4.7 Article

Prognostic factors for death due to invasive aspergillosis after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A 1-year retrospective study of consecutive patients at French transplantation centers

期刊

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 42, 期 7, 页码 955-963

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1086/500934

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Invasive aspergillosis ( IA) is a major cause of death after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation ( HSCT). The goal of this retrospective and consecutive survey was to assess prognostic factors of death due to IA after HSCT at the time of diagnosis of IA. Methods. All 64 health care centers affiliated with the Societe Francaise de Greffe de Moelle et de The rapie Cellulaire were contacted to participate in this study of all proven or probable cases of IA that occurred among HSCT recipients in 2002. Data for 51 cases ( 41 involving allogeneic HSCT and 10 involving autologous HSCT) were collected from patient records and included diagnostic and therapeutic features of IA, outcome, presence of hematological disease, and transplantation data. Cox models were applied to risk factors for death attributed to IA that were initially identified using the usual tests. Results. The proportion of deaths attributed to IA within 4 months after diagnosis was 0.62 ( 95% confidence interval, 0.47 - 0.76). Seven factors assessed at diagnosis were determined to be strongly related to death due to IA: age of 12 - 35 years, dissemination of IA, presence of a pleural effusion, monocyte count of >= 120 cells/mm(3), prolonged administration of steroids within the previous 2 months, receipt of a dose >= 2 mg/kg at the time of diagnosis, and uncontrolled graft-versus-host disease. Conclusions. Our study explored potential risk factors for death due to IA among HSCT recipients as a reference for investigation in larger future studies. These factors should help to identify HSCT recipients who would benefit from more-aggressive antifungal therapies.

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