Search

SARS-CoV-2 infection represents a new challenge for solid organ transplantation (SOT) with evolving recommendations. A cross-sectional survey was performed (February–June 2024) to describe practices among Member States of the Council of Europe (COE) on the use of organs from deceased donors with resolved or active SARS-CoV-2 infection. Overall, 32 out of 47 Member States with a transplant program participated in the study. Four (12.5%) countries did not use organs from deceased donors either with resolved or with active SARS-CoV-2 infection and 8 (25%) countries accepted organs only from deceased donors with resolved SARS-CoV-2 infection. Donor evaluation for SARS-CoV-2 included universal screening with standard PCR testing on respiratory specimens generally (61.4%) performed within 24 h prior to organ recovery. Further microbiological, immunological and radiological investigations varied. Most waitlisted patients receiving organs from a deceased donor with active (94.5%) or resolved (61.5%) SARS-CoV-2 infection were preferred to have natural, vaccine-induced or hybrid SARS-CoV-2 immunity. Most countries did not require recipients to undergo specific anti-SARS-CoV-2 treatment as pre-exposure (0%), post-exposure prophylaxis (15.4%) or modification of immunosuppression regimen (24%). This study highlights similarities and heterogeneities in the management of SARS-CoV-2 positive donors between COE countries, and a potential to safely expand donors’ pool.

Expected and unexpected donor-derived infections are a rare complication of solid organ transplantation, but can result in significant morbidity and mortality. Over the last years, the growing gap existing between patients on the waiting list and available organs has favored the use of organs from donors with suspected or confirmed infections, thanks to the improvement of risk mitigation strategies against transmission of well recognized and emerging infections. Given the recent developments, the particular interest of this review is to summarize data on how to maximize utilization of HIV+ donors in HIV+ recipients, the use of HCV-viremic donors and HBV positive donors. This article also covers the implications for recipient of organs from donors with bacteremia and the challenge of multidrug resistant (MDR) infections. Lastly this review describes emerging risks associated with recent Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemics.

Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) in lung transplant recipients (LuTRs) has high heterogeneity between centers. Our aim was to investigate retrospectively the approach to PAP in our center over a 20-year period (2002–2023), and its impact on early post-operative infections (EPOIs) after lung transplantation (LuT). Primary endpoint was diagnosis of EPOI, defined as any bacterial infection including donor-derived events diagnosed within 30 days from LuT. Main exposure variables were type of PAP (combination vs. monotherapy) and PAP duration. We enrolled 111 LuTRs. PAP consisted of single-agent or combination regimens in 26 (25.2%) and 85 (74.8%) LuTR. Median PAP duration was 10 days (IQR 6–13) days. Piperacillin/tazobactam was the most common agent used either as monotherapy (n = 21, 80.7%) or as combination with levofloxacin (n = 79, 92.9%). EPOIs were diagnosed in 30 (27%) patients. At multivariable analysis no advantages were found for combination regimens compared to single-agent PAP in preventing EPOI (OR: 1.57, 95% CI: 0.488–5.068, p:0.448). The impact of PAP duration on EPOIs development was investigated including duration of PAP ≤6 days as main exposure variables, without finding a significantly impact (OR:2.165, 95% CI: 0.596–7.863, p: 0.240). Our results suggest no advantages for combination regimens PAP in preventing EPOI in LuTR.

IntroductionStress hyperglycemia is a frequent finding in patients with COVID-19 infection and could affect the outcome of disease. Cytokines released in response to infection could have adverse effects on insulin sensitivity and pancreatic beta-cell function. The aim of the study was to examine the relationships of stress hyperglycemia with cytokines and clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.MethodsIn a cross-sectional analysis of 150 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection who were included in the GIRA-COVID database, we identified patients with stress hyperglycemia by calculation of the Stress Hyperglycemia Ratio (SHR) and use of a cut-off of 1.14. Plasma levels of cytokines principally involved in COVID-19 infection-related cytokine storm were measured. Outcome variables were use of mechanical ventilation and death within 60 days from hospital admission.ResultsPatients with SHR > 1.14 had significantly higher plasma insulin, HOMA-index, and levels of interleukin-10 (IL-10), interleukin-10/tumor necrosis factor-a ratio (IL-10/TNF-α), and CXC motif chemokine ligand 10 (CXCL10) than patients with SHR ≤ 1.14. IL-10, IL-10/TNF-α ratio, CXCL10, and IFN-γ were significantly and directly related with SHR in univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression models showed that IL-10, IL-10/TNF-α ratio, and CXCL10 were independently associated with SHR>1.14. In a multivariate logistic model, stress hyperglycemia predicted use of mechanical ventilation (OR 2.453; CI 1.078–6.012) and death (OR 2.281; CI 1.049–7.369) independently of diabetes and other major confounders.ConclusionsIn patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection, stress hyperglycemia is associated with worse clinical outcomes and is independently related to levels of cytokines that might impair glucose homeostasis.

The treatment of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB) infections in critically ill patients presents many challenges. Since an effective treatment should be administered as soon as possible, resistance to many antimicrobial classes almost invariably reduces the probability of adequate empirical coverage, with possible unfavorable consequences. In this light, readily available patient's medical history and updated information about the local microbiological epidemiology remain critical for defining the baseline risk of MDR-GNB infections and firmly guiding empirical treatment choices, with the aim of avoiding both undertreatment and overtreatment. Rapid diagnostics and efficient laboratory workflows are also of paramount importance both for anticipating diagnosis and for rapidly narrowing the antimicrobial spectrum, with de-escalation purposes and in line with antimicrobial stewardship principles. Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter baumannii are being reported with increasing frequencies worldwide, although with important variability across regions, hospitals and even single wards. In the past few years, new treatment options, such as ceftazidime/avibactam, meropenem/vaborbactam, ceftolozane/tazobactam, plazomicin, and eravacycline have become available, and others will become soon, which have provided some much-awaited resources for effectively counteracting severe infections due to these organisms. However, their optimal use should be guaranteed in the long term, for delaying as much as possible the emergence and diffusion of resistance to novel agents. Despite important progresses, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic optimization of dosages and treatment duration in critically ill patients has still some areas of uncertainty requiring further study, that should take into account also resistance selection as a major endpoint. Treatment of severe MDR-GNB infections in critically ill patients in the near future will require an expert and complex clinical reasoning, of course taking into account the peculiar characteristics of the target population, but also the need for adequate empirical coverage and the more and more specific enzyme-level activity of novel antimicrobials with respect to the different resistance mechanisms of MDR-GNB.