence of LV dysfunction, higher peak central venous pressure, worse renal and hepatic function and lower rates of cardiac allograft acceptance for transplantation (Table 2).

No significant associations were found between βAR polymorphisms and cardiac allograft function in the 2007–2008 cohort (Table 4). A full model including donors from all years showed a significant interaction between the cohort and the SNPs significantly associated with outcome in the 2001–2006 cohort. To investigate whether specific changes in donor management strategies may have accounted for the lack of replication found in the latter cohort, we constructed additional multivariable regression models adjusting for inotrope/vasopressor doses, doses of steroid and thyroid hormone and hemodynamic differences, among other relevant covariates. We also tested for interactions between the individual βAR polymorphisms and medications administered. Neither strategy accounted for the lack of replication in this validation cohort. Post hoc power estimates for the replication of the five significant associations observed in the discovery cohort ranged from 20% to 36%, below the standard 80% threshold for type II error (Table S3).

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. Disclosure
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information

In our discovery cohort of 1043 organ donors managed between 2001 and 2006, we identified several significant associations between βAR polymorphisms and the presence of LV dysfunction after brain death. Specifically, genotypes known to be associated with increased sensitivity to circulating catecholamines were associated with a higher risk of LV dysfunction during the donor management period.

The βARs are located at the cell membrane of cardiomyocytes and mediate the effects of circulating catecholamines (18). The β1-AR is the predominant βAR expressed on the cardiomyocyte and is responsive to circulating epinephrine and to local norepinephrine derived from cardiac sympathetic nerves (13). In rodents, transgenic cardiac overexpression of β1-ARs causes progressive cardiomyopathy and heart failure (19,20). We therefore considered the β1AR 1165C/G (Arg389Gly) and 145A/G (Ser49Gly) polymorphisms as potential risk factors for donor LV dysfunction, as they affect the sensitivity and response of β1-ARs to circulating catecholamines (21,22), which are present at very high levels early after brain death (5,23). Similarly, the β2-ARs are also present in human myocardium, as well as in vascular smooth muscle beds. Stimulation of β2-ARs mediates cardiac inotropic and chronotropic effects (24), induces cardiomyocyte apoptosis (25) and causes vascular smooth muscle relaxation and vasodilation in response to sympathetic tone (26). We therefore evaluated the associations between the β2-AR polymorphisms 46A/G (Gly16Arg) and 79C/G (Gln27Glu) and cardiac injury after brain death. These polymorphisms in the β1- and β2-ARs are well studied and have previously been associated with altered response to sympathetic stimulation (27), resting heart rate (22), risk of coronary events (10), arrhythmias (12), vascular reactivity (9) and survival in patients with heart failure (28).

The initial “catecholamine storm” (23) that occurs after brain death is often followed by a period of functional denervation, during which there is a dominance of vagal parasympathetic or inhibitory effects (7). This theory is supported by the observed excessive activity of the inhibitory G protein Giα in brain-dead organ donors with LV dysfunction (29). These dramatic physiologic changes after brain death may mediate the relationship between the “catecholamine insensitive”β1AR 1165GG genotype and high dopamine requirements during the subsequent donor management period.

Our initial provocative findings were then studied in a second cohort of organ donors managed between 2007 and 2008. The original study findings did not replicate in the latter cohort, and there are several potential explanations for this discrepancy. First, as discussed previously, changes in staffing and donor management strategies may have masked the influence of βAR genetic variation on allograft function. For example, significantly, fewer donors in the 2007–2008 cohort were treated with dopamine (a β-receptor agonist), and higher doses of phenylephrine (an α-receptor agonist) were used. This change in inotrope/vasopressor support during donor management may have overshadowed the role of βAR signaling on cardiac function. In addition, there was a dramatic increase in the use of thyroid hormone supplementation between the 2001–2006 cohort (14%) and the 2007–2008 cohort (54%). As thyroid hormone can increase cardiac contractility, this strategic change in donor management could have also masked the relationship seen between βAR genotype and cardiac function in our discovery cohort. Second, there were notable differences in laboratory values, hemodynamics and allograft function, suggesting that the 2007–2008 cohort was comprised of a “sicker” donor population. This observation may account for the decrease in allograft acceptance for transplantation in the latter cohort. Third, it is possible that unrecognized or unmeasured differences between study cohorts may have accounted for lack of replication. Finally, the smaller sample size in the second cohort (364 vs. 1043 donors) impacted the power to replicate our initial findings (20–36%). Thus, it is possible that our initial findings may have been false positive results, or may represent true associations, but our study was underpowered to replicate.

Understanding the pathophysiology of LV dysfunction after brain death plays a crucial role in the graft selection process for heart transplantation. Currently, approximately 60% of available cardiac grafts are discarded due to stringent acceptance criteria (17), leading to a great discrepancy between the number of critically ill patients on the waiting list compared to the number of available grafts for transplantation (30). Although nonutilization of donor hearts is a multifactorial problem, encompassing diverse donor characteristics and logistical issues, LV dysfunction is the most frequently cited reason for nonutilization (8,31). LV dysfunction in a cardiac donor raises the specter of irreversible cardiac injury, which may lead to clinically significant graft dysfunction and graft failure in the transplant recipient. However, animal and human studies now support the hypothesis that catecholamine toxicity plays a central role in reducing myocardial contractility after brain death (29,32) and that cardiac dysfunction is often reversible in organ donors (16). Supporting this hypothesis are our discovery cohort findings of significant associations between βAR polymorphisms that mediate myocardial catecholamine sensitivity and LV dysfunction after brain death. Similarly, many transplant centers consider an allograft to be unsuitable if inotrope requirements are high during the donor management period. Our results suggest that high inotrope requirements may be associated with βAR genotypes that confer insensitivity to circulating catecholamines.

This study has significant strengths and limitations that deserve discussion. First and foremost, this represents the largest existing research database of detailed, rigorously adjudicated clinical and genetic data on over 1400 potential organ donors managed in the current era. Second, this study represents a unique approach to the study of genetic influences in organ transplantation. We chose to study candidate gene polymorphisms in organ donors, and their influences on allograft function. Most genetic studies to-date in organ transplantation have examined associations between recipient genetic variation and posttransplant outcomes. Finally, we studied functional βAR polymorphisms that were previously shown to be associated with adverse cardiac outcomes in the general population as a means to study the pathogenesis of cardiac dysfunction after brain death, utilizing a very unique organ donor population. Limitations of this study include nonreplication of initial findings in the validation cohort, which we were unable to account for by adjusting for recognized (and measurable) differences in donor management strategies during the study period. This is further exacerbated by the fact that donors were managed at a variety of local hospitals that may have had different medical management strategies before assumption of donor management by CTDN staff. Furthermore, characteristics and outcomes of donors managed by CTDN may not be equivalent to donor outcomes in other regions of the country, due to nationwide variations in donor management strategies. We also recognize the possible influence of uncontrolled confounding or population admixture on our genetic analyses. Although we did see consistent results when repeating our analyses in the subpopulation of Caucasian donors, subtle population substructure may still be present within this racial group. Finally, complete phenotypic data could not be obtained for every donor, due to the retrospective nature of the data collection.

In conclusion, βAR polymorphisms may contribute to the development of cardiac dysfunction after brain death. Although we initially identified several compelling associations between the βAR SNPs of interest and cardiac function, our findings did not replicate in the validation cohort and there are several potential explanations for these discrepant results, as described earlier. Additional studies are therefore needed to examine the influence of donor genetic variants on posttransplant outcomes, and to assess for interactions between donor and recipient genetic modifiers in organ transplantation.

Acknowledgments

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. Disclosure
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information

We thank the California Transplant Donor Network for access to the donor data required for this study.

Funding sources: This study was supported by grants from the American Heart Association (0865249F) and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K23HL091143).

Disclosure

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. Disclosure
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information

The authors of this manuscript have no conflicts of interest to disclose as described by the American Journal of Transplantation.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. Disclosure
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information
  • 1
    Goel R, Johnson F, Mehra MR. Brain injury and ventricular dysfunction: Insights into reversible heart failure. Congest Heart Fail 2005; 11: 99101.
  • 2
    Allman FD, Herold W, Bosso FJ, Pilati CF. Time-dependent changes in norepinephrine-induced left ventricular dysfunction and histopathologic condition. J Heart Lung Transplant 1998; 17: 991997.
  • 3
    Lang SA, Maron MB, Bosso FJ, Pilati CF. Temporal changes in left ventricular function after massive sympathetic nervous system activation. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 1994; 72: 693700.
  • 4
    Audibert G, Charpentier C, Seguin-Devaux C, et al. Improvement of donor myocardial function after treatment of autonomic storm during brain death. Transplantation 2006; 82: 10311036.
  • 5
    Novitzky D, Horak A, Cooper DK, Rose AG. Electrocardiographic and histopathologic changes developing during experimental brain death in the baboon. Transplant Proc 1989; 21(1 Pt 3): 25672569.
  • 6
    Novitzky D, Wicomb WN, Cooper DK, Rose AG, Reichart B. Prevention of myocardial injury during brain death by total cardiac sympathectomy in the Chacma baboon. Ann Thorac Surg 1986; 41: 520524.
  • 7
    Samuels MA. The brain-heart connection. Circulation 2007; 116: 7784.
  • 8
    Zaroff JG, Babcock WD, Shiboski SC. The impact of left ventricular dysfunction on cardiac donor transplant rates. J Heart Lung Transplant 2003; 22: 334337.
  • 9
    Cockcroft JR, Gazis AG, Cross DJ, et al. Beta(2)-adrenoceptor polymorphism determines vascular reactivity in humans. Hypertension 2000; 36: 371375.
  • 10
    Heckbert SR, Hindorff LA, Edwards KL, et al. Beta2-adrenergic receptor polymorphisms and risk of incident cardiovascular events in the elderly. Circulation 2003; 107: 20212024.
  • 11
    Iwai C, Akita H, Kanazawa K, et al. Arg389Gly polymorphism of the human beta1-adrenergic receptor in patients with nonfatal acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J 2003; 146: 106109.
  • 12
    Kanki H, Yang P, Xie HG, Kim RB, George AL Jr., Roden DM. Polymorphisms in beta-adrenergic receptor genes in the acquired long QT syndrome. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2002; 13: 252256.
  • 13
    Small KM, Wagoner LE, Levin AM, Kardia SL, Liggett SB. Synergistic polymorphisms of beta1- and alpha2C-adrenergic receptors and the risk of congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 11351142.
  • 14
    Zaroff JG, Pawlikowska L, Miss JC, et al. Adrenoceptor polymorphisms and the risk of cardiac injury and dysfunction after subarachnoid hemorrhage. Stroke 2006; 37: 16801685.
  • 15
    Hsu TM, Kwok PY. Homogeneous primer extension assay with fluorescence polarization detection. Methods Mol Biol 2003; 212: 177187.
  • 16
    Zaroff JG, Babcock WD, Shiboski SC, Solinger LL, Rosengard BR. Temporal changes in left ventricular systolic function in heart donors: results of serial echocardiography. J Heart Lung Transplant 2003; 22: 383388.
  • 17
    Zaroff JG, Rosengard BR, Armstrong WF, et al. Consensus conference report: Maximizing use of organs recovered from the cadaver donor: cardiac recommendations, March 28–29, 2001, Crystal City, Va. Circulation 2002; 106: 836841.
  • 18
    Green SA, Turki J, Innis M, Liggett SB. Amino-terminal polymorphisms of the human beta 2-adrenergic receptor impart distinct agonist-promoted regulatory properties. Biochemistry 1994; 33: 94149419.
  • 19
    Bisognano JD, Weinberger HD, Bohlmeyer TJ, et al. Myocardial-directed overexpression of the human beta(1)-adrenergic receptor in transgenic mice. J Mol Cell Cardiol 2000; 32: 817830.
  • 20
    Engelhardt S, Hein L, Wiesmann F, Lohse MJ. Progressive hypertrophy and heart failure in beta1-adrenergic receptor transgenic mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999; 96: 70597064.
  • 21
    Mason DA, Moore JD, Green SA, Liggett SB. A gain-of-function polymorphism in a G-protein coupling domain of the human beta1-adrenergic receptor. J Biol Chem 1999; 274: 1267012674.
  • 22
    Ranade K, Jorgenson E, Sheu WH, et al. A polymorphism in the beta1 adrenergic receptor is associated with resting heart rate. Am J Hum Genet 2002; 70: 935942.
  • 23
    Hachinski VC, Smith KE, Silver MD, Gibson CJ, Ciriello J. Acute myocardial and plasma catecholamine changes in experimental stroke. Stroke 1986; 17: 387390.
  • 24
    Brodde OE, Michel MC. Adrenergic and muscarinic receptors in the human heart. Pharmacol Rev 1999; 51: 651690.
  • 25
    Menon B, Singh M, Ross RS, Johnson JN, Singh K. beta-Adrenergic receptor-stimulated apoptosis in adult cardiac myocytes involves MMP-2-mediated disruption of beta1 integrin signaling and mitochondrial pathway. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 2006; 290: C254C261.
  • 26
    Feldman RD. Beta-adrenergic receptor alterations in hypertension–physiological and molecular correlates. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 1987; 65: 16661672.
  • 27
    Dishy V, Sofowora GG, Xie HG, et al. The effect of common polymorphisms of the beta2-adrenergic receptor on agonist-mediated vascular desensitization. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 10301035.
  • 28
    Borjesson M, Magnusson Y, Hjalmarson A, Andersson B. A novel polymorphism in the gene coding for the beta(1)-adrenergic receptor associated with survival in patients with heart failure. Eur Heart J 2000; 21: 18531858.
  • 29
    Owen VJ, Burton PB, Michel MC, et al. Myocardial dysfunction in donor hearts. A possible etiology. Circulation 1999; 99: 25652570.
  • 30
    Gridelli B, Remuzzi G. Strategies for making more organs available for transplantation. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 404410.
  • 31
    Hornby K, Ross H, Keshavjee S, Rao V, Shemie SD. Non-utilization of hearts and lungs after consent for donation: A Canadian multicentre study. Can J Anaesth 2006; 53: 831837.
  • 32
    White M, Wiechmann RJ, Roden RL, et al. Cardiac beta-adrenergic neuroeffector systems in acute myocardial dysfunction related to brain injury. Evidence for catecholamine-mediated myocardial damage. Circulation 1995; 92: 21832189.

Supporting Information

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgments
  8. Disclosure
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information

Table S1: Association of beta-adrenergic receptor polymorphism genotype with cardiac allograft dysfunction in the discovery cohort

Table S2: Associations between beta-adrenergic receptor polymorphisms and cardiac allograft dysfunction, by study cohort, in Caucasian donors

Table S3: Empirical power calculation for replication of initial associations in the validation cohort

FilenameFormatSizeDescription
AJT_4266_sm_TableS1.xls24KSupporting info item
AJT_4266_sm_TableS2.xls28KSupporting info item
AJT_4266_sm_TableS3.xls24KSupporting info item

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.