ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Acute allograft rejection is a well-known complication of liver transplantation (LT). The incidence, epidemiology and outcomes of acute rejection have not been well-described in Australia. METHODS: We retrospectively studied consecutive adults who underwent deceased-donor LT at a single centre between 2010-2020. Donor and recipient data at time of LT and recipient outcomes were collected from a prospective LT database. Liver biopsy reports were reviewed and only a graft's first instance of biopsy-proven acute rejection was analysed. RESULTS: During the study period, 796 liver transplants were performed in 770 patients. Biopsy-proven rejection occurred in 34.9% of transplants. There were no significant changes in the incidence of rejection over time (linear trend p=0.11). The median time to first episode of rejection was 71 days post-LT: 2.2% hyperacute, 50.4% early (≤90 d) and 47.5% late rejection (>90 d). Independent risk factors for rejection were younger recipient age at transplant (aHR 0.98 per year increase, 95% CI 0.97-1.00, p=0.01), and ABO-incompatible grafts (aHR 2.55 vs. ABO-compatible, 95% CI 1.27-5.09, p<0.01) while simultaneous multiorgan transplants were protective (aHR 0.21 vs. LT only, 95% CI 0.08-0.58, p<0.01). Development of acute rejection (both early and late) was independently associated with significantly reduced graft (aHR 3.13, 95% CI 2.21-4.42, p<0.001) and patient survival (aHR 3.42, 95% CI 2.35-4.98, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: In this 11-year Australian study, acute LT rejection occurred in 35%, with independent risk factors of younger recipient age and ABO-incompatible transplant while having a simultaneous multiorgan transplant was protective. Acute rejection was independently associated with reduced graft and patient survival after adjustment for other factors.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Bacterial infections are not prevalent among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, while unnecessary prescription of antibiotics was commonly observed. This study aimed to determine the impact of procalcitonin testing on antibiotics prescription in the real-world setting. METHODS: We performed a territory-wide retrospective cohort study involving all laboratory-confirmed patients hospitalized in public hospitals in Hong Kong in 2020 with COVID-19. We determined the prevalence of bacterial co-infections (documented infections within 72 h of admission) and secondary bacterial infections (infections after 72 h of admission) and antibiotics consumption, and the correlation between procalcitonin testing and antibiotics prescription. RESULTS: The cohort included 8666 patients, with mean age 45.3 ± 19.9 years, 48.5% male, and comorbidities in 26.9%. Among 2688 patients with bacterial cultures performed, 147 (5.5%) had bacterial co-infections, and 222 (8.3%) had secondary bacterial infections. Antibiotics were prescribed for 2773 (32.0%) patients during the hospital admission. Procalcitonin tests were performed for 2543 (29.3%) patients. More patients with procalcitonin testing received antibiotics (65.9% vs. 17.9%, p < 0.001). Procalcitonin testing was associated with 5-fold increased risk of antibiotics prescription after adjusting for confounding variables. At hospital level, procalcitonin testing correlated with antibiotics prescription. Patients with procalcitonin level < 0.5 ng/mL had a lower probability of antibiotics initiation and shorter duration of antibiotics therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Procalcitonin testing was not associated with lower prescription of antibiotics. Patients with low procalcitonin level had lower antibiotics exposure, supporting the use of procalcitonin to exclude bacterial infections aiding early stopping of antibiotics among patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
