Warming to 39°C but Not to 37°C Ameliorates the Effects on the Monocyte Response by Hypothermia.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether warming to normal body temperature or to febrile range temperature (39°C) is able to reverse the detrimental effects of hypothermia. BACKGROUND: Unintentional intraoperative hypothermia is a well-described risk factor for surgical site infections but also sepsis. We have previously shown that hypothermia prolongs the proinflammatory response whereas normothermia and especially febrile range temperature enhance the anti-inflammatory response. METHODS: Primary human monocytes were isolated from healthy volunteers. After stimulation with LPS (Lipopolysaccharide), the monocytes were exposed to 32°C for 3  hours or 6  hours and then warmed at either 37°C or 39°C for the remaining 33  hours or 36  hours, respectively. Tumor necrosis factor α, interleukin 10, and the expression of miR-155 and miR-101 were assessed at 24  hours and 36  hours. RESULTS: Warming to 37°C does not normalize monocyte cytokine secretion within 36  hours, whereas warming to 39°C partially reverses the effects of hypothermia on monocyte function. Both miR-155 and miR-101 were suppressed after the warming episode. However, 39°C had a stronger suppressive effect than 37°C. The duration of hypothermia and the warming temperature seem to be critical for a full reversibility of the effects of hypothermia. CONCLUSION: Warming to normal body temperature (37°C) does not restore normal monocyte function in vitro. These data suggest that hypothermic patients should be warmed to febrile range temperatures. Furthermore, febrile range temperatures should be investigated as a means to modulate the inflammatory response in patients with systemic infections.

Sequential improvements in organ procurement increase the organ donation rate.

PURPOSE: Organ demand exceeds availability of transplantable organs. Organ procurement continues to suffer from failures to identify potential donors, inability to obtain consent for donation, as well as failures to retrieve certain organs as donor demographics change. The purpose of this article is to propose how sequentially introduced measures can increase organ donation rates as well as improve organ procurement. METHODS: We analysed the effect of stepwise improvements in the organ procurement process patients in a university-based surgical intensive care unit over a 20-year period. We related newly introduced measures in the organ retrieval process with changes in donation rates. We specifically targeted these three main steps in the donation process: donor identification, conversion of potential donors to actual donors, and organ protection during the procurement process. Finally, we assessed the effect of the same measures on organ procurement after introduction in other hospitals of the same organ procurement region. RESULTS: Introduction of quality improvement steps increased all of the observed parameters. The number of organ donors was stabilised due to a better identification of potential donors, a major increase in conversion from potential to actual donors, and an increase in extended criteria donor. Improvements in organ protection led to higher rates of organs transplanted per donor and increased recovery of lungs and hearts despite increasing donor age. The same measures were introduced successfully in other hospitals in our organ procurement region. CONCLUSION: Sequential improvements in organ procurement can increase the yield of retrieved organs. The same measures can be applied to other hospitals and lead to comparable improvements in organ donation.