Advertisement

Cell and Tissue Banking

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 185–190 | Cite as

Quality control in homograft valve processing: when to screen for microbiological contamination?

  • Alan Soo
  • David G. Healy
  • Hatim El-Bashier
  • Sandra Shaw
  • Alfred E. Wood
Original Paper

Abstract

Human donor heart valves remain essential for many reconstructive heart procedures. Heart valve donations are a scarce resource which must be used efficiently and safely. Infection transmission remains a potential risk with homograft valve use. Early experience with homograft valves identified high rates of microbial contamination at collection and initiated the practise of immersion in an antibiotic cocktail. Many centres rely on the microbiology screening after exposure to the antibiotic cocktail. We in our centre accept or reject valves on the basis of the microbiology screening at the time of collection prior to immersion in antibiotic solution. We wanted to compare our rate of valve discard and the rate of microbial contamination at implant with other centres. Valves are collected for the Irish Heart Valve Tissue Bank through partnership between the National Centre for Cardiothoracic Surgery and the Irish Blood Transfusion Service. Valves are collected in a surgical theatre setting and processed in dedicated section of the Irish Blood Transfusion Board. Tissues are screening for microbiology at collection and also at implantation. A total of 564 human heart valves and valve conduits were processed through the service during the study period. 167 (29.6%) were discarded during the processing and storage stages. The major reason for this in 117 cases was unsatisfactory microbiology on initial tissue screening. Repeat screening of accepted valves at the time of implantation identified positive cultures in only 0.9%. Optimal use of these limited resources is clearly important. However recipient safety remains paramount. One-fifth of collected valves are discarded at the processing stage due to positive microbiology screening. This is a higher rate of discard then other centres which reject 5.6–10% due to positive microbiology. However our rate of contamination at time of implant is lower then the 3% rate reported elsewhere. We are satisfied that our current discard rate, although significant, reflects rigorous quality control and the optimal balance between valve availability and patient safety.

Keywords

Homograft valve Collection Microbiology Infection Cardiac surgery 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Many thanks for the help and technical assistance provided by the staff of the Irish Heart Valve Tissue Bank.

References

  1. Acar C, Ali M (2004) Homologous transplantation of the mitral valve: a review. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 45:455–464Google Scholar
  2. Gall K, Smith S, Willmette C, Wong M, O’Brien M (1995) Allograft heart valve sterilization: a six year in-depth analysis of a twenty-five year experience with low-dose antibiotics. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 110:680–687PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Goffin Y, Van Hoeck B, Jashari R, Soots G, Kalmar P (2000) Banking of cryopreserved heart valves in Europe: assessment of a 10 year operation in the European Homograft Bank (EHB). J Heart Valve Dis 9:207–214PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Grinda J, Mainardi J, D’Attellis N et al (2005) Cryopreserved aortic viable homograft for active aortic endocarditis. Ann Thorac Surg 79:767–771PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jashari R, Tabaku M, Van Hoeck B et al (2007) Decontamination of heart valve and arterial allografts in the European Homograft Bank: Comparison of two different antibiotic cocktails in low temperature conditions. Cell Tissue Bank 8:247–255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kerwin A, Lenkei S, Wilson D (1962) Report of nine cases, with one followed for six years. N Engl J Med 266:852–857PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. O’Brien M, Stafford E, Gardner M et al (1987) A comparison of aortic valve replacement with viable cryopreserved and fresh allograft valves, with a note on chromosomal studies. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 94:812–823PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. O’Brien M, Harrocks S, Stafford E et al (2001) The homograft aortic valve: a 29-year, 99.3% follow up of 1,022 valve replacements. J Heart Valve Dis 10:334–344PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Reinhartz O, Reddy V, Petrossian E et al (2006) Homograft valve right ventricle to pulmonary artery conduit as a modification of the Norwood procedure. Circulation 114:1594–1599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ross D (1962) Homograft replacement of the aortic valve. Lancet 2:487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Verghese S, Padmaja P, Sindhu B et al (2004) Homograft valve bank: our experience in valve banking. Indian Heart J 56:299–306PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan Soo
    • 1
  • David G. Healy
    • 1
  • Hatim El-Bashier
    • 1
  • Sandra Shaw
    • 2
  • Alfred E. Wood
    • 1
  1. 1.Prof Eoin O’Malley National Centre for Cardiothoracic SurgeryMater Misericordiae University HospitalDublin 7Ireland
  2. 2.Irish Heart Valve Tissue Bank, Irish Blood Transfusion ServiceNational Blood CentreDublin 8Ireland

Personalised recommendations