4.5 Article

Infections in lung allograft recipients: Ganciclovir era

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEART AND LUNG TRANSPLANTATION
卷 27, 期 5, 页码 528-535

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.healun.2007.12.013

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: infections are common after lung transplantation. This report analyzes infections and associated pathogens identified in 202 lung transplant recipients. Methods: Infections were tallied according to sites of infection and associated pathogen(s). Infection events were also categorized by post-operative. Days 0 to 100, 101 to 365, and after 365, and normalized to 100 patient-days before and after bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS). Results: From November 1990 to November 2005, 202 patients received 208 lung transplants. The follow-up was 702.4 patient-years. A total of 178 lung transplant patients developed 859 infections, with, 944 pathogens identified. Infections were in the lung in 559 (65.1%), mucocutaneous (skin, wound, catheter-related, and oral) in 88 (10.2%), in the blood in 85 (9.8%), and in other sites (urine, bowel, eye, and peritoneum) in 127 (14.8%). Most lung pathogens were bacterial (83.6%), and 57.9% were Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Fungi comprised 10.6%, with Aspergillus spp the most common (67.1%) isolate. Cytomegalovirus pneumonitis was seen in 4.3% of respiratory infections. BOS was diagnosed in 87 patients (43.1% of the total). Of all infections seen in the BOS population, there were 0.42 episodes/100 patient-days and 0.70 episodes/100 patient-days before and after BOS, respectively (P = 0.5). Conclusions: These data provide an updated infection profile in the ganciclovir era after lung transplantation. When compared with pre-ganciclovir times, post-transplant cytomegalovirus infection incidence has notably declined, with filamentous fungi emerging as prevalent pathogens in its place. Such findings are important for refining management of infections in order to offer more stringent treatment against aggressive pathogens.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据