COVID-19 mortality prediction in Hungarian ICU settings implementing random forest algorithm.

The emergence of newer SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) profoundly changed the ICU demography; this shift in the virus's genotype and its correlation to lethality in the ICUs is still not fully investigated. We aimed to survey ICU patients' clinical and laboratory parameters in correlation with SARS-CoV-2 variant genotypes to lethality. 503 COVID-19 ICU patients were included in our study beginning in January 2021 through November 2022 in Hungary. Furthermore, we implemented random forest (RF) as a potential predictor regarding SARS-CoV-2 lethality among 649 ICU patients in two ICU centers. Survival analysis and comparison of hypertension (HT), diabetes mellitus (DM), and vaccination effects were conducted. Logistic regression identified DM as a significant mortality risk factor (OR: 1.55, 95% CI 1.06-2.29, p = 0.025), while HT showed marginal significance. Additionally, vaccination demonstrated protection against mortality (p = 0.028). RF detected lethality with 81.42% accuracy (95% CI 73.01-88.11%, [AUC]: 91.6%), key predictors being PaO2/FiO2 ratio, lymphocyte count, and chest Computed Tomography Severity Score (CTSS). Although a smaller number of patients require ICU treatment among Omicron cases, the likelihood of survival has not proportionately increased for those who are admitted to the ICU. In conclusion, our RF model supports more effective clinical decision-making among ICU COVID-19 patients.

Analysis of the acceptance practice of deceased donor kidneys in a single Hungarian transplant centre / A kadáverdonor-vesék elfogadási gyakorlatának vizsgálata a debreceni transzplantációs centrumban.

Összefoglaló. Bevezetés: A magyarországi vesetranszplantáció 2013 óta az Eurotransplant (ET) keretein belül zajlik. A debreceni vesetranszplantációs centrumhoz évente kb. 200 kadáverdonorvese-felajánlás érkezik, melyek 37%-a kerül a megismert adatok alapján elfogadásra. Nem minden elfogadott vese kerül beültetésre, aminek számos oka lehet. Célkituzés: A debreceni szakmai gyakorlat elemzése és bemutatása reprezentatív mintán. Módszer: A debreceni centrumhoz 2016. november és 2020. március között 624 vesefelajánlás érkezett. A felajánlott vesék 37%-a (n = 229) került elozetesen elfogadásra, késobb az elfogadott vesék 63%-a (n = 144) került beültetésre. Centrumunkban az ún. 'standard criteria', azaz tökéletes minoségu donorvesék szignifikánsan magasabb arányban kerültek elfogadásra, majd beültetésre, mint az 'extended criteria', azaz kompromisszummal vállalhatók. Az elfogadott és nem elfogadott veséket vizsgálva a KDPI (kidney donor profile index) és a KDRI (kidney donor risk index) értéke szignifikánsan magasabb volt az elutasított donorok esetében (p<0,001). Eredmények: Elemeztük, hogy a felajánlott, de a centrum által nem beültetett donorveséket más ET-centrumban elfogadták-e. Látható, hogy a felajánlott 624 donorvese közül 144 Debrecenben, 313 pedig más ET-centrumban került beültetésre, viszont 167 vese beültetése egyik ET-centrumban sem történt meg (discarded organ). A 36-85 KDPI-értékkel rendelkezo csoportból került beültetésre a legtöbb donorvese (180 vese) más ET-centrumban. A Debrecenben beültetett kadáverdonor-vesék KDPI- és KDRI-értéke szignifikánsan alacsonyabb volt a nekünk felajánlott, majd máshol beültetett vesékhez képest. Következtetés: Összességében elmondható, hogy a debreceni centrumban a magas rizikócsoportba tartozó donorszervek elutasításra kerültek, miközben más centrumban a nagy részüket beültették. Ez alapján a 36-85 KDPI-értéku csoport a transzplantációs esetszám bovítésének lehetséges forrása a recipiens ismeretében. Orv Hetil. 2021; 162(26): 1022-1028. INTRODUCTION: Kidney transplantation in Hungary is carried out via Eurotransplant (ET). Our centre in Debrecen receives around 200 kidney offers a year, of which 37% are accepted. Not all accepted kidneys are transplanted, which can be a result of a number of causes. Obejctive: A debreceni szakmai gyakorlat elemzése és bemutatása reprezentatív mintán. METHOD: Between November 2016 and March 2020, the centre of Debrecen received 624 kidney offers. 37% (n = 229) of the offered kidneys got preliminarily accepted, of which 63% (n = 144) were transplanted later. In our centre, standard criteria donor kidneys were accepted and transplanted in significantly higher rate, than extended criteria donor kidneys. Looking at accepted and rejected kidneys, KDPI and KDRI values were significantly higher in the case of the refused ones (p<0.001). RESULTS: Part of our assessment is to analyze whether kidneys offered to and refused by us got accepted in other transplant centres. In the examined period, of the 624 kidneys offered to our centre 144 were transplanted in Debrecen, 313 were transplanted in other ET centres, while 167 were not transplanted at all (discarded organ). The majority of transplanted kidneys in other ET centres had KDPI values between 36 and 85 (180 kidneys.) KDPI and KDRI values of kidneys transplanted in our centre were significantly lower than those that were offered to us, but got transplanted elsewhere. CONCLUSION: To summarize, we can say that high-risk donor organs are refused in the transplant centre of Debrecen, while the majority of them are being transplanted in other centres. Based on this, kidneys of KDPI value between 36 and 85 are a possible source of expanding the number of transplantations, with regards to the recipient. Orv Hetil. 2021; 162(26): 1022-1028.

Quality Assessment of Donor Kidneys and the Tendency of Kidney Acceptance: A Single-Center Experience.

PURPOSE: The increasing age of donors and the increasing tendency of comorbidities requires an extension in acceptance criteria. In this review, the tendency for acceptance and refusal was analyzed by examining reasons for declining donor kidneys at the kidney transplantation center in Debrecen. This analysis aimed to assess the quality of donor kidneys and indicate why two-thirds of donated organs were refused. METHOD: Our center in Debrecen received 535 kidney offers (based on exclusion criteria) between November 2016 and August 2019, which were retrospectively analyzed. Donor kidneys were evaluated using expanded criteria donor, kidney donor profile index (KDPI), and kidney donor risk index criteria systems. RESULTS: Thirty-five percent (n = 189) of the kidneys offered to the center in Debrecen had been approved in advance, and later 63% (n = 119) were transplanted. Using the KDPI system, 41% of donors had a KDPI above 85, of which 23% were accepted, while acceptance of kidneys with a KDPI of 0 to 35 was around 70%. When examining causes of donor kidney refusal, 90% of the organs had donor quality problems, 13% had logistical cause (long cold ischemic time, large age difference between donor and recipient), and 10.5% had immunologic cause. In 13% of cases, the refusal of donor organs was due to the coexistence of several problems. CONCLUSION: Our data showed that high-risk donor organs were being refused in our center; however, they are being transplanted at a higher rate in other Eurotransplant centers. The decision to refuse or accept donor organs depends on several factors, including expected waiting time, patient's clinical characteristics, and quality of life.