We aim to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the cases of postintubation tracheal rupture (PiTR) published in the literature, with the aim of determining the risk factors that contribute to tracheal rupture during endotracheal intubation. A further objective has been to determine the ideal treatment for this condition (surgical repair or conservative management). A MEDLINE review of cases of tracheal rupture after intubation published in the English language and a review of the references in the articles found. The articles included were those that reported at least the demographic data (age and sex), the treatment performed, and the outcome. Those papers that did not detail the above variables were excluded. The search found 50 studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria. These studies included 182 cases of postintubation tracheal rupture. The overall mortality was 22% (40 patients). A statistical analysis was performed determining the relative risk (RR), 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) and/or statistical significance. The analysis was performed on the overall group and after dividing into 2 subgroups: patients in whom the lesion was detected intraoperatively, and other patients. Patient age (p=0.015) and emergency intubation (RR=3.11; 95% CI, 1.81-5.33; p=0.001) were variables associated with an increased mortality. In those patients in whom the PiTR was detected outside the operating theatre (delayed diagnosis), emergency intubation (RR=3.05; 95% CI, 1.69-5.51; p<0.0001), the absence of subcutaneous emphysema (RR=2.17; 95% CI, 1.25-4; p=0.001), and surgical treatment (RR=2.09; 95% CI, 1.08-4.07; p=0.02) were associated with an increased mortality. In addition, age (p=0.1) and male gender (RR=1.89; 95% CI, 0.98-3.63; p=0.13) showed a clear trend towards an increased mortality. PiTR is an uncommon condition but carries a high morbidity and mortality. Emergency intubation is the principal risk factor, increasing the risk of death threefold compared to elective intubation. Conservative treatment is associated with a better outcome. However, the group of patients who would benefit from surgical treatment has not been fully defined. Further studies are required to evaluate the best treatment options.

The use of donation after circulatory death (DCD) has increased significantly during the past decade. However, warm ischemia results in a greater risk for transplantation. Indeed, controlled DCD (cDCD) was associated with inferior outcomes compared with donation after brain death. The use of abdominal normothermic regional perfusion (nRP) to restore blood flow before organ recovery in cDCD has been proposed as better than rapid recovery to reverse the effect of ischemia and improve recipients' outcome. Here, the first Spanish series using abdominal nRP as an in situ conditioning method is reported. A specific methodology to avoid restoring circulation to the brain after death determination is described. Twenty-seven cDCD donors underwent abdominal nRP during at least 60 min. Thirty-seven kidneys, 11 livers, six bilateral lungs, and one pancreas were transplanted. The 1-year death-censored kidney survival was 91%, and delayed graft function rate was 27%. The 1-year liver survival rate was 90.1% with no cases of ischemic cholangiopathy. Transplanted lungs and pancreas exhibited primary function. The use of nRP may represent an advance to increase the number and quality of grafts in cDCD. Poor results in cDCD livers could be reversed with nRP. Concerns about restoring brain circulation after death are easily solved.

Background We analyzed the prevalence, etiology, and risk factors of culture-positive preservation fluid and their impact on the management of solid organ transplant recipients. Methods From July 2015 to March 2017, 622 episodes of adult solid organ transplants at 7 university hospitals in Spain were prospectively included in the study. Results The prevalence of culture-positive preservation fluid was 62.5% (389/622). Nevertheless, in only 25.2% (98/389) of the cases were the isolates considered “high risk” for pathogenicity. After applying a multivariate regression analysis, advanced donor age was the main associated factor for having culture-positive preservation fluid for high-risk microorganisms. Preemptive antibiotic therapy was given to 19.8% (77/389) of the cases. The incidence rate of preservation fluid–related infection was 1.3% (5 recipients); none of these patients had received preemptive therapy. Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with high-risk culture-positive preservation fluid receiving preemptive antibiotic therapy presented both a lower cumulative incidence of infection and a lower rate of acute rejection and graft loss compared with those who did not have high-risk culture-positive preservation fluid. After adjusting for age, sex, type of transplant, and prior graft rejection, preemptive antibiotic therapy remained a significant protective factor for 90-day infection. Conclusions The routine culture of preservation fluid may be considered a tool that provides information about the contamination of the transplanted organ. Preemptive therapy for SOT recipients with high-risk culture-positive preservation fluid may be useful to avoid preservation fluid–related infections and improve the outcomes of infection, graft loss, and graft rejection in transplant patients.