Search

Objectives Serologic testing for antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in potential donors of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) may not be performed until after blood donation. A hospital-based recruitment program for CCP may be an efficient way to identify potential donors prospectively Methods Patients who recovered from known or suspected COVID-19 were identified and recruited through medical record searches and public appeals in March and April 2020. Participants were screened with a modified donor history questionnaire and, if eligible, were asked for consent and tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (IgG and IgM). Participants positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgG were referred for CCP collection. Results Of 179 patients screened, 128 completed serologic testing and 89 were referred for CCP donation. IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 were detected in 23 of 51 participants with suspected COVID-19 and 66 of 77 participants with self-reported COVID-19 confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG level met the US Food and Drug Administration criteria for “high-titer” CCP in 39% of participants confirmed by PCR, as measured by the Ortho VITROS IgG assay. A wide range of SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels were observed. Conclusions A hospital-based CCP donor recruitment program can prospectively identify potential CCP donors. Variability in SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels has implications for the selection of CCP units for transfusion.

Aim Biologic mesh has been increasingly utilized in complex ventral hernia repair despite limited evidence at low risk of bias supporting its growth. We hypothesized biologic mesh when compared to synthetic mesh would have fewer major complications at one year. Material and Methods We performed a participant-level meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing biologic to synthetic mesh at one year. Primary outcome was major complication (composite of mesh infection, recurrence, reoperation, or death) at one year post-operative. Secondary outcomes included length of index hospital stay, surgical site occurrence, and surgical site infection. Outcomes were assessed using frequentist generalized linear models. Results A total of 252 patients from two RCTs were included, 126 patients randomized to the intervention arm of biologic mesh and 126 patients randomized to the control of synthetic mesh. Median follow-up was 15 (12, 27) months. Major complication occurred in 41 (33%) patients randomized to biologic mesh, and 44 (35%) patients randomized to synthetic mesh, (relative risk [RR] 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-1.55, p-value 0.740). There were 36 total recurrences, 23 (18%) in the biologic arm, and 13 (10%) in the synthetic arm (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.84-3.99, p-value 0.130). The remainder of outcomes demonstrated no statistically significant differences. Conclusions The risk of major complication did not differ between biologic versus synthetic mesh. In patients undergoing ventral hernia repair, there was no clinical benefit with biologic mesh as opposed to synthetic mesh at one year post-operative.