4.5 Article

Clostridium diffidle-associated diarrhea in heart transplant recipients:: Is hypogammaglobulinemia the answer?

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEART AND LUNG TRANSPLANTATION
卷 26, 期 9, 页码 907-914

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.healun.2007.07.010

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Information regarding Clostridium docile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) after solid-organ transplantation (SOT) is scarce, particularly after heart transplantation (HT). Although host immune response to C docile plays a substantial role in the outcome of this infection, the responsibility of hypogammaglobulinemia (HGG) as a predisposing condition for CDAD has not been studied in SOT. We analyzed the incidence, clinical presentation, outcome and risk factors, including HGG, of CDAD after HT. Methods: Two hundred thirty-five patients who underwent HT (1993 to 2005) were included. Transplantation procedure and immunosuppression were standard. From January 1999 HGG was systematically searched and corrected when IgG levels were < 400 mg/dl or severe infection was present. Toxin-producing C difficile was de.tected by means of cytotoxin assay and culture of stool samples. Patients with and without CDAD were compared for identification of risk factors. Results: CDAD was detected in 35 patients (14.9%). Incidence decreased significantly since HGG was sought and treated: 29 (20.6%) in the first period, and 6 (6.4%) in the second (p = 0.00.3). CDAD appeared a mean of 32 days (range 5 to 3,300 days) after HT. No related death or episode of fulminant colitis was detected. At least one episode of recurrence was noted in 28.6% of patients. Severe HGG was found to be the only independent risk factor for CDAD after HT (RR 5.8; 95% CI: 1.05 to 32.1; p 0.04); Conclusions: C difficile is a significant cause of diarrhea in HT recipients and post-transplant HGG is independently associated with an increased risk. The potential role of immunoglobulin administration in this population requires further study.

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