4.5 Article

Cytomegalovirus reactivation in liver transplant recipients due to hepatitis C cirrhosis is associated with higher cardiovascular risk - an observational, retrospective study

期刊

TRANSPLANT INTERNATIONAL
卷 31, 期 6, 页码 649-657

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/tri.13145

关键词

cardiovascular risk; cytomegalovirus; HCV cirrhosis; liver transplantation

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Economy, Instituto de Salud Carlos III [PI13/01770]
  2. Centro de Investigacion Biomedica en Red de Enfermedades Hepaticas y Digestivas (CIBERehd) - Instituto de Salud Carlos III
  3. Instituto de Salud Carlos III [CM15/00133]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The association between cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation and cardiovascular risk has been reported in solid organ transplant populations; however, it has yet to be assessed in liver transplantation (LT). We aim to evaluate whether CMV reactivation is associated with cardiovascular events (CVE) in HCV-LT patients. LT patients (2010 and 2014) due to HCV cirrhosis were included. Clinically significant CMV (CS-CMV) was defined as viral load (VL) >5000copies/ml, need of therapy or CMV disease. Baseline variables and endpoint measures (CVE, survival, severe recurrent hepatitis C, de novo tumors, and diabetes) were collected. One hundred and forty patients were included. At LT, a history of AHT was present in 23%, diabetes 22%, tobacco use 45%, obesity 20%, and renal impairment (eGFR<60ml/min) in 26.5%. CS-CMV reactivation occurred in 25% of patients. Twenty-six patients (18.5%) developed a CVE. Cox regression analysis revealed two factors significantly associated with CVE: Pre-LT DM [HR=4.6 95% CI (1.6, 13), P=0.004] and CS-CMV [HR=4.7 95% CI (1.8, 12.5), P=0.002]. CS-CMV was not independently associated with the remaining endpoints except for survival (P=0.03). In our series, CS-CMV reactivation was associated with a greater risk of developing CVE, thus confirming data from other solid organ transplant populations and emphasizing the need for adequate CMV control.

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