RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Five organs (heart, right lung, liver, right, and left kidneys) from a deceased patient were transplanted into five recipients in four US states; the deceased patient was identified as part of a healthcare-associated fungal meningitis outbreak among patients who underwent epidural anesthesia in Matamoros, Mexico. METHODS: After transplant surgeries occurred, Fusarium solani species complex, a fungal pathogen with a high case-mortality rate, was identified in cerebrospinal fluid from the organ donor by metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) and fungal-specific polymerase chain reaction and in plasma by mNGS. RESULTS: Four of five transplant recipients received recommended voriconazole prophylaxis; four were monitored weekly by serum (1-3)-ß-d-glucan testing. All five were monitored for signs of infection for at least 3 months following transplantation. The liver recipient had graft failure, which was attributed to an etiology unrelated to fungal infection. No fungal DNA was identified in sections of the explanted liver, suggesting that F. solani species complex did not contribute to graft failure. The remaining recipients experienced no signs or symptoms suggestive of fusariosis. CONCLUSION: Antifungal prophylaxis may be useful in preventing donor-derived infections in recipients of organs from donors that are found to have Fusarium meningitis.
RESUMO
Background: Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are at risk of bloodstream infections (BSIs) with MDR organisms (MDROs). Objectives: To describe the epidemiology of BSI in the year after several types of SOT, as well as the prevalence of MDRO infections in this population. Methods: We conducted a single-centre, retrospective study of kidney, liver, heart, and multi-organ transplantation patients. We examined BSIs ≤1â year from SOT and classified MDRO phenotypes for Staphylococcus aureus, enterococci, Enterobacterales, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Candida spp. We compared BSI characteristics between SOT types and determined risk factors for 90â day mortality. Results: We included 2293 patients [1251 (54.6%) kidney, 663 (28.9%) liver, 219 (9.6%) heart and 160 (7.0%) multi-organ transplant]. Overall, 8.5% of patients developed a BSI. BSIs were most common after multi-organ (23.1%) and liver (11.3%) transplantation (Pâ<â0.001). Among 196 patients with BSI, 323 unique isolates were recovered, 147 (45.5%) of which were MDROs. MDROs were most common after liver transplant (53.4%). The most frequent MDROs were VRE (69.8% of enterococci) and ESBL-producing and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (29.2% and 27.2% of Enterobacterales, respectively). Mortality after BSI was 9.7%; VRE was independently associated with mortality (adjusted OR 6.0, 95% CI 1.7-21.3). Conclusions: BSI incidence after SOT was 8.5%, with a high proportion of MDROs (45.5%), especially after liver transplantation. These data, in conjunction with local antimicrobial resistance patterns and prescribing practices, may help guide empirical antimicrobial selection and stewardship practices after SOT.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Although Hispanic patients have high rates of end-stage liver disease and liver cancer, for which liver transplantation (LT) offers the best long-term outcomes, they are less likely to receive LT. Studies of end-stage renal disease patients and kidney transplant candidates have shown that targeted, culturally relevant interventions can increase the likelihood of Hispanic patients receiving kidney transplant. However, similar interventions remain largely unstudied in potential LT candidates. METHODS: Referrals to a single center in Texas with a large Hispanic patient population were compared before (01/2018-12/2019) and after (7/2021-6/2023) the implementation of a targeted outreach program. Patient progress toward LT, reasons for ineligibility, and differences in insurance were examined between the two eras. RESULTS: A greater proportion of Hispanic patients were referred for LT after the implementation of the outreach program (23.2% vs 26.2%, p = 0.004). Comparing the pre-outreach era to the post-outreach era, more Hispanic patients achieved waitlisting status (61 vs 78, respectively) and received a LT (971 vs 82, respectively). However, the proportion of Hispanic patients undergoing LT dropped from 30.2% to 20.3%. In the post-outreach era, half of the Hispanic patients were unable to get LT for financial reasons (112, 50.5%). CONCLUSIONS: A targeted outreach program for Hispanic patients with end-stage liver disease effectively increased the total number of Hispanic LT referrals and recipients. However, many of the patients who were referred were ineligible for LT, most frequently for financial reasons. These results highlight the need for additional research into the most effective ways to ameliorate financial barriers to LT in this high-need community.
Assuntos
Hispânico ou Latino , Transplante de Fígado , Encaminhamento e Consulta , Humanos , Feminino , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Texas , Adulto , Listas de Espera , Doença Hepática Terminal/cirurgia , IdosoRESUMO
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increase in SARS-CoV-2-test positive potential organ donors. The benefits of life-saving liver transplantation (LT) must be balanced against the potential risk of donor-derived viral transmission. Although emerging evidence suggests that the use of COVID-19-positive donor organs may be safe, granular series thoroughly evaluating safety are still needed. Results of 29 consecutive LTs from COVID-19-positive donors at a single center are presented here. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of LT recipients between April 2020 and December 2022 was conducted. Differences between recipients of COVID-19-positive (nâ =â 29 total; 25 index, 4 redo) and COVID-19-negative (nâ =â 472 total; 454 index, 18 redo) deceased donor liver grafts were compared. Results: COVID-19-positive donors were significantly younger (Pâ =â 0.04) and had lower kidney donor profile indices (Pâ =â 0.04) than COVID-19-negative donors. Recipients of COVID-19-positive donor grafts were older (Pâ =â 0.04) but otherwise similar to recipients of negative donors. Donor SARS-CoV-2 infection status was not associated with a overall survival of recipients (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-5.04; Pâ =â 0.89). There were 3 deaths among recipients of liver grafts from COVID-19-positive donors. No death seemed virally mediated because there was no qualitative association with peri-LT antispike antibody titers, post-LT prophylaxis, or SARS-CoV-2 variants. Conclusions: The utilization of liver grafts from COVID-19-positive donors was not associated with a decreased overall survival of recipients. There was no suggestion of viral transmission from donor to recipient. The results from this large single-center study suggest that COVID-19-positive donors may be used safely to expand the deceased donor pool.
RESUMO
Background: Liver retransplantation (reLT) has historically had inferior survival relative to primary liver transplant (LT). To improve outcomes after reLT, researchers have identified factors predicting overall (OS) and/or graft survival (GS) after reLT. This systematic review and random effects meta-analysis sought to summarize this literature to elucidate the strongest independent predictors of post-reLT. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify manuscripts reporting factors affecting survival in multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses. Papers with overlapping cohorts were excluded. Results: All 25 included studies were retrospective, and 15 (60%) were single-center studies. Patients on pre-transplant ventilation (HR, 3.11; 95% CI, 1.56-6.20; p = 0.001) and with high serum creatinine (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.15-1.87; p = 0.002) had the highest mortality risk after reLT. Recipient age, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, donor age, and cold ischemia time >12â h also conferred a significant risk of post-reLT death (all p < 0.05). Factors affecting GS included donor age and retransplant interval (the time between LT and reLT; both p < 0.05). OS is significantly higher when the retransplant interval is ≤7 days relative to 8-30 days (p = 0.04). Conclusions: The meta-analysis was complicated by papers utilizing non-standardized cut-off values to group variables, which made between-study comparisons difficult. However, it did identify 7 variables that significantly impact survival after reLT, which could stimulate future research into improving post-reLT outcomes.