Daniel R Kaul1, Shandie Covington, Sarah Taranto, Michael Green, G Marshall Lyon, Shimon Kusne, Rachel A Miller, Emily A Blumberg. 1. 1 Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI. 2 United Network for Organ Sharing, Richmond, VA. 3 Department of Pediatrics and Surgery, Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, University of Pittsburgh Medical School, Pittsburgh, PA. 4 Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA. 5 Division of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic in Arizona, Phoenix, AZ. 6 Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA. 7 Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Disease, Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 8 Address correspondence to: Daniel R. Kaul, M.D., Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Michigan Medical Center, 3120 Taubman Center, 1500 E. Medical Center Dr., SPC 5378, Ann Arbor, MI.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While donor-derived infections (DDI) remain uncommon, multiple reports describe DDI with pathogens that cause central nervous system (CNS) infection resulting in significant recipient disease. The Ad Hoc Disease Transmission Advisory Committee (DTAC) reviewed the records of potential donor-derived disease transmission events (PDDTE) to describe donor characteristics and outcomes associated with DDI from CNS pathogens. METHODS: All PDDTE reported from January 2008 to September 2010 were reviewed for characteristics suggesting CNS infection in the donor or the recipient. Identified cases were further examined to determine if donor CNS infection resulted in recipient infection. RESULTS: Ninety-one PDDTE cases in which there was concern for CNS infection in the donor or recipient were identified. Further review confirmed CNS infection in 12 donors, six of whom transmitted infection to 10 of 15 exposed recipients with five recipient deaths. Pathogens included Balamuthia mandrillaris, Cryptococcus neoformans, lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus, and West Nile virus. Listed cause of death at procurement for these donors included stroke, anoxia, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, and meningoencephalitis. Confounding diagnoses were present in 6 of 12 donors that would have allowed them to be considered at low risk of transmitting a CNS pathogen. Of the six donors with no confounding conditions, three exhibited at least two suspicious "DTAC warning criteria" for CNS infection. CONCLUSION: Careful clinical assessment of donors combined with a high index of suspicion for ambiguous or misleading findings associated with CNS infection can reduce, but not eliminate, DDI with CNS pathogens.
BACKGROUND: While donor-derived infections (DDI) remain uncommon, multiple reports describe DDI with pathogens that cause central nervous system (CNS) infection resulting in significant recipient disease. The Ad Hoc Disease Transmission Advisory Committee (DTAC) reviewed the records of potential donor-derived disease transmission events (PDDTE) to describe donor characteristics and outcomes associated with DDI from CNS pathogens. METHODS: All PDDTE reported from January 2008 to September 2010 were reviewed for characteristics suggesting CNS infection in the donor or the recipient. Identified cases were further examined to determine if donorCNS infection resulted in recipient infection. RESULTS: Ninety-one PDDTE cases in which there was concern for CNS infection in the donor or recipient were identified. Further review confirmed CNS infection in 12 donors, six of whom transmitted infection to 10 of 15 exposed recipients with five recipient deaths. Pathogens included Balamuthia mandrillaris, Cryptococcus neoformans, lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus, and West Nile virus. Listed cause of death at procurement for these donors included stroke, anoxia, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, and meningoencephalitis. Confounding diagnoses were present in 6 of 12 donors that would have allowed them to be considered at low risk of transmitting a CNS pathogen. Of the six donors with no confounding conditions, three exhibited at least two suspicious "DTAC warning criteria" for CNS infection. CONCLUSION: Careful clinical assessment of donors combined with a high index of suspicion for ambiguous or misleading findings associated with CNS infection can reduce, but not eliminate, DDI with CNS pathogens.
Authors: Lasya R Penumarthi; Ricardo M La Hoz; Cameron R Wolfe; Brendan R Jackson; Aneesh K Mehta; Maricar Malinis; Lara Danziger-Isakov; Lynne Strasfeld; Diana F Florescu; Gabriel Vece; Sridhar V Basavaraju; Marian G Michaels Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 9.369