4.6 Article

Clinical outcome following lung transplantation in patients with cystic fibrosis colonised with Burkholderia cepacia complex:: results from two French centres

期刊

THORAX
卷 63, 期 8, 页码 732-737

出版社

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/thx.2007.089458

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Infection with Burkholderia cepacia complex (BCC) is a life threatening complication of cystic fibrosis (CF), often seen as a contraindication for lung transplantation. Methods: A long term retrospective study was conducted of all patients with CF undergoing lung transplants from January 1990 to October 2006 in two French centres allowing transplantation in patients colonised with BCC. Results: 22 of the 247 lung transplant patients with CF were infected with BCC (B cenocepacia genomovar III (n = 8), B multivorans genomovar II (n = 11), B vietnamiensis genomovar V (n = 2) and B stabilis genomovar IV (n = 1)). BCC colonisation was not associated with any significant excess mortality (HR 1.5, 95% CI 0.7 to 3.2; p = 0.58). However, early mortality rates tended to be higher in the BCC group than in the non-BCC group (3 month survival: 85% vs 95%, respectively; log rank p = 0.05). Univariate analysis showed that the risk of death was significantly higher for the eight patients infected with B cenocepacia than for the other 14 colonised patients (HR 3.2, 95% CI 1.1 to 5.9; p = 0.04). None of the other risk factors tested primary graft failure, late extubation, septicaemia - had a significant effect. The 5 year cumulative incidence rate of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome was not significantly higher in the BCC group than in the non-BCC group (38% vs 24%, respectively; p = 0.35). Conclusion: Our results suggest that BCC infection with a non-genomovar III organism may not be associated with excess mortality after lung transplantation in patients with CF and should not be seen as sufficient reason to exclude lung transplantation. However, colonisation with B cenocepacia remains potentially detrimental.

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

4.6
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