Management of primary graft dysfunction after lung transplantation with extracorporeal life support: an evidence-based review.

Primary graft dysfunction (PGD) is a complex inflammatory syndrome that can lead to respiratory failure after lung transplantation (LTx). The pathogenesis of PGD is multifactorial and can be driven by attributes of both the donor and recipient, perioperative characteristics, and technical handling of the graft. Despite significant advancements in patient and donor selection, perioperative management and surgical technique, PGD is still a major contributor to morbidity and mortality after lung transplant. Although there are no known durable treatment options for PGD after LTx, an increasing body of evidence and experience in high-volume lung transplant centers show that extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is a reliable option for both preventing PGD and supporting critically ill patients with PGD. Both veno-venous (V-V) ECLS and veno-arterial (V-A) ECLS are proven and feasible strategies for mitigating the morbidity and mortality associated with post-LTx PGD. In this evidence-based review, we provide an overview of the epidemiology and physiology of PGD as well as a growing body of data that supports ECLS as a major tool to manage PGD. We describe the role of ECMO in PGD prevention and management, worldwide outcomes of LTx with ECLS support, and outline our step-wise approach to managing this complex respiratory syndrome leading up to institution of ECLS.

Biofire pneumonia panel in lung donors: faster detection but limited pathogens.

BACKGROUND: Culture of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) specimens takes time to report. We tested whether a molecular diagnostic test could accelerate donor lung assessment and treatment. METHODS: We compared BioFire Film Array Pneumonia Panel (BFPP) with standard of care (SOC) tests on lung allograft samples at three time points: (1) donor BAL at organ recovery, (2) donor bronchial tissue and airway swab at implantation, and (3) first recipient BAL following lung implantation. Primary outcomes were the difference in time to result (Wilcoxon signed-ranked tests) and the agreement in results between BFPP and SOC assays (Gwet's agreement coefficient). RESULTS: We enrolled 50 subjects. In donor lung BAL specimens, BFPP detected 52 infections (14 out of 26 pathogens in the panel). Viral and bacterial BFPP results were reported 2.4 h (interquartile range, IQR 2.0-6.4) following BAL versus 4.6 h (IQR 1.9-6.0, p = 0.625) for OPO BAL viral SOC results and 66 h (IQR 47-87, p < .0001) for OPO BAL bacterial SOC results. Although there was high overall agreement of results between BAL-BFPP versus OPO BAL-SOC tests (Gwet's AC p < .001 for all), the level of agreement differed among 26 pathogens designed in BFPP and differed by types of specimens. BFPP could not detect many infections identified by SOC assays. CONCLUSIONS: BFPP decreased time to detection of lung pathogens among donated lungs, but it cannot replace SOC tests due to the limited number of pathogens in the panel.

Perioperative Fluid Management.

The medical complexity of the geriatric patients has been steadily rising. Still, as outcomes of surgical procedures in the elderly are improving, centers are pushing boundaries. There is also a growing appreciation of the importance of perioperative fluid management on postoperative outcomes, especially in the elderly. Optimal fluid management in this cohort is challenging due to the combination of age-related physiological changes in organ function, increased comorbid burden, and larger fluid shifts during more complex surgical procedures. The current state-of-the-art approach to fluid management in the perioperative period is outlined.

Intercostal Nerve Cryoanalgesia Versus Thoracic Epidural Analgesia in Lung Transplantation: A Retrospective Single-Center Study.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal pain management strategy after lung transplantation is unknown. This study compared analgesic outcomes of intercostal nerve blockade by cryoanalgesia (Cryo) versus thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA). METHODS: Seventy-two patients who underwent bilateral lung transplantation via clamshell incision at our center from 2016 to 2018 were managed with TEA (N = 43) or Cryo (N = 29). We evaluated analgesic-specific complications, opioid use in oral morphine equivalents (OME), and pain scores (0-10) through postoperative day 7. Adjusted linear regression was used to assess for non-inferiority of Cryo to TEA. RESULTS: The overall mean pain scores (Cryo 3.2 vs TEA 3.8, P = 0.21), maximum mean pain scores (Cryo 4.7 vs TEA 5.5, P = 0.16), and the total opioid use (Cryo 484 vs TEA 705 OME, P = 0.12) were similar in both groups, while the utilization of postoperative opioid-sparing analgesia, measured as use of lidocaine patches, was lower in the Cryo group (Cryo 21% vs TEA 84%, P < 0.001). Analgesic outcomes remained similar between the cohorts after adjustment for pertinent patient and analgesic characteristics (P = 0.26), as well as after exclusion of Cryo patients requiring rescue TEA (P = 0.32). There were no Cryo complications, with four patients requiring subsequent TEA for pain control. Two TEA patients experienced hemodynamic instability following a test TEA bolus requiring code measures. Additionally, TEA placement was delayed beyond postoperative day 1 in 33% owing to need for anticoagulation or clinical instability. CONCLUSIONS: In lung transplantation, Cryo was found to be safe with analgesic effectiveness similar to TEA. Cryo may be advantageous in this complex patient population, as it can be used in all clinical scenarios and eliminates risks and delays associated with TEA.

Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 serology assays reveals a range of test performance.

Appropriate use and interpretation of serological tests for assessments of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exposure, infection and potential immunity require accurate data on assay performance. We conducted a head-to-head evaluation of ten point-of-care-style lateral flow assays (LFAs) and two laboratory-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies in 5-d time intervals from symptom onset and studied the specificity of each assay in pre-coronavirus disease 2019 specimens. The percent of seropositive individuals increased with time, peaking in the latest time interval tested (>20 d after symptom onset). Test specificity ranged from 84.3% to 100.0% and was predominantly affected by variability in IgM results. LFA specificity could be increased by considering weak bands as negative, but this decreased detection of antibodies (sensitivity) in a subset of SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR-positive cases. Our results underline the importance of seropositivity threshold determination and reader training for reliable LFA deployment. Although there was no standout serological assay, four tests achieved more than 80% positivity at later time points tested and more than 95% specificity.

Test performance evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays.

BACKGROUND: Serological tests are crucial tools for assessments of SARS-CoV-2 exposure, infection and potential immunity. Their appropriate use and interpretation require accurate assay performance data. METHOD: We conducted an evaluation of 10 lateral flow assays (LFAs) and two ELISAs to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The specimen set comprised 128 plasma or serum samples from 79 symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive individuals; 108 pre-COVID-19 negative controls; and 52 recent samples from individuals who underwent respiratory viral testing but were not diagnosed with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Samples were blinded and LFA results were interpreted by two independent readers, using a standardized intensity scoring system. RESULTS: Among specimens from SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive individuals, the percent seropositive increased with time interval, peaking at 81.8-100.0% in samples taken >20 days after symptom onset. Test specificity ranged from 84.3-100.0% in pre-COVID-19 specimens. Specificity was higher when weak LFA bands were considered negative, but this decreased sensitivity. IgM detection was more variable than IgG, and detection was highest when IgM and IgG results were combined. Agreement between ELISAs and LFAs ranged from 75.7-94.8%. No consistent cross-reactivity was observed. CONCLUSION: Our evaluation showed heterogeneous assay performance. Reader training is key to reliable LFA performance, and can be tailored for survey goals. Informed use of serology will require evaluations covering the full spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 infections, from asymptomatic and mild infection to severe disease, and later convalescence. Well-designed studies to elucidate the mechanisms and serological correlates of protective immunity will be crucial to guide rational clinical and public health policies.