Impact of robotic-assisted kidney transplantation on post-transplant infections: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the differences in the incidence, epidemiology, clinical characteristics and risk factors of infections in living donor kidney transplant recipients using robotic-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) and open approach. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study from January 2016 to December 2019. For the risk factor analysis, a matched case-control study (1:1 ratio) was performed (robotic vs open). Control subjects were matched for living donor and time of transplantation. The data included de novo immunosuppressive regimen, delayed graft function, urological complications, acute allograft rejection and incidence, clinical features, microbiological findings and outcomes of infections. RESULTS: Ninety-four RAKT and 84 controls were included. There were no differences between groups in terms of age, gender, BMI, median days of hospitalization, immunosuppressive regimen, need for surgical urologic procedures post-transplantation, presence of urinary leak or acute allograft rejection. Thirty-five percent of all recipients analyzed presented an infection, mostly asymptomatic bacteriuria (49%), symptomatic urinary tract infection (31%) and surgical site infection (10%). Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the most frequent isolated microorganism in 67%, followed by E. coli (20%), Enterococcus faecalis (17%) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (10%). Eight percent of the microorganisms were multidrug resistant. The open kidney transplantation group presented more infections compared to RAKT (43 vs 27%, p = 0.04). After multivariate analysis, need for surgical urologic procedure post-transplantation (OR 6.2, 95% CI 1.1-35), BMI ≥ 30 (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.5-9) and acute allograft rejection (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.2-8.5) were associated with infection, whereas RAKT (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.2-0.9) and the use of JJ catheter (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17-0.72) were protective factors. CONCLUSIONS: Infection is a frequent event in patients receiving a living donor kidney transplant. Acute allograft rejection, need for surgical urologic procedure post-transplantation and BMI were associated with infection, whereas robotic surgery was a protective factor in living donor kidney transplantation.

Time intervals and previous primary care consultations in the pathway to emergency cancer diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Time intervals and number of prior consultations in primary care (PC) are recognised metrics of diagnostic timeliness of cancer and are interrelated. However, whether and how the two measures correlate with each other in the emergency diagnostic pathway is unknown. We investigated the association between the number of prereferral consultations and the length of intervals from PC presentation to cancer diagnosis following emergency referral to hospital. METHODS: Patients were eligible if they first consulted in PC and were diagnosed with cancer following emergency or nonemergency referral to hospital. We analysed for differences in PC and diagnostic intervals and number of consultations between emergency and nonemergency presenters and determined their associations by cancer type. Differences in presenting symptoms and stage at diagnosis between populations and according to number of consultations were also examined. RESULTS: There were 796 emergency and 865 nonemergency presenters with comparable sociodemographic and comorbidity data. Correlation analysis in emergency presenters revealed a strong positive association between number of consultations and intervals for seven of 13 different cancers, including cancers characterised by high proportions of > 3 consultations and long intervals (pancreatic, lung, and colorectal cancer) and vice versa for others (e.g., endometrial, cervical, or oesophageal cancer). Additionally, emergency presenters with > 3 consultations were more likely than those with 1-2 to report nonspecific symptoms (60 vs. 40%, respectively) and to be diagnosed at a later stage. CONCLUSION: System level interventions are needed to reduce unnecessary delays in the emergency diagnostic pathway, particularly in cancer patients with multiple prereferral consultations. The findings also suggest opportunities to reduce the proportion of emergency diagnoses by targeting symptomatic individuals pre-presentation.

Antifungal prophylaxis with nebulized amphotericin-B in solid-organ transplant recipients with severe COVID-19: a retrospective observational study.

COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) has emerged as a frequent complication in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, little is known about this life-threatening fungal superinfection in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs), including whether targeted anti-mold prophylaxis might be justified in this immunosuppressed population. We performed a multicentric observational retrospective study of all consecutive ICU-admitted COVID-19 SOTRs between August 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021. SOTRs receiving antifungal prophylaxis with nebulized amphotericin-B were compared with those without prophylaxis. CAPA was defined according the ECMM/ISHAM criteria. Sixty-four SOTRs were admitted to ICU for COVID-19 during the study period. One patient received antifungal prophylaxis with isavuconazole and was excluded from the analysis. Of the remaining 63 SOTRs, nineteen (30.2%) received anti-mold prophylaxis with nebulized amphotericin-B. Ten SOTRs who did not receive prophylaxis developed pulmonary mold infections (nine CAPA and one mucormycosis) compared with one who received nebulized amphotericin-B (22.7% vs 5.3%; risk ratio 0.23; 95%CI 0.032-1.68), but with no differences in survival. No severe adverse events related to nebulized amphotericin-B were recorded. SOTRs admitted to ICU with COVID-19 are at high risk for CAPA. However, nebulized amphotericin-B is safe and might reduce the incidence of CAPA in this high-risk population. A randomized clinical trial to confirm these findings is warranted.