The impact of septicemia occurring during hospitalization for renal transplantation procedures on outcomes in adults in United States

Early versus late removal of urinary catheter after kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment for end-stage kidney disease is kidney transplantation. During the operation, a catheter is introduced into the bladder and remains in place postoperatively to allow the bladder to drain. This decreases tension from the cysto-ureteric anastomosis and promotes healing. Unfortunately, urinary catheters can pose an infection risk to patients as they allow bacteria into the bladder, potentially resulting in a urinary tract infection (UTI). The longer the catheter remains in place, the greater the risk of developing a UTI. There is no consensus approach to the time a catheter should remain in place post-transplant. Furthermore, the different timings of catheter removal are thought to be associated with different incidences of UTI and postoperative complications, such as anastomotic breakdown.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to compare patients who had their catheter removed < 5 days post-transplant surgery to those patients who had their catheter removed ≥ 5 days following their kidney transplant. Primary outcome measures between the two groups included: the incidence of symptomatic UTIs, the incidence of asymptomatic bacteriuria and the incidence of major urological complications requiring intervention and treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 13 April 2023 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing timing of catheter removal post-transplantation were eligible for inclusion. All donor types were included, and all recipients were included regardless of age, demographics or type of urinary catheter used.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Results from the literature search were screened by two authors to identify if they met our inclusion criteria. We designated removal of a urinary catheter before five days (120 hours) as an 'early removal' and anything later than this as a 'late removal.' The studies were assessed for quality using the risk of bias tool. The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of asymptomatic bacteriuria. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model, and results were expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies (197 patients) were included in our analysis. One study comprised a full-text article, and the other was a conference abstract with very limited information. The risk of bias in the included studies was generally either high or unclear. It is uncertain whether early versus late removal of the urinary catheter made any difference to the incidence of asymptomatic bacteriuria (RR 0.89, 95% Cl 0.17 to 4.57; participants = 197; I2 = 88%; very low certainty evidence). Data on other outcomes, such as the incidence of UTI and the incidence of major urological complications, were lacking. Furthermore, the follow-up of patients across the studies was short, with no patients being followed beyond one month.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A high-quality, well-designed RCT is required to compare the effectiveness of early catheter removal versus late catheter removal in patients following a kidney transplant. At the present time, there is insufficient evidence to suggest any difference between early and late catheter removal post-transplant, and the studies investigating this were generally of poor quality.

Frequency and Impact of Infectious Disease Conditions Diagnosed During Decompensated Heart Failure Hospitalizations in the United States

There are limited data on the frequency of diagnosis of infectious disease and its impact on patients hospitalized with decompensated heart failure. We sought to evaluate the prevalence, types, trends, and outcomes of infectious disease diagnosis in patients admitted with decompensated heart failure. We performed a retrospective cohort study in patients admitted with a primary diagnosis of heart failure using the National Inpatient Sample database from 2009 to 2019. Patients with a length of stay ≥3 days were included. Patients with chronic dialysis, left ventricular assist devices, cardiogenic shock, or solid organ transplantation or who required mechanical ventilation or mechanical circulatory support were excluded. Patients were stratified according to the presence or absence of infectious disease diagnosis. Outcomes of interest were in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and resource utilization. Among the 7,228,521 admissions with a primary diagnosis of heart failure that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, an infectious disease diagnosis was reported in 1,806,514 (24.9%). Infectious disease diagnosis was more frequent in patients who were female, older, and White, and who had higher baseline co-morbidity. Since 2014, there has been a steady decrease in infectious conditions in patients admitted with a primary diagnosis of heart failure (p for trend <0.01). After propensity match analysis was performed, patients with infectious disease diagnosis had a longer length of stay (6.9 vs 5.7 days, p <0.001) and higher cost ($14,305 vs $11,760, p <0.001), were less likely to be discharged home (35.3% vs 44.7%, p <0.001), and had higher in-hospital mortality (2.6% vs 1.6%, p <0.001). In conclusion, approximately 1 in 4 patients admitted with primary heart failure will be diagnosed with an infectious condition. The presence of an infectious disease diagnosis is associated with increased morbidity and mortality.

Bloodstream infections among intestinal and multivisceral transplant recipients

OBJECTIVE

To examine the etiologies, risk factors, and microbiology of bloodstream infections (BSIs) among intestinal and multivisceral transplant recipients in the 2-year post-operative period.

METHODS

A retrospective medical record review of adult intestinal or multivisceral transplant recipients between 2003 and 2015. Descriptive statistics were used to describe cohort data. Logistic regression was used to assess factors related to BSIs using a backward selection process.

RESULTS

One-hundred and six intestinal or multivisceral transplants were performed in 103 individuals. Fifty-eight percent (n = 62) developed a BSI in the 2-year post-operative period with a median time to first BSI of 53 days (interquartile range [IQR] 15, 169). The majority of BSIs were catheter related 38% (n = 58) when the source was known. Common microbiological isolates included enterococcus 20% (n = 36/174), coagulase-negative staphylococcus 14% (n = 23), and 12% Klebsiella spp (n = 21). Forty-seven percent (n = 17) of the enterococci were resistant to vancomycin, and 14% (n = 10/70) of the gram negatives were extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producers. In adjusted analyses, (OR: 0.200 95% CI: 0.2, 0.514, P = .009) men were less likely to have a BSI. Transplant recipient age, allograft type, comorbidities, rejection, and length of stay were not noted to be risk factors for development of BSIs in our cohort. Mortality at 2-years post-transplant was similar for those who did not develop a BSI and those that developed infection, P = .5028.

CONCLUSIONS

BSIs are a common complication of intestinal transplantation, and central venous catheters were a common source. Interventions such as early catheter removal should be implemented to prevent infections in this population. Female sex association with BSI requires further investigation.

Uncommon Complications in the First Year After Renal Transplantation

INTRODUCTION

Classic post-transplant complications are highly studied and monitored; however, other unusual complications may occur due to immunosuppression. The objective of this study is to show these rare complications in a kidney transplant center.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective, observational, longitudinal study of renal transplants carried out from 2013 to 2017 in the Renal Transplant Unit of the National Medical Center Siglo XXI. A total of 790 transplants were performed, with surveillance for 1 year and rare events described. An analysis of frequencies and percentages of the events was performed using the statistical package SPSS version 25.

RESULTS

Of the 790 patients, 110 (13.92%) experienced rare events, classified into 9 types of complications.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Complications exist in renal transplantation that are often ignored or minimized. A considerable number have been observed in this study, 110 events (13.92%); this result allows us to consider multiple possibilities in a kidney transplant program, especially infectious complications (34 patients) and surgical complications (29 cases). With the increase in diabetic receptor transplantation, metabolic complications will surely increase in the coming years.

A Nationwide Assessment of the "July Effect" and Predictors of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Sepsis at Urban Teaching Hospitals in the United States

Background/Aims

To analyze the incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) sepsis in the early (July to September) and later (October to June) academic months to assess the “July effect”.

Methods

The National Inpatient Sample (2010–2014) was used to identify ERCP-related adult hospitalizations at urban teaching hospitals by applying relevant procedure codes from the International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, Clinical Modification. Post-ERCP outcomes were compared between the early and later academic months. A multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate the odds of post-ERCP sepsis and its predictors.

Results

Of 481,193 ERCP procedures carried out at urban teaching hospitals, 124,934 were performed during the early academic months. The demographics were comparable for ERCP procedures performed during the early and later academic months. A higher incidence (9.4% vs. 8.8%, p<0.001) and odds (odds ratio [OR], 1.07) of post-ERCP sepsis were observed in ERCP performed during the early academic months. The in-hospital mortality rate (7% vs. 7.5%, p=0.072), length of stay, and total hospital charges in patients with post-ERCP sepsis were also equivalent between the 2 time points. Pre-ERCP cholangitis (OR, 3.20) and post-ERCP complications such as cholangitis (OR, 6.27), perforation (OR, 3.93), and hemorrhage (OR, 1.42) were significant predictors of higher post-ERCP sepsis in procedures performed during the early academic months.

Conclusions

The July effect was present in the incidence of post-ERCP sepsis, and academic programs should take into consideration the predictors of post-ERCP sepsis to lower health-care burden.

Outcomes of Surgical Sepsis

BACKGROUND

Discussion of outcomes of surgical sepsis is no longer straightforward. Definitions of sepsis have changed recently and updated data are scant. Surgical patient populations are often heterogeneous; the patient population being considered must be described with precision. Traditional 30-d operative mortality may not be the most relevant outcome to consider. What should change or be the emphasis going forward?

METHODS

Review and synthesis of pertinent English-language literature.

RESULTS

Epidemiologic data are abundant for short-term outcomes of sepsis in general, but despite the fact that approximately 30% of patients with sepsis are surgical patients, sepsis outcome data for surgical patients are scant, especially for durations longer than 30 d, and essentially non-existent for patients defined under the new Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) criteria. Interpretability of extant data is hampered by non-standard and changing definitions.

CONCLUSIONS

Sepsis and organ dysfunction may be decreasing in prevalence and magnitude among surgical patients, but terminology must be standardized to enhance the interpretability of data generated in the future. It behooves journal editors, reviewers, and authors to insist upon standardized definitions and rigorous study design and data interpretation. Longer term data (e.g., 90-d mortality as opposed to in-hospital or traditional 30-d mortality) will be needed to justify to payers the complex, expensive care that these patients require. There is an urgent need to redefine the research agenda for surgical infections.