4.0 Article

Increased risk of infections in pediatric Fontan patients after heart transplantation

期刊

PEDIATRIC TRANSPLANTATION
卷 27, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/petr.14421

关键词

congenital heart disease; heart failure; induction; infection; pediatrics; rejection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fontan patients have a higher risk of infection after heart transplantation compared to DCM patients, and modifications to induction therapy for Fontan patients should be considered.
Background Infectious complications are a major cause of morbidity and mortality after HT. Fontan patients may be more susceptible to post-HT infections. Methods This was a single-center, retrospective cohort analysis of pediatric patients undergoing HT for FF physiology or DCM, who underwent induction with ATG. The primary endpoint was an infection in the first 180 days post-HT, defined as positive (1) blood/urine/respiratory culture; (2) viral PCR; (3) skin or wound infection; and/or (4) culture-negative infection if >= 5 days of antibiotics were completed. Secondary endpoints included (1) cell counts after ATG; (2) PTLD; and (3) rejection (>= Grade 2R ACR or pAMR2) in the first 180 days post-HT. Results A total of 59 patients (26 FF, 33 DCM) underwent HT at 14.7 (IQR 10.6, 19.5) and 11.7 (IQR 1.4, 13.6) years of age, respectively. The median total ATG received was 7.4 (IQR 4.9, 7.7) vs 7.5 (IQR 7.3, 7.6) mg/kg (p = NS) for FF and DCM patients, respectively. Twenty-three patients (39%) developed an infection 180 days post-HT, with a higher rate of infection in FF patients (54% vs 27%, p = .03). Adjusted for pre-transplant absolute lymphocyte count, FF patients had a higher risk of infection at 30 days post-HT (OR 7.62, 95% CI 1.13-51.48, p = .04). There was no difference in the incidence of PTLD (12% vs 0%; p = .08) or rejection (12% vs 21%; p = .49). Conclusion Compared to DCM patients, FF patients have a higher risk of infection. Modifications to induction therapy for FF patients should be considered.

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

4.0
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