Donor heart and lung procurement: A consensus statement

Heart and lung procurements are multiphased processes often accompanied by an array of complex logistics. Approaches to donor evaluation and management, organ procurement, and organ preservation vary among individual procurement teams. Because early graft failure remains a major cause of mortality in contemporary thoracic organ transplant recipients, we sought to establish some standardization in the procurement process. This paper, in this vein, represents an international consensus statement on donor heart and lung procurement and is designed to serve as a guide for physicians, surgeons, and other providers who manage donors to best optimize the clinical status for the procurement of both heart and lungs for transplantation. Donation after brain death (DBD) and donation after circulatory determination death (referred to as donation after circulatory death [DCD] for the remainder of the paper) for both heart and lung transplantation will be discussed in this paper. Although the data available on DCD heart donation are limited, information regarding the surgical technique for procurement is included within this consensus statement. Furthermore, this paper will focus on adult DBD and DCD heart and lung procurement. Currently, no certification, which is either recognized and/or endorsed by the transplant community at large, exists for the training of a cardiothoracic procurement surgeon. Nevertheless, establishing a training curriculum and credentialing requirements are beyond the scope of this paper.status: publishe

The Association of Baseline Plasma SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Antigen Level and Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19

BackgroundLevels of plasma SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) antigen may be an important biomarker in patients with COVID-19 and enhance our understanding of the pathogenesis of COVID-19.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether levels of plasma antigen can predict short-term clinical outcomes and identify clinical and viral factors associated with plasma antigen levels in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2.DesignCross-sectional study of baseline plasma antigen level from 2540 participants enrolled in the TICO (Therapeutics for Inpatients With COVID-19) platform trial from August 2020 to November 2021, with additional data on day 5 outcome and time to discharge.Setting114 centers in 10 countries.ParticipantsAdults hospitalized for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection with 12 days or less of symptoms.MeasurementsBaseline plasma viral N antigen level was measured at a central laboratory. Delta variant status was determined from baseline nasal swabs using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Associations between baseline patient characteristics and viral factors and baseline plasma antigen levels were assessed using both unadjusted and multivariable modeling. Association between elevated baseline antigen level of 1000 ng/L or greater and outcomes, including worsening of ordinal pulmonary scale at day 5 and time to hospital discharge, were evaluated using logistic regression and Fine-Gray regression models, respectively.ResultsPlasma antigen was below the level of quantification in 5% of participants at enrollment, and 1000 ng/L or greater in 57%. Baseline pulmonary severity of illness was strongly associated with plasma antigen level, with mean plasma antigen level 3.10-fold higher among those requiring noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula compared with room air (95% CI, 2.22 to 4.34). Plasma antigen level was higher in those who lacked antispike antibodies (6.42 fold; CI, 5.37 to 7.66) and in those with the Delta variant (1.73 fold; CI, 1.41 to 2.13). Additional factors associated with higher baseline antigen level included male sex, shorter time since hospital admission, decreased days of remdesivir, and renal impairment. In contrast, race, ethnicity, body mass index, and immunocompromising conditions were not associated with plasma antigen levels. Plasma antigen level of 1000 ng/L or greater was associated with a markedly higher odds of worsened pulmonary status at day 5 (odds ratio, 5.06 [CI, 3.41 to 7.50]) and longer time to hospital discharge (median, 7 vs. 4 days; subhazard ratio, 0.51 [CI, 0.45 to 0.57]), with subhazard ratios similar across all levels of baseline pulmonary severity.LimitationsPlasma samples were drawn at enrollment, not hospital presentation. No point-of-care test to measure plasma antigen is currently available.ConclusionElevated plasma antigen is highly associated with both severity of pulmonary illness and clinically important patient outcomes. Multiple clinical and viral factors are associated with plasma antigen level at presentation. These data support a potential role of ongoing viral replication in the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalized patients.Primary funding sourceU.S. government Operation Warp Speed and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

Intravenous aviptadil and remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19-associated hypoxaemic respiratory failure in the USA (TESICO): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND: There is a clinical need for therapeutics for COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure whose 60-day mortality remains at 30-50%. Aviptadil, a lung-protective neuropeptide, and remdesivir, a nucleotide prodrug of an adenosine analog, were compared with placebo among patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. METHODS: TESICO was a randomised trial of aviptadil and remdesivir versus placebo at 28 sites in the USA. Hospitalised adult patients were eligible for the study if they had acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and were within 4 days of the onset of respiratory failure. Participants could be randomly assigned to both study treatments in a 2 × 2 factorial design or to just one of the agents. Participants were randomly assigned with a web-based application. For each site, randomisation was stratified by disease severity (high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventilation vs invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]), and four strata were defined by remdesivir and aviptadil eligibility, as follows: (1) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil and remdesivir in the 2 × 2 factorial design; participants were equally randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to intravenous aviptadil plus remdesivir, aviptadil plus remdesivir matched placebo, aviptadil matched placebo plus remdesvir, or aviptadil placebo plus remdesivir placebo; (2) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was started before randomisation; (3) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was contraindicated; and (4) eligible for randomisation to remdesivir only because aviptadil was contraindicated. For participants in strata 2-4, randomisation was 1:1 to the active agent or matched placebo. Aviptadil was administered as a daily 12-h infusion for 3 days, targeting 600 pmol/kg on infusion day 1, 1200 pmol/kg on day 2, and 1800 pmol/kg on day 3. Remdesivir was administered as a 200 mg loading dose, followed by 100 mg daily maintenance doses for up to a 10-day total course. For participants assigned to placebo for either agent, matched saline placebo was administered in identical volumes. For both treatment comparisons, the primary outcome, assessed at day 90, was a six-category ordinal outcome: (1) at home (defined as the type of residence before hospitalisation) and off oxygen (recovered) for at least 77 days, (2) at home and off oxygen for 49-76 days, (3) at home and off oxygen for 1-48 days, (4) not hospitalised but either on supplemental oxygen or not at home, (5) hospitalised or in hospice care, or (6) dead. Mortality up to day 90 was a key secondary outcome. The independent data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping the aviptadil trial on May 25, 2022, for futility. On June 9, 2022, the sponsor stopped the trial of remdesivir due to slow enrolment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04843761. FINDINGS: Between April 21, 2021, and May 24, 2022, we enrolled 473 participants in the study. For the aviptadil comparison, 471 participants were randomly assigned to aviptadil or matched placebo. The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 461 participants who received at least a partial infusion of aviptadil (231 participants) or aviptadil matched placebo (230 participants). For the remdesivir comparison, 87 participants were randomly assigned to remdesivir or matched placebo and all received some infusion of remdesivir (44 participants) or remdesivir matched placebo (43 participants). 85 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses for both agents (ie, those enrolled in the 2 x 2 factorial). For the aviptadil versus placebo comparison, the median age was 57 years (IQR 46-66), 178 (39%) of 461 participants were female, and 246 (53%) were Black, Hispanic, Asian or other (vs 215 [47%] White participants). 431 (94%) of 461 participants were in an intensive care unit at baseline, with 271 (59%) receiving high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventiliation, 185 (40%) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, and five (1%) receiving ECMO. The odds ratio (OR) for being in a better category of the primary efficacy endpoint for aviptadil versus placebo at day 90, from a model stratified by baseline disease severity, was 1·11 (95% CI 0·80-1·55; p=0·54). Up to day 90, 86 participants in the aviptadil group and 83 in the placebo group died. The cumulative percentage who died up to day 90 was 38% in the aviptadil group and 36% in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·77-1·41; p=0·78). The primary safety outcome of death, serious adverse events, organ failure, serious infection, or grade 3 or 4 adverse events up to day 5 occurred in 146 (63%) of 231 patients in the aviptadil group compared with 129 (56%) of 230 participants in the placebo group (OR 1·40, 95% CI 0·94-2·08; p=0·10). INTERPRETATION: Among patients with COVID-19-associated acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, aviptadil did not significantly improve clinical outcomes up to day 90 when compared with placebo. The smaller than planned sample size for the remdesivir trial did not permit definitive conclusions regarding safety or efficacy. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health

Evaluating COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness during pre-Delta, Delta and Omicron dominant periods among pregnant people in the U.S.: Retrospective cohort analysis from a nationally sampled cohort in National COVID Collaborative Cohort (N3C)

Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccinations (initial and booster) during pre-Delta, Delta and Omicron dominant periods among pregnant people via (1) COVID-19 incident and severe infections among pregnant people who were vaccinated versus unvaccinated and (2) post-COVID-19 vaccination breakthrough infections and severe infections among vaccinated females who were pregnant versus non-pregnant.Design Retrospective cohort study using nationally sampled electronic health records data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, 10 December 2020 –7 June 2022.Participants Cohort 1 included pregnant people (15–55 years) and cohort 2 included vaccinated females of reproductive age (15–55 years).Exposures (1) COVID-19 vaccination and (2) pregnancy.Main outcome measures Adjusted HRs (aHRs) for COVID-19 incident or breakthrough infections and severe infections (ie, COVID-19 infections with related hospitalisations).Results In cohort 1, 301 107 pregnant people were included. Compared with unvaccinated pregnant people, the aHRs for pregnant people with initial vaccinations during pregnancy of incident COVID-19 were 0.77 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.96) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.07) and aHRs of severe COVID-19 infections were 0.65 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.90) and 0.79 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.21) during the Delta and Omicron periods, respectively. Compared with pregnant people with full initial vaccinations, the aHR of incident COVID-19 for pregnant people with booster vaccinations was 0.64 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.71) during the Omicron period. In cohort 2, 934 337 vaccinated people were included. Compared with vaccinated non-pregnant females, the aHRs of severe COVID-19 infections for people with initial vaccinations during pregnancy was 2.71 (95% CI 1.31 to 5.60) during the Omicron periods.Conclusions Pregnant people with initial and booster vaccinations during pregnancy had a lower risk of incident and severe COVID-19 infections compared with unvaccinated pregnant people across the pandemic stages. However, vaccinated pregnant people still had a higher risk of severe infections compared with non-pregnant females