Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available regarding the etiologic impact of health care-associated pneumonia (HCAP) in lung transplant recipients. Therefore, our aim was to evaluate the microbiologic differences between HCAP and hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP)/ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in lung transplant recipients with a radiographically confirmed diagnosis of pneumonia. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of lung transplant recipients with pneumonia at one transplant center over a 7-year period. Eligible patients included lung transplant recipients who developed a first episode of radiographically confirmed pneumonia >/= 48 h following transplantation. HCAP, HAP, and VAP were classified according to the American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America 2005 guidelines. chi(2) and Student t tests were used to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS: Sixty-eight lung transplant recipients developed at least one episode of pneumonia. HCAP (n = 42; 62%) was most common, followed by HAP/VAP (n = 26; 38%) stratified in HAP (n = 20; 77%) and VAP (n = 6; 23%). Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the predominantly isolated organism (n = 22; 32%), whereas invasive aspergillosis was uncommon (< 10%). Multiple-drug resistant (MDR) pathogens were less frequently isolated in patients with HCAP compared with HAP/VAP (5% vs 27%; P = .009). Opportunistic pathogens were less frequently identified in lung transplant recipients with HCAP than in those with HAP/VAP (7% vs 27%; P = .02). Lung transplant recipients with HCAP had a similar mortality at 90 days (n = 9 [21%] vs n = 4 [15%]; P = .3) compared with patients with HAP/VAP. CONCLUSIONS: HCAP was the most frequent infection in lung transplant recipients. MDR pathogens and opportunistic pathogens were more frequently isolated in HAP/VAP. There were no differences in 30- and 90-day mortality between lung transplant recipients with HCAP and those with HAP/VAP.

This document was developed through the collaborative efforts of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, the American College of Chest Physicians, and the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations. Under the auspices of these societies, a multidisciplinary, multi-institutional task force was convened, incorporating expertise in critical care medicine, organ donor management, and transplantation. Members of the task force were divided into 13 subcommittees, each focused on one of the following general or organ-specific areas: death determination using neurologic criteria, donation after circulatory death determination, authorization process, general contraindications to donation, hemodynamic management, endocrine dysfunction and hormone replacement therapy, pediatric donor management, cardiac donation, lung donation, liver donation, kidney donation, small bowel donation, and pancreas donation. Subcommittees were charged with generating a series of management-related questions related to their topic. For each question, subcommittees provided a summary of relevant literature and specific recommendations. The specific recommendations were approved by all members of the task force and then assembled into a complete document. Because the available literature was overwhelmingly comprised of observational studies and case series, representing low-quality evidence, a decision was made that the document would assume the form of a consensus statement rather than a formally graded guideline. The goal of this document is to provide critical care practitioners with essential information and practical recommendations related to management of the potential organ donor, based on the available literature and expert consensus.

Lung transplantation reduces mortality in patients with end-stage lung disease; however, only approximately 21% of lungs from potential donor patients undergo transplantation. A large number of donor lungs become categorized as unsuitable for lung transplantation as a result of lung injury around the time of brain death. Limiting this injury is key to increasing the number of successful lung procurements and subsequent transplants. This narrative review by a working group of pulmonologists, respiratory therapists, and lung transplant specialists elucidates principles of mechanical ventilatory support that can be used to limit lung injury in potential lung donor patients and examines the implementation of protocolized strategies in enhancing the procurement of donor lungs for transplantation.

The objectives of this pilot trial were to assess the safety of a new device for pulmonary embolism (PE) prophylaxis. The device, the Angel Catheter, was placed in eight patients who were in the intensive care unit and were at high risk of PE. The device was inserted at the bedside without fluoroscopic guidance via a femoral venous approach. All eight devices were inserted and subsequently retrieved without complications (follow-up, 33-36 d). One filter trapped a large clot.

OBJECTIVES: Immunosuppressive pharmacologic agents prescribed to patients with diffuse interstitial and inflammatory lung disease and lung transplant recipients are associated with potential risks for adverse reactions. Strategies for minimizing such risks include administering these drugs according to established, safe protocols; monitoring to detect manifestations of toxicity; and patient education. Hence, an evidence-based guideline for physicians can improve safety and optimize the likelihood of a successful outcome. To maximize the likelihood that these agents will be used safely, the American College of Chest Physicians established a committee to examine the clinical evidence for the administration and monitoring of immunosuppressive drugs (with the exception of corticosteroids) to identify associated toxicities associated with each drug and appropriate protocols for monitoring these agents. METHODS: Committee members developed and refined a series of questions about toxicities of immunosuppressives and current approaches to administration and monitoring. A systematic review was carried out by the American College of Chest Physicians. Committee members were supplied with this information and created this evidence-based guideline. CONCLUSIONS: It is hoped that these guidelines will improve patient safety when immunosuppressive drugs are given to lung transplant recipients and to patients with diffuse interstitial lung disease.