Search

This review describes the risks and benefits of expanding screening for transmissible pathogens in deceased organ donors. The focus is on the experience and procedure in Germany to make a decision on how to proceed with a possible donor. Three issues are of interest in how screening policies impact the process with the aim of mitigating unexpected transmission risks: (1) Should we add universal or targeted nucleic acid testing to serological tests for common blood‐borne viruses (BBVs; HIV, HBV, and HCV)? (2) Which tests should be added for screening in a geographically restricted region beyond testing for these BBVs? (3) Being faced with changes (e.g., climate and population) in the own geographically restricted region, what strategies are needed before implementing new tests, and which considerations apply for proper indication to do this? Testing may only be effective when during donor characterization the appropriate conclusions are drawn from the existing findings and screening tests are initiated. This statement overlaps the need to implement universal screening for a pathogen or targeted screening based on the risk that the donor has acquired the transmissible pathogen or is not as possible to identify by current methods of clinical judgment and/or specific tests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim Methods Results Conclusions Often, organ transplantation is the only option to improve the life expectancy and quality of life of patients with terminal organ failure. Despite improved donor and organ assessment, a residual risk remains for transmitting infection, tumor, or other disease from the donor to recipients. Analysis, reporting, and managing of donor‐derived diseases through a vigilance and surveillance system (V&S) is mandatory in many countries. We report on suspected and proven/probable donor‐derived infections (DDI) in Germany over a period of 8 years (2016–2023).All incoming serious‐adverse‐event and serious‐adverse‐reaction (SAE/SAR) reports from 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2023 were evaluated for suspected DDI. Analysis of imputability followed the definition of the US Disease Transmission Advisory Committee (DTAC). Only probable and proven cases according to DTAC classification were defined as DDI.During the study period, 9771 donors in Germany donated post‐mortem organs to 27 919 recipients. In that period 612 SAE/SAR cases were reported, 377 (62%) involved infections. 41 cases were proven/probable DDI affecting 58 recipients (seven recipients died, 12%). Suspected infections were bacterial (182/377, 48%), fungal (135/377, 36%), viral (55/377, 15%), and parasitic (5/377, 1%). In case of bacterial DDI, no recipient died, but organ loss occurred in six recipients. In case of fungal or viral DDI, 19% (3/16) and 21% (3/14) of the recipients died, respectively.DDI are rare in solid organ transplantation (58/27 919, 0.21%), but when they occur, they are associated with high morbidity and mortality in affected recipients. Careful and detailed donor evaluation and a reliable V&S help improve recipient safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rigid age limits in the current allocation system for post-mortem donor kidneys in Germany may have problematic effects. The new German national transplantion registry enables data analysis with respect to this question., Methods: Using anonymized data from the German national transplantion registry, we extracted and evaluated information on the recipients and postmortem donors of kidneys that were allocated in Germany through Eurotransplant over the period 2006-2020., Results: Data on 19 664 kidney transplantations in Germany from 2006 to 2020 were analyzed. The median waiting time for kidney transplantation was 5.8 years. Persons under age 18 waited a median of 1.7 years; persons aged 18 to 64, 7.0 years; and persons aged 65 and older, 3.8 years. Over the period of observation, post-mortem kidneys were transplanted into 401 people of age 64 (2.0% of all organ recipients) and 1,393 people of age 65 (7.1% of all organ recipients). The difference in waiting times between allocation programs for persons under age 65 (ETKAS, "Eurotransplant Kidney Allocation System") and those aged 65 and older (ESP, "Eurotransplant Senior Program") increased over the period of observation, from 2.6 years in 2006-2010 to 4.1 years in 2017-2020., Conclusion: The rigid age limits in the current allocation rules for post-mortem kidney donations in Germany are prolonging the waiting times for transplants among patients aged 18 to 64. We think these rules need to be fundamentally reassessed.