The use of skin allografts to temporarily replace lost or damaged skin is practiced worldwide. Naturally occurring contamination can be present on skin or can be introduced at recovery or during processing. This contamination can pose a threat to allograft recipients. Bacterial culture and disinfection of allografts are mandated, but the specific practices and methodologies are not dictated by standards. A systematic review of literature from three databases found 12 research articles that evaluated bioburden reduction processes of skin grafts. The use of broad spectrum antibiotics and antifungal agents was the most frequently identified disinfection method reported demonstrating reductions in contamination rates. It was determined that the greatest reduction in the skin allograft contamination rates utilized 0.1 % peracetic acid or 25 kGy of gamma irradiation at lower temperatures.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10561-016-9569-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Purpose Intensive care physicians play an important role in the identification and referral of potential organ donors in Canada. Nevertheless, little is known about intensivists' attitudes or behaviours in situations where families override previously expressed consent to donate; nor why physicians elect not to refer patients who are potential donors to provincial organ donation organizations (physician non-referral). Methods We integrated questions regarding family override and physician non-referral into an online, self-administered survey of Canadian intensivists. We report results descriptively. Results Fifty percent of targeted respondents (n = 550) participated. Fifty-five percent reported having witnessed family override situations and 44% reported having personally not referred patients who were potential donors. Fifty-six percent of respondents stated they would not pursue donation in the face of family override; 2% stated they would continue with the donation process. Fear of loss of trust in the donation system (81%) and obligation to respect the grief and desires of surrogate decision makers (71%) were frequently reported reasons to respect family override requests. Respondents who chose not to refer patients often did so based on organ dysfunction they assumed would preclude donation (59%), or a perception that the family was too distressed to consider donation This article is accompanied by an editorial. Please see Can J Anesth 2020; 67: this issue.

Controlled donation after circulatory determination of death (DCD), where death is determined after cardiac arrest, has been responsible for the largest quantitative increase in Canadian organ donation and transplants, but not for heart transplants. Innovative international advances in DCD heart transplantation include direct procurement and perfusion (DPP) and normothermic regional perfusion (NRP). After death is determined, DPP involves removal and reanimation of the arrested heart on an ex situ organ perfusion system. Normothermic regional perfusion involves surgically interrupting (ligating the aortic arch vessels) brain blood flow after death determination, followed by restarting the heart and circulation in situ using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The objectives of this Canadian consensus building process by a multidisciplinary group of Canadian stakeholders were to review current evidence and international DCD heart experience, comparatively evaluate international protocols with existing Canadian medical, legal, and ethical practices, and to discuss implementation barriers. Review of current evidence and international experience of DCD heart donation (DPP and NRP) determined that DCD heart donation could be used to provide opportunities for more heart transplants in Canada, saving additional lives. Although candid discussion identified a number of potential barriers and challenges for implementing DCD heart donation in Canada, it was determined that DPP implementation is feasible (pending regulatory approval for the use of an ex situ perfusion device in humans) and in alignment with current medical guidelines for DCD. Nevertheless, further work is required to evaluate the consistency of NRP with current Canadian death determination policy and to ensure the absence of brain perfusion during this process. Supplementary Information The online version of this article (10.1007/s12630-021-01926-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Musculoskeletal allografts are typically disinfected using antibiotics, irradiation or chemical methods but protocols vary significantly between tissue banks. It is likely that different disinfection protocols will not have the same level of microorganism kill; they may also have varying effects on the structural integrity of the tissue, which could lead to significant differences in terms of clinical outcome in recipients. Ideally, a disinfection protocol should achieve the greatest bioburden reduction with the lowest possible impact on tissue integrity. A systematic review of three databases found 68 laboratory and clinical studies that analyzed the microbial bioburden or contamination rates of musculoskeletal allografts. The use of peracetic acid–ethanol or ionizing radiation was found to be most effective for disinfection of tissues. The use of irradiation is the most frequently published method for the terminal sterilization of musculoskeletal allografts; it is widely used and its efficacy is well documented in the literature. However, effective disinfection results were still observed using the BioCleanse™ Tissue Sterilization process, pulsatile lavage with antibiotics, ethylene oxide, and chlorhexidine. The variety of effective methods to reduce contamination rate or bioburden, in conjunction with limited high quality evidence provides little support for the recommendation of a single bioburden reduction method.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10561-016-9584-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cardiovascular allografts are usually disinfected using antibiotics, but protocols vary significantly between tissue banks. It is likely that different disinfection protocols will not have the same level of efficacy; they may also have varying effects on the structural integrity of the tissue, which could lead to significant differences in terms of clinical outcome in recipients. Ideally, a disinfection protocol should achieve the greatest bioburden reduction with the lowest possible impact on tissue integrity. We conducted a systematic review of methods applied to disinfect cardiovascular tissues. The use of multiple broad spectrum antibiotics in conjunction with an antifungal agent resulted in the greatest reduction in bioburden. Antibiotic incubation periods were limited to less than 24 h, and most protocols incubated tissues at 4 °C, however one study demonstrated a greater reduction of microbial load at 37 °C. None of the reviewed studies looked at the impact of these disinfection protocols on the risk of infection or any other clinical outcome in recipients.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10561-016-9570-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.