Pediatric transplantation · 2025
Child Organ Offer Process (cOOPS): Understanding Infectious Risk Assessment and Mitigation Strategies.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lee Trinity, Prakash Katya, Bahakel Hannah, Green Michael, L'Huillier Arnaud G, Michaels Marian G, Otto William, Posfay-Barbe Klara, Sharma Tanvi, Baddley John W, Danziger-Isakov Lara, OOPS Consortium
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Pediatric Infectious Disease (PID) clinicians involved in solid organ transplantation often assess infection risk and mitigation strategies for donor organ offers. While some guidance is available, real-life practice patterns have not been previously described.
METHODS: We surveyed PID clinicians about organ acceptance and associated posttransplantation interventions using 12 fictitious pediatric case scenarios through 3 PID-specific listservs. Descriptive statistics were employed.
RESULTS: 48 (71.6%) of 67 ID respondents were involved in organ offer assessment. Agreement was strong (> 80%) to accept (syphilis, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2], MRSA, E. coli, TB [liver], rhino/enterovirus) or decline (undifferentiated encephalitis, TB [lung]) organs from these cases, while there was less agreement for cases with risk of coccidioidomycosis, Chagas disease, multi-drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii, and influenza. Less agreement was present for posttransplant monitoring and antimicrobial administration. Practice varied in testing and treatment for donors with SARS-CoV-2 positive test, MRSA bacteremia, and Chagas disease.
CONCLUSIONS: For many pediatric organ offer scenarios, agreement in donor acceptance was high; however, improved education based on currently available recommendations may enhance organ acceptance decision-making. The variability in management highlights educational and research opportunities to optimize strategies to limit the impact of donor-derived infections in pediatric organ recipients.
METHODS: We surveyed PID clinicians about organ acceptance and associated posttransplantation interventions using 12 fictitious pediatric case scenarios through 3 PID-specific listservs. Descriptive statistics were employed.
RESULTS: 48 (71.6%) of 67 ID respondents were involved in organ offer assessment. Agreement was strong (> 80%) to accept (syphilis, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2], MRSA, E. coli, TB [liver], rhino/enterovirus) or decline (undifferentiated encephalitis, TB [lung]) organs from these cases, while there was less agreement for cases with risk of coccidioidomycosis, Chagas disease, multi-drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii, and influenza. Less agreement was present for posttransplant monitoring and antimicrobial administration. Practice varied in testing and treatment for donors with SARS-CoV-2 positive test, MRSA bacteremia, and Chagas disease.
CONCLUSIONS: For many pediatric organ offer scenarios, agreement in donor acceptance was high; however, improved education based on currently available recommendations may enhance organ acceptance decision-making. The variability in management highlights educational and research opportunities to optimize strategies to limit the impact of donor-derived infections in pediatric organ recipients.