4.7 Article

Chronic rhinoviral infection in lung transplant recipients

期刊

出版社

AMER THORACIC SOC
DOI: 10.1164/rccm.200604-489OC

关键词

lung transplantation; picornavirus; respiratory virus; rhinovirus; VP1

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rationale: Lung transplant recipients are particularly at risk of complications from rhinovirus, the most frequent respiratory virus circulating in the community. Objectives: To determine whether lung transplant recipients can be chronically infected by rhinovirus and the potential clinical impact. Methods: We first identified an index case, in which rhinovirus was isolated repeatedly, and conducted detailed molecular analysis to determine whether this was related to a unique strain or to reinfection episodes. Transbronchial biopsies were used to assess the presence of rhinovirus in the lung parenchyma. The incidence of chronic rhinoviral infections and potential clinical impact was assessed prospectively in a cohort of 68 lung transplant recipients during 19 mo by screening of bronchoalveolar lavages. Measurements and Main Results: We describe 3 lung transplant recipients with graft dysfunctions in whom rhinovirus was identified by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction in upper and lower respiratory specimens over a 12-mo period. In two cases, rhinovirus was repeatedly isolated in culture. The persistence of a unique strain in each case was confirmed by sequence analysis of the 5'NCR and VP1 gene. In the index case, rhinovirus was detected in the lower respiratory parenchyma. In the cohort of lung transplant recipients, rhinoviral infections were documented in bronchoalveolar lavage specimens of 10 recipients, and 2 presented with a persistent infection. Conclusions: Rhinoviral infection can be persistent in lung transplant recipients with graft dysfunction, and the virus can be detected in the lung parenchyma. Given the potential clinical impact, chronic rhinoviral infection needs to be considered in lung transplant recipients.

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

4.7
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