4.5 Article

Engraftment syndrome after auto-SCT: analysis of diagnostic criteria and risk factors in a large series from a single center

期刊

BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
卷 45, 期 9, 页码 1417-1422

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bmt.2009.363

关键词

engraftment syndrome; early complications after SCT; C-reactive protein; auto-SCT

资金

  1. Deutsche Jose Carreras Leukamie-Stiftung e.V. [DJCLS-R07/41v]
  2. Instituto de Salud Carlos III [FIS PI080156]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Engraftment syndrome (ES) is increasingly observed in patients who receive auto-SCT. To investigate this fact, validate the clinical criteria for ES diagnosis and analyze the risk factors for this complication, we reviewed 328 consecutive peripheral blood auto-SCT performed during the past 7 years. A total of 43 patients presented with clinical or biological data suggestive of ES. Of the total, 41 (95%) and 22 (51%) could be diagnosed with ES using the Maiolino criteria (MC) and the Spitzer criteria (SC), respectively. The SC were less sensitive as they do not consider some relevant clinical data and limit the observation time after engraftment. All ES cases had high C-reactive protein (CRP) values not observed in the remaining patients at engraftment (median +/- s.d.: 17.5 +/- 7.3 vs 2.4 +/- 3.4 mg per 100 ml; P = 0.0001). Multivariate analysis showed a higher risk of ES in SCT performed in recent years (relative risk (RR) 2.3, 95% confidence interval (CI 1.0-4.7), female patients (RR 2.5, 95% CI 1.2-5.2), and absence of intensive chemotherapy before SCT (RR 8.8, 95% CI 3.3-20.5). All patients except one improved after treatment with corticosteroids. The MC seem to be the best tool to establish a diagnosis of ES. In doubtful cases, the diagnosis could be confirmed by evaluating CRP. Auto-SCT in patients not receiving previous chemotherapy could explain the increasing incidence of ES in the past years. Bone Marrow Transplantation (2010) 45, 1417-1422; doi:10.1038/bmt.2009.363; published online 11 January 2010

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