Clinical practice in COVID-19: The most frequently asked questions to infectious diseases specialists

Borges, Moara Alves Santa Bárbara; Guilarde, Adriana Oliveira; Tomich, Lísia Gomes Martins de Moura; Turchi, Marília Dalva

doi:10.1016/j.bjid.2021.101648

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Only the heart transplant events with known donor COVID‐19 antigen or NAT results within 14 days of the transplant were included in the analysis. The choice of 14 days was based on the original quarantine period suggested by WHO and CDC as well as review of literature on COVID‐19 transmission 3–5 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patterns and outcomes of COVID‐19 donor utilization for heart transplant

Vaidya

Anaya

Ignaszewski

et al. 2023

Clinical Transplantation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The outcomes following COVID‐19 positive donor (CPD) utilization for heart transplant are unknown. Methods UNOS database was analyzed for heart transplants performed from the declaration of COVID‐19 pandemic until September 30, 2022. Result Since the onset of pandemic, there were 9876 heart transplants reported. COVID‐19 antigen or NAT results were available in 7698 adult donors within 14 days of donation, of which 177 (2.3%) were positive. There was no difference in recipient demographics, including age (COVID positive donor vs. negative: 55 vs. 56 years, p = .2) and BMI. Listing status 1 and 2 were similar in both groups (7% vs. 10% and 48% vs. 49% respectively, p = .4). Durable and temporary mechanical support were similar in both groups pre‐transplant (both groups 33%, p = .9). There was no difference in days on the waitlist (median 31 days, p = .9). Simultaneous renal transplant rates were similar (11% vs. 10%, p = .9). CPD utilization has increased since the onset of the pandemic, and the adoption is present across most UNOS regions. Post‐transplant, there was no difference in length of stay (median 16 vs. 17 days, p = .9) and acute rejection episodes prior to discharge (3% vs. 8%, p = .1). In survival analysis of 90‐day follow up, number of deaths reported were comparable (5% in both groups, p = .9) Follow‐up LVEF was comparable (62% vs. 60%, p = .4). Conclusion Active COVID‐19 infection in donors did not affect survival or rejection rates in the short‐term post‐heart transplant.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The choice of 14 days was based on the original quarantine period suggested by WHO and CDC as well as review of literature on COVID-19 transmission. [3][4][5] The cohort was divided into two groups based on donor COVID-19 antigen and NAT results. The compared outcomes included acute rejection prior to discharge and length of stay.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%