The impact of preservation fluid culture on graft site arteritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
graft arteritis
mycotic aneurism
preservation fluid
solid organ transplantation
Journal
Transplant infectious disease : an official journal of the Transplantation Society
ISSN: 1399-3062
Titre abrégé: Transpl Infect Dis
Pays: Denmark
ID NLM: 100883688
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2022
Dec 2022
Historique:
revised:
23
09
2022
received:
23
08
2022
accepted:
12
10
2022
pubmed:
23
10
2022
medline:
24
12
2022
entrez:
22
10
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The role of culturing the graft preservation fluid (PF) is controversial and its impact on graft arteritis development remains unclear. Systematic literature search retrieving observational studies comparing solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with culture-positive PF versus culture-negative PF. The quality of included studies was independently assessed according to the ROBINS-I tool for observational studies. Meta-analysis was performed using Mantel-Haenszel random-effect models. Graft site arteritis within 180 days from transplant was selected as the primary outcome. Twenty-one observational studies (N = 2208 positive PF vs. 4458 negative) were included. Among positive PF, 857 (38.8%) were classified as high-risk group pathogens and 1351 (61.2%) as low-risk pathogens. Low-risk and negative PF showed similar odds ratios. A significant higher risk of graft arteritis was found in SOT recipients with a PF yielding a high-risk pathogen (odds ratio [OR] 18.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.83-43.40) compared to low-risk and negative PF, with low heterogeneity (I Our results may support the performance of PF culturing and a preemptive diagnostic or therapeutic management upon isolation of high-risk pathogens. Further studies based on a reliable diagnosis of graft arteritis are needed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The role of culturing the graft preservation fluid (PF) is controversial and its impact on graft arteritis development remains unclear.
METHODS
METHODS
Systematic literature search retrieving observational studies comparing solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with culture-positive PF versus culture-negative PF. The quality of included studies was independently assessed according to the ROBINS-I tool for observational studies. Meta-analysis was performed using Mantel-Haenszel random-effect models. Graft site arteritis within 180 days from transplant was selected as the primary outcome.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twenty-one observational studies (N = 2208 positive PF vs. 4458 negative) were included. Among positive PF, 857 (38.8%) were classified as high-risk group pathogens and 1351 (61.2%) as low-risk pathogens. Low-risk and negative PF showed similar odds ratios. A significant higher risk of graft arteritis was found in SOT recipients with a PF yielding a high-risk pathogen (odds ratio [OR] 18.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.83-43.40) compared to low-risk and negative PF, with low heterogeneity (I
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our results may support the performance of PF culturing and a preemptive diagnostic or therapeutic management upon isolation of high-risk pathogens. Further studies based on a reliable diagnosis of graft arteritis are needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36271646
doi: 10.1111/tid.13979
pmc: PMC10078333
doi:
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e13979Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Transplant Infectious Disease published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Transplant Proc. 2005 Jul-Aug;37(6):2834-6
pubmed: 16182825
Transpl Infect Dis. 2022 Dec;24(6):e13979
pubmed: 36271646
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
Transplant Proc. 2009 Jul-Aug;41(6):2169-71
pubmed: 19715863
Am J Kidney Dis. 1998 Jan;31(1):E3
pubmed: 10074575
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019 May;25(5):595-600
pubmed: 30659919
Transpl Infect Dis. 2011 Feb;13(1):84-8
pubmed: 20576020
Transplant Proc. 2017 May;49(4):906-912
pubmed: 28457423
Transplantation. 2006 Nov 15;82(9):1163-7
pubmed: 17102767
Transplant Proc. 2010 May;42(4):1043-5
pubmed: 20534219
Transpl Infect Dis. 2011 Aug;13(4):331-4
pubmed: 21281417
J Clin Med. 2021 May 09;10(9):
pubmed: 34065096
Transpl Infect Dis. 2011 Feb;13(1):9-14
pubmed: 20738832
Am J Transplant. 2012 Sep;12(9):2414-28
pubmed: 22694672
BMC Infect Dis. 2020 Feb 10;20(1):115
pubmed: 32041547
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014 Sep;20 Suppl 7:10-8
pubmed: 24476053
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2012 Jul;33(7):672-80
pubmed: 22669228
Transplant Proc. 2015 Oct;47(8):2322-3
pubmed: 26518916
World J Clin Cases. 2020 Mar 6;8(5):912-921
pubmed: 32190627
BMJ. 2016 Oct 12;355:i4919
pubmed: 27733354
Transplant Rev (Orlando). 2018 Apr;32(2):85-91
pubmed: 29275111
Transplant Proc. 2004 Apr;36(3):491-2
pubmed: 15110567
BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):629-34
pubmed: 9310563
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019 Apr 26;6(6):ofz180
pubmed: 31198815
Urology. 1988 Jan;31(1):63-5
pubmed: 3276075
Transplant Proc. 2011 May;43(4):1313-5
pubmed: 21620118
Transpl Int. 2015 Nov;28(11):1308-16
pubmed: 26147662
Clin Infect Dis. 2009 Jan 15;48(2):194-202
pubmed: 19090753
Ann Transplant. 2012 Jul-Sep;17(3):20-8
pubmed: 23018252
Prog Transplant. 2021 Mar;31(1):40-46
pubmed: 33297862
Transplant Proc. 2013 Jul-Aug;45(6):2215-9
pubmed: 23953531
Medicina (B Aires). 2021;81(4):555-558
pubmed: 34453796
Transpl Int. 2005 Jan;17(11):680-6
pubmed: 15565355
Liver Transpl. 2006 Aug;12(8):1253-9
pubmed: 16724336
J Hosp Infect. 2010 Sep;76(1):52-5
pubmed: 20435373
Clin Transplant. 2000 Aug;14(4 Pt 2):397-400
pubmed: 10946778