372. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia in Deceased Tissue Donors

Background Tissue donors are evaluated for communicable disease in order to minimize the risk of transmission to recipients. Although there are data suggesting SARS-CoV-2 viremia across a wide spectrum of illness, prevalence in deceased tissue donors and the potential for transplant transmission are unknown. Methods Eight tissue banks participated in a retrospective analysis of samples from eligible deceased tissue donors from Oct 2019 through June 2020, one participant in Canada and the remainder located in the United States. All four Census regions of the continental US and all major racial-ethnic groups were represented. EDTA or sodium citrate plasma aliquots were tested in singlicate with the Research Use Only Procleix SARS-CoV-2 Assay on the Procleix Panther System, which uses transcription-mediated nucleic acid amplification (TMA) technology for detection of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Plasma (or if unavailable, serum) aliquots were sent to Grifols for an alternate SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification (NAT) test to verify reactivity and also sent for antibody testing using the emergency use authorization Ortho VITROS Immunodiagnostic Products Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Total test. The VITROS assay uses immunometric technology for qualitative measurement of total antibody (IgG, IgA and IgM) to SARS-CoV-2. The proportion of donors with confirmed RNAemia (i.e., presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in plasma or serum) and 95% confidence intervals were computed. Results Of 3,455 donor samples with valid final results, 26 (0.76%) were initially positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA; of these, 3 were confirmed by alternate NAT. Of donor samples collected in 2019 0.00% (95% CI: 0.00%,0.43%) were confirmed RNAemic, while of those collected in 2020, 0.12% (0.04%,0.34%) were confirmed RNAemic. One of 26 initial positive, and none of the three samples confirmed by alternate NAT, tested positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike antibodies by serology. Infectivity studies are pending on one sample with sufficient available volume. Conclusion The rate of SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia in deceased tissue donors is approximately 1 per 1,000, and it is unknown whether this RNAemia reflects the presence of infectious virus. Given these results, the risk of transmission through tissue is most likely to be low. Disclosures Melissa Greenwald, MD, Alamo Biologics (Consultant)Eurofins VRL Laboratories (Consultant)Right Cell Biologics (Consultant, Consultant Medical Director) Eduard Grebe, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Consultant)Sedia Biosciences Corporation (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Vitalant (Employee) Alyce Linthurst Jones, PhD, LifeNet Health (Employee) Matthew Kuehnert, MD, American Association of Tissue Banks (Board Member)ICCBBA (Board Member)Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation (Employee)

BURN VICTIMS AND SKIN DONATIONS: A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE

This article highlights the need for skin donations to treat burn wounds. South Africa has an exceptionally high number of burn wound victims per annum. The ideal way to treat burn wounds is to transplant skin from another part of the patient’s body to the affected areas (autografts). Unfortunately, this is not always possible or feasible and in those cases skin from cadavers (allografts) should be used, but this can only be done if the deceased has indicated a wish during his or her lifetime that tissue be donated for transplantation use after death. If the deceased has not indicated his or her wish to be a tissue donor, family members could be asked to consent to a donation. The article looks at the legal requirements in South Africa for a valid skin donation as well as the requirements should skin be imported owing to a lack of enough tissue donors in the country. This position is contrasted to the position in the United Kingdom with a view to establishing whether South Africa can learn from another jurisdiction concerning the procurement of skin for transplantation. The possible reasons that people do not donate skin are also touched upon.

Neonatal donation: are newborns too young to be recognized?

Neonatal organ and tissue donation is not common practice in the Netherlands. At the same time, there is a transplant waiting list for small size-matched organs and tissues. Multiple factors may contribute to low neonatal donation rates, including a lack of awareness of this option. This study provides insight into potential neonatal organ and tissue donors and reports on how many donors were actually reported to the procurement organization. We performed a retrospective analysis of the mortality database and medical records of two largest neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) in the Netherlands. This study reviewed records of neonates with a gestational age >37 weeks and weight >3000g who died in the period from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2016. During the study period, 259 term-born neonates died in the two NICUs. In total, 132 neonates with general contra-indications for donation were excluded. The medical records of 127 neonates were examined for donation suitability. We identified five neonates with documented brain death who were not recognized as potential organ and/or tissue donors. Of the remaining neonates, 27 were found suitable for tissue donation. One potential tissue donor had been reported to the procurement organization. In three cases, the possibility of donation was brought up by parents.Conclusion: A low proportion (2%) of neonates who died in the NICUs were found suitable for organ donation, and a higher proportion (12%) were found suitable for tissue donation. We suggest that increased awareness concerning the possibility of neonatal donation would likely increase the identification of potential neonatal donors. What is Known:• There is an urgent need for very small organs and tissues from neonatal donorsWhat is New:• A number of neonates who died in the NICU were suitable organ or/and tissue donors but were not recognized as donors.• Knowledge on neonatal donation possibilities is also important for proper counseling of parents who sometimes inquire for the possibility of organ and tissue donation.

Current Challenges Facing Cornea Banks

Cornea transplants are tissue transplants and, as such, must be distinguished from organ transplants (e.g. heart or kidney transplants). However, tissue transplants can only be performed if there are enough donors available to attend to patients in need. Unfortunately, there are too few organ and tissue donors in Germany. All steps involved in processing donor tissues must be performed in accordance with the highest quality standards. All tasks and measures are aimed at improving patient care in the surgical units that are to be supplied. Cornea banks are subject to complex requirements, whose implementation is essential in terms of both infrastructure and personnel. The analysis and identification of essential topics reveal central fields of action that are decisive for implementing the challenges facing cornea banks. Questions of employee qualification, strategic questions due to new transplantation techniques, and changes in the societal perception of organ and tissue donation require the development of strategies that should have a holistic and sustainable effect.

Risk assessment in deferred and recovered donors

Serologic testing and Donor Risk Assessment Interview (DRAI) combined have made tissue transplantation a frequent and safe modality for a variety of trauma and disease conditions. Donate Life America reports 30,000 tissue donors providing more than 1,750,000 tissue transplants annually. This study of 188 potential donor cases addresses issues of risk assessment in a medical examiner population in a metropolitan area, where serologic testing of deferred potential donors were compared with the DRAI screening, which determined the suitability or non-suitability for tissue procurement. Such serologic testing of deferred cases is not usually available in evaluating screening processes. This comparison gives insight into the effectiveness of the DRAI screening in deferring potential serology reactive donors. Results show in 65 cases how the DRAI screening eliminates most, but not all of the serologically reactive donors identified post recovery. The result emphasizes the need for the combined process of DRAI screening and testing to assure transplantation safety.