Management of multidrug resistant Gram-negative bacilli infections in solid organ transplant recipients: SET/GESITRA-SEIMC/REIPI recommendations

Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are especially at risk of developing infections by multidrug resistant (MDR) Gram-negative bacilli (GNB), as they are frequently exposed to antibiotics and the healthcare setting, and are regulary subject to invasive procedures. Nevertheless, no recommendations concerning prevention and treatment are available. A panel of experts revised the available evidence; this document summarizes their recommendations: (1) it is important to characterize the isolate´s phenotypic and genotypic resistance profile; (2) overall, donor colonization should not constitute a contraindication to transplantation, although active infected kidney and lung grafts should be avoided; (3) recipient colonization is associated with an increased risk of infection, but is not a contraindication to transplantation; (4) different surgical prophylaxis regimens are not recommended for patients colonized with carbapenem-resistant GNB; (5) timely detection of carriers, contact isolation precautions, hand hygiene compliance and antibiotic control policies are important preventive measures; (6) there is not sufficient data to recommend intestinal decolonization; (7) colonized lung transplant recipients could benefit from prophylactic inhaled antibiotics, specially for Pseudomonas aeruginosa; (8) colonized SOT recipients should receive an empirical treatment which includes active antibiotics, and directed therapy should be adjusted according to susceptibility study results and the severity of the infection.J.T.S. holds a research contract from the Fundación para la Formación e Investigación de los Profesionales de la Salud de Extremadura (FundeSalud), Instituto de Salud Carlos III. M.F.R. holds a clinical research contract “Juan Rodés” (JR14/00036) from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, Instituto de Salud Carlos III

Effects of equipment and technique on peak flow measurements

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Different lung function equipment and different respiratory manoeuvres may produce different Peak Expiratory Flow (PEF) results. Although the PEF is the most common lung function test, there have been few studies of these effects and no previous study has evaluated both factors in a single group of patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We studied 36 subjects (PEF range 80–570 l/min). All patients recorded PEF measurements using a short rapid expiration following maximal inspiration (PEF technique) or a forced maximal expiration to residual volume (FVC technique). Measurements were made using a Wright's peak flow meter, a turbine spirometer and a Fleisch pneumotachograph spirometer.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The mean PEF was 8.7% higher when the PEF technique was used (compared with FVC technique, p < 0.0001). The mean PEF recorded with the turbine spirometer was 5.5% lower than the Wright meter reading. The Fleisch spirometer result was 19.5% lower than the Wright reading. However, adjustment of the Wrights measurements from the traditional Wright's scale to the new EU Peak Flow scale produced results that were only 7.2% higher than the Fleisch pneumotachograph measurements.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Peak flow measurements are affected by the instruction given and by the device and Peak Flow scale used. Patient management decisions should not be based on PEF measurement made on different instruments.</p