From the context of organ donation, COVID-19 vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) is important as there is an ethical dilemma in utilizing versus discarding organs from potential donors succumbing to VITT. This consensus statement is an attempt by the National Organ and Tissue Transplant Organization (NOTTO) apex technical committees, India, to formulate the guidelines for deceased organ donation and transplantation in relation to VITT to help in appropriate decision-making. VITT is a rare entity, but a meticulous approach should be taken by the organ procurement organization's (OPO) team in screening such cases. All such cases must be strictly notified to the national authorities (NOTTO) as a resource for data collection and ensuring compliance with protocols in the management of adverse events following immunization. Organs from any patient who developed thrombotic events up to 4 weeks after adenoviral vector-based vaccination should be considered to be linked to VITT and investigated appropriately. The viability of the organs must be thoroughly checked by the OPO, and the final decision in relation to organ use should be decided by the expert committee of the OPO team consisting of a virologist, a hematologist, and a treating team. Considering the organ shortage, in case of suspected/confirmed VITT, both clinicians and patients should consider the risk[FIGURE DASH]benefit equation based on limited experience. An appropriate written informed consent of potential recipients and family members should be obtained before the transplantation of organs from suspected or proven VITT donors.

Graft loss and rejections (acute/chronic) continue to remain important concerns in long-term outcomes in kidney transplant despite newer immunosuppressive regimens and increased use of induction agents. Global guidelines identify the risk factors and suggest a framework for management of patients at different risk levels for rejection; however, these are better applicable to deceased donor transplants. Their applicability in Indian scenario (predominantly live donor program) could be a matter of debate. Therefore, a panel of experts discussed the current clinical practice and adaptability of global recommendations to Indian settings. They also took a survey to define risk factors in kidney transplants and provide direction toward evidence- and clinical experience-based risk stratification for donor/recipient and transplant-related characteristics, with a focus on living donor transplantations. Several recipient related factors (dialysis, comorbidities, and age, donor-specific antibodies [DSAs]), donor-related factors (age, body mass index, type – living or deceased) and transplantation related factors (cold ischemia time [CIT], number of transplantations) were assessed. The experts suggested that immunological conflict should be avoided by performing cytotoxic cross match, flow cross match in all patients and DSA-(single antigen bead) whenever considered clinically relevant. HLA mismatches, presence of DSA, along with donor/recipient age, CIT, etc., were associated with increased risk of rejection. Furthermore, the panel agreed that the risk of rejection in living donor transplant is not dissimilar to deceased donor recipients. The experts also suggested that induction immunosuppression could be individualized based on the risk stratification.

No abstract

Introduction: The etiology of hypertension in post renal transplant patients is multifold and effective control of blood pressure (BP) contributes towards proper graft functioning and reduces risk of cardiovascular diseases. This prospective observational study was undertaken to evaluate the prevalence of antihypertensive drug use, the prescribing pattern and trends of blood pressure control in a cohort of post renal transplant patients from eastern India. Materials and Methods: Patients who had undergone renal transplant in this public hospital were enrolled as per eligibility criteria. All enrolled patients were on antihypertensive from at least 3months prior to transplant and were followed upto one year post-transplant. Antihypertensive drug (AHD) and immunosuppressant intake, BP recordings and occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), if any were noted at each visit. Results: 56 patients were enrolled with a mean age of 33.04 ± 9.96 years, 87.5% were male. 75% were hypertensive at discharge (2-3 weeks post-transplant). Percentage of patients on AHD at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months post-transplant were 83.9%, 82.1%, 75% and 71.4% respectively. Amlodipine was the most common prescribed AHD. Target BP control (≤130/80 mm of Hg) was achieved in 62.5% patients at 1year post-transplant. There were no major adverse cardiac events (MACE) during the study period. Conclusion: In our study comprising of a relatively young cohort of transplant patients from India, hypertension control was well achieved in majority of the subjects and no MACE were noted. Amlodipine was the most commonly used AHD either as monotherapy or in combination with beta-blocker. Long term follow up of this cohort shall provide further insights into the trends of such control.