4.6 Article

An International Survey of Cytomegalovirus Management Practices in Lung Transplantation

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 90, 期 6, 页码 672-676

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e3181ea3955

关键词

Prophylaxis; Ganciclovir; Viral therapy

资金

  1. Roche

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is an important infection in lung transplant recipients. Center-to-center variation in preventive and treatment strategies is unknown. Methods. An electronic survey was sent to 102 lung transplant programs registered with the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation and United Network for Organ Sharing. Results. Fifty-nine (58%) programs responded to the survey. For CMV prevention (D+/R-), 56 of the 59 (94.9%) programs used prophylaxis and two (3.4%) of them used preemptive therapy. For R+ patients, 86.4% used prophylaxis and 13.6% used preemptive strategy. Duration of prophylaxis was extremely variable ranging from 3 months to indefinite. Adjunctive prophylactic strategies included routine viral monitoring (51% D+/R-; 44% R+) and CMV immunoglobulin (32% D+/R-; 14% R+). The medication used for prophylaxis was valganciclovir with approximately half starting with intravenous ganciclovir. 9 of the 59 (15.2%) centers reported using specific CMV prophylaxis in D-/R- patients. Methods for viral monitoring included peripheral blood polymerase chain reaction, antigenemia, bronchoalveolar lavage viral culture, and bronchoalveolar lavage polymerase chain reaction. For treatment of CMV viremia, valganciclovir or intravenous ganciclovir were used. A total of 47.5% of centers routinely decreased immunosuppression at the time of viremia. Secondary antiviral prophylaxis was used routinely by 36 of the 59 (61%) centers. Conclusions. Although prophylaxis is the most commonly used preventive strategy, significant variation exists in the way it is implemented. Specifically, duration of prophylaxis is extremely variable. Uniform international guidelines would be of value in this population.

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