Background We analyzed the prevalence, etiology, and risk factors of culture-positive preservation fluid and their impact on the management of solid organ transplant recipients. Methods From July 2015 to March 2017, 622 episodes of adult solid organ transplants at 7 university hospitals in Spain were prospectively included in the study. Results The prevalence of culture-positive preservation fluid was 62.5% (389/622). Nevertheless, in only 25.2% (98/389) of the cases were the isolates considered “high risk” for pathogenicity. After applying a multivariate regression analysis, advanced donor age was the main associated factor for having culture-positive preservation fluid for high-risk microorganisms. Preemptive antibiotic therapy was given to 19.8% (77/389) of the cases. The incidence rate of preservation fluid–related infection was 1.3% (5 recipients); none of these patients had received preemptive therapy. Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with high-risk culture-positive preservation fluid receiving preemptive antibiotic therapy presented both a lower cumulative incidence of infection and a lower rate of acute rejection and graft loss compared with those who did not have high-risk culture-positive preservation fluid. After adjusting for age, sex, type of transplant, and prior graft rejection, preemptive antibiotic therapy remained a significant protective factor for 90-day infection. Conclusions The routine culture of preservation fluid may be considered a tool that provides information about the contamination of the transplanted organ. Preemptive therapy for SOT recipients with high-risk culture-positive preservation fluid may be useful to avoid preservation fluid–related infections and improve the outcomes of infection, graft loss, and graft rejection in transplant patients.

Levofloxacin prophylaxis of tuberculosis in liver transplant candidates is associated with a high incidence of tenosynovitis that limits its potential utility.

Background Suppuration (SUP) as a diagnostic parameter for monitoring dental implants is not yet well understood. The retrospective clinical and radiographic study was therefore performed to investigate the patient, implant, and site characteristics among individuals exhibiting SUP. Methods Demographic characteristics and clinical parameters were recorded. Radiographic features were analyzed using cone‐beam computed tomography. Peri‐implantitis was defined based on the consensus report of Workgroup 4 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri‐Implant Diseases and Conditions: probing depth (PD) ≥6 mm, presence of bleeding and/or SUP on gentle probing, and radiographic marginal bone loss (MBL) ≥3 mm. SUP was graded according to profuseness (dot versus line/drop) and time after probing (≥15 seconds versus <15 seconds after probing versus spontaneous). Simple binary logistic regression models were estimated using generalized estimation equations to explain the probability of SUP based on demographic, clinical, and radiographic variables. Results A total of 111 eligible patients (nimplants = 501) were assessed. Of them, 57 (nimplants = 334) were diagnosed with peri‐implantitis according to the established case definition, and of these individuals, 31 (nimplants = 96) presented SUP. Therefore, the prevalence of SUP was 27.92% in the total sample size and 54.38% in peri‐implantitis patients. Overall, 28.74% implants displayed SUP within patients with peri‐implantitis. SUP was more frequently found at buccal sites (51%) and proved less prevalent at mesio‐lingual sites (16.7%). Defect morphology (OR = 6.59; P = 0.004), PD (OR = 1.63; P = 0.024), and MBL (OR = 1.35; P = 0.010) were significantly associated with the presence of SUP. Likewise, defect morphology (P = 0.02), PD (P = 0.003), and MBL (P = 0.01) were significantly correlated with the grade of SUP. Conclusion The presence and grade of SUP are associated with peri‐implant bone loss, probing depth, and defect morphology in patients with peri‐implantitis.

In our population of HIV-infected patients on ART who achieved viral suppression at < 20 copies/mL, the risk of virological failure was no different for patients who remained fully suppressed compared with those who experienced subsequent episodes of VLLV.

No abstract