PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10658787

Pre-transplantation testing: who, when and why?

Abstract

An ever-widening range of human organs and tissues is being transplanted, limited currently only by the ingenuity of surgeons and immunologists to overcome the physical and immune barriers. Microbiologists are in danger of being left behind. Although the major infective risks of human organ transplantation are now well understood, many details remain controversial, and the special risks associated with tissue banking have received little attention until recently. What should we do? Are we making mountains out of molehills? Are there any data on which to base a rational decision? Topics covered include: bacteriology of cadaveric heart valve transplantation (why are valves not cultured and only dunked in antibiotic solution for 24h, whereas endocarditis gets treated for 4 weeks?); screening for tissue-born viruses (why does everyone persist with serology when genomic methods are so much better?); screening organ donors for CMV (surely we should use the optimally sensitive combination of methods?); peripheral blood stem cell transplants (should we culture these, and what do the positive results mean if we do?); donor sputum screening before heart-lung transplantation (does this aid the post-operative management of the recipient?). With active participation from the floor some areas of consensus were identified and topics worthy of scientific investigation in the future were highlighted.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M Farrington, R Tedder, C Kibbler, T Wreghitt, K Gould, C H Tremlett. 1999. Pre-transplantation testing: who, when and why?. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0195-6701(99)90094-4

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Mechanism for cavitation of monoleaflet and bileaflet valves in an artificial heart.

It is possible that mechanical heart valves mounted in an artificial heart close much faster than those used for clinical valve replacement, resulting in the formation of cavitation bubbles. In this study, the mechanism for mechanical heart cavitation was investigated using the Medtronic Hall monoleaflet valve and the Sorin Bicarbon bileaflet valve mounted at the mitral position in an electrohydraulic total artificial heart. The valve-closing velocity was measured with a charge-coupled device (CCD) laser displacement sensor, and images of mechanical heart valve cavitation were recorded using a high-speed video camera. The valve-closing velocity of the Sorin Bicarbon bileaflet valve was lower than that of the Medtronic Hall monoleaflet valve. Most of the cavitation bubbles generated by the monoleaflet valve were observed near the valve stop; with the Sorin Bicarbon bileaflet valve, cavitation bubbles were concentrated along the leaflet tip. The cavitation density increased as the valve-closing velocity and the valve stop area increased. These results strongly indicate that squeeze flow holds the key to cavitation in the mechanical heart valve. From the perspective of squeeze flow, bileaflet valves with a low valve-closing velocity and a small valve stop area may cause less blood cell damage than monoleaflet valves.

Heart Valves↗