Non-Lung Solid Organ Transplantation From SARS-CoV-2-Positive Donors to Uninfected Recipients.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of evidence on the risk of donor-recipient transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 in solid organ transplant recipients. Initial impressions suggest non-lung solid organs may be safely transplanted from SARS-CoV-2-positive donors without risk of viral transmission. METHODS: We reviewed clinical results of transplants in which SARS-CoV-2-negative recipients received non-lung solid organs from SARS-CoV-2-positive donors at a single transplant center. No prisoners were used in this study, and participants were neither coerced nor paid. The manuscript was created in compliance with the Helsinki Congress and the Declaration of Istanbul. RESULTS: Between June 2021 and January 2023, we transplanted 26 solid organs, including 13 kidneys, 8 livers, 3 hearts, and 1 simultaneous heart and kidney, from 23 SARS-CoV-2-positive donors into 25 SARS-CoV-2 negative recipients. Two of the recipients had a positive SARS-CoV-2 real-time polymerase chain reaction after transplantation, but otherwise, patients had no SARS-CoV-2-related complications, and all patients to date are alive with excellent allograft function. CONCLUSION: Transplantation of non-lung solid organs from SARS-CoV-2-positive donors into uninfected recipients can be safely performed without adverse effects from SARS-CoV-2.

Initial experience of bamlanivimab monotherapy use in solid organ transplant recipients.

The widespread transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to propagate the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients being an exceptionally vulnerable population for poor outcomes. Treatments for COVID-19 are limited; however, monoclonal antibodies are emerging as a potential therapeutic option to change the trajectory of high-risk patients. This retrospective single center cohort study evaluated the outcomes of SOT recipients with mild to moderate COVID-19 who received bamlanivimab monotherapy. Eighteen SOT recipients (15 kidney, 2 liver, and 1 heart) received the medication between November 9, 2020 and February 10, 2021 with no reported infusion reactions. One patient experienced headache and fatigue following the infusion that resolved within 3 days. Fourteen patients continued their recovery as an outpatient with no further escalation in care. Three patients required hospitalization: two for suspected bacterial pneumonia 9 and 32 days postinfusion, respectively, and one for acute kidney injury 7 days postinfusion. One patient had an emergency room visit for gastrointestinal symptoms 24 days postinfusion. In this small cohort of SOT recipients, bamlanivimab monotherapy appeared to be a well-tolerated option for treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19, but it was not completely effective in preventing hospitalization. One month following the end of this cohort, COVID-19 treatment guidance changed due to the rising prevalence of resistant variants. For this reason, bamlanivimab is now recommended to be used only in combination with etesevimab. Further studies are needed to fully elucidate the role of this therapy in SOT recipients.

Incidental COVID-19 in a heart-kidney transplant recipient with malnutrition and recurrent infections: Implications for the SARS-CoV-2 immune response.

The clinical course and outcomes of immunocompromised patients, such as transplant recipients, with COVID-19 remain unclear. It has been postulated that a substantial portion of the disease burden seems to be mediated by the host immune activation to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Herein, we present a simultaneous heart-kidney transplant (SHKT) recipient who was hospitalized for the management of respiratory failure from volume overload complicated by failure to thrive, multiple opportunistic infections, and open non-healing wounds in the setting of worsening renal dysfunction weeks prior to the first case of SARS-CoV-2 being detected in the state of Connecticut. After his third endotracheal intubation, routine nucleic acid testing (NAT) for SARS-CoV-2, in anticipation of a planned tracheostomy, was positive. His hemodynamics, respiratory status, and ventilator requirements remained stable without any worsening for 4 weeks until he had a negative NAT test. It is possible that the immunocompromised status of our patient may have prevented significant immune activation leading up to clinically significant cytokine storm that could have resulted in acute respiratory distress syndrome and multisystem organ failure.

Association Between Time-in-Therapeutic Tacrolimus Range and Early Rejection After Heart Transplant.

BACKGROUND: Historically, there is perceived pressure to achieve therapeutic levels of tacrolimus quickly after heart transplant (HT). We evaluated the association between time within therapeutic tacrolimus range and time to therapeutic trough and rejection in the 30 days following HT. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective cohort study of consecutive adult HT patients receiving immunosuppression. Goal trough tacrolimus levels were 10-15 ng/ml. Surveillance endomyocardial biopsies were performed weekly for 4 weeks. Outcomes included the effect of time to and time-in-therapeutic tacrolimus range (Rosendaal method) on 30-day clinical rejection, 1R/1B, and 2R or higher histologic occurrences. RESULTS: We reviewed 67 HT patients (median age 58.8 yrs). For clinical rejection versus no-rejection groups, the median (25th, 75th percentile) time to therapeutic tacrolimus levels was 9.5 (8, 12.3) days versus 9.0 (7, 13) days (p=0.623). The median time-in-therapeutic tacrolimus range was 34.1% (23.2, 42.2) versus 36.2% (19.9, 51.2), respectively (p=0.512). Similarly, we observed no significant differences in time to and time-in-therapeutic tacrolimus range in patients who developed grade 1R/1B (p=0.650 and p=0.725) or grade 2R or higher histology (p=0.632 and p=0.933). CONCLUSIONS: Our small single-center analysis suggests that neither time to nor time in therapeutic tacrolimus range predicted acute rejection within 30 days of HT.

The utility of newly derived Doppler echocardiographic variables in the diagnosis and management of patients with heart failure.

Doppler echocardiography, because of its noninvasive nature, is an ideal tool to evaluate patients with heart failure (HF), offering the potential to improve early identification and management of these patients. Although traditional Doppler indices have allowed characterization of diastolic filling abnormalities associated with various HF states, important limitations are recognized. More refined Doppler techniques such as analysis of color M-mode flow propagation velocity, tissue Doppler imaging, and strain parameters can add to the ability of the noninvasive laboratory to improve the identification and management of this group of patients. These newer techniques as well as the traditional Doppler assessment of transmitral left ventricular inflow and pulmonary venous inflow velocities are reviewed as methods to improve the diagnosis and management of patients with HF.

Comparison of survival and other complications after heart transplantation in patients taking amiodarone before surgery versus those not taking amiodarone.

Concern exists regarding preoperative amiodarone use and complications occurring after heart transplantation (HT). During a 10-year period of performing HT, we found that patients treated with amiodarone before undergoing HT had decreased overall survival, required longer periods of ventilatory support, and were at increased risk for significant bleeding complications. These findings raise further concern about the use of amiodarone treatment in patients with heart failure before undergoing HT.

Management issues for patients with coronary artery disease and heart failure.

Despite recent favorable trends in survival, heart failure remains a highly fatal disease. Improvements in the prevention of early death from coronary artery disease, along with an aging population, have resulted in an increased prevalence for heart failure in the United States. In the management of patients with heart failure secondary to coronary artery disease, the relative efficacy of invasive therapies such as coronary revascularization, surgical left ventricle remodeling, internal cardiac defibrillator implantation, cardioverter resynchronization therapy, mechanical ventricular assist, and cardiac transplantation need to be considered. Clinical studies examining these important treatment options are reviewed in order to better define the optimal management strategy for this challenging population of patients.