Cargando…
Evaluation of risk factors for cytomegalovirus DNAemia after end of regular prophylaxis after heart transplantation
BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections after heart transplantation (HTx) can cause cardiac allograft vasculopathy. Consequently, monitoring and prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus deoxyribonucleic acid (CMV‐DNAemia) within the first weeks after HTx is recommended. METHODS: All patients who underwe...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10655632/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38018580 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/iid3.1075 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections after heart transplantation (HTx) can cause cardiac allograft vasculopathy. Consequently, monitoring and prophylaxis for cytomegalovirus deoxyribonucleic acid (CMV‐DNAemia) within the first weeks after HTx is recommended. METHODS: All patients who underwent HTx between September 2010 and 2021 surviving the first 90 days (n = 196) were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were divided on the prevalence of CMV‐DNAemia during the first postoperative year after the end of the prophylaxis. A total of n = 35 (20.1%) developed CMV‐DNAemia (CMV group) and were compared to patients without CMV‐DNAemia (controls, n = 139). The remaining patients (n = 22) were excluded due to incomplete data. RESULTS: Positive donors and negative recipients (D+/R−) and negative donors and positive recipients (D−/R+) serology was significantly increased and D−/R− decreased in the CMV group (p < .01). Furthermore, the mean age was 57.7 ± 8.7 years but only 53.6 ± 10.0 years for controls (p = .03). Additionally, the intensive care unit (p = .02) and total hospital stay (p = .03) after HTx were approximately 50% longer. Interestingly, the incidence of CMV‐DNAemia during prophylaxis was only numerically increased in the CMV group (5.7%, respectively, 0.7%, p = .10), the same effect was also observed for postoperative infections. Multivariate analyses confirmed that D+/R− and D−/R+ CMV immunoglobulin G match were independent risk factors for postprophylaxis CMV‐DNAemia. CONCLUSION: Our data should raise awareness of CMV‐DNAemia after the termination of regular prophylaxis, as this affects one in five HTx patients. Especially old recipients as well as D+/R− and D−/R+ serology share an elevated risk of late CMV‐DNAemia. For these patients, prolongation, or repetition of CMV prophylaxis, including antiviral drugs and CMV immunoglobulins, may be considered. |
---|