Chitaru Kurihara1, Ramiro Fernandez1, Niloufar Safaeinili1, Mahzad Akbarpour1, Qiang Wu1, G R Scott Budinger2, Ankit Bharat3. 1. Division of Thoracic Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 2. Division of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Division of Thoracic Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois; Division of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. Electronic address: abharat@nm.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection has been associated with poor outcomes after solid organ transplantation. The long-term impact of donor and recipient CMV serological status on lung transplant outcomes remains unclear. Accordingly, we evaluated the impact of donor and recipient CMV status on long-term patients as well as allograft survival after single (SLT) and double lung transplantation (BLT). METHODS: The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was used to track all adult lung transplants in United States from May 2005 to June 2016. Patient mortality and bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome were determined up to 5 years using Cox proportional hazards modeling. Additionally, landmark analysis was performed conditional on survival at 1 year. RESULTS: Compared with donor negative-recipient CMV-IgG negative (D-R-), donor positive-recipient negative (D+R-) and donor positive-recipient positive (D+R+) groups had increased mortality at 1 and 5 years after BLT, with the former demonstrating highest risk. Although mortality was not increased with CMV seropositive donors after SLT at 1 year, both D+R- and D+R+ groups demonstrated greater mortality at 5 years. Risk of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome was not affected by CMV serological status. Conditional landmark analysis confirmed that lungs from CMV seropositive donors conferred highest risk for long-term mortality. CONCLUSIONS: CMV seronegative recipients undergoing either BLT or SLT from CMV seropositive donors have the highest risk of long-term mortality that extends beyond the first year. Further studies are needed to determine the causes of higher mortality observed in the CMV seronegative recipients and risks and benefits of extension of CMV prophylaxis, particularly in the high-risk group.
BACKGROUND:Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection has been associated with poor outcomes after solid organ transplantation. The long-term impact of donor and recipient CMV serological status on lung transplant outcomes remains unclear. Accordingly, we evaluated the impact of donor and recipient CMV status on long-term patients as well as allograft survival after single (SLT) and double lung transplantation (BLT). METHODS: The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients was used to track all adult lung transplants in United States from May 2005 to June 2016. Patientmortality and bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome were determined up to 5 years using Cox proportional hazards modeling. Additionally, landmark analysis was performed conditional on survival at 1 year. RESULTS: Compared with donor negative-recipient CMV-IgG negative (D-R-), donor positive-recipient negative (D+R-) and donor positive-recipient positive (D+R+) groups had increased mortality at 1 and 5 years after BLT, with the former demonstrating highest risk. Although mortality was not increased with CMV seropositive donors after SLT at 1 year, both D+R- and D+R+ groups demonstrated greater mortality at 5 years. Risk of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome was not affected by CMV serological status. Conditional landmark analysis confirmed that lungs from CMV seropositive donors conferred highest risk for long-term mortality. CONCLUSIONS: CMV seronegative recipients undergoing either BLT or SLT from CMV seropositive donors have the highest risk of long-term mortality that extends beyond the first year. Further studies are needed to determine the causes of higher mortality observed in the CMV seronegative recipients and risks and benefits of extension of CMV prophylaxis, particularly in the high-risk group.
Authors: M V Soghikian; V G Valentine; G J Berry; H R Patel; R C Robbins; J Theodore Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 1996-09 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: S R Duncan; W F Grgurich; A T Iacono; G J Burckart; S A Yousem; I L Paradis; P A Williams; B A Johnson; B P Griffith Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 1994-07 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: T G Wreghitt; S J Abel; K McNeil; J Parameshwar; S Stewart; N Cary; L Sharples; S Large; J Wallwork Journal: Transpl Int Date: 1999 Impact factor: 3.782
Authors: David Weill; Brion J Lock; Donavon L Wewers; K Randall Young; George L Zorn; Lesley Early; James K Kirklin; David C McGiffin Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Vincent G Valentine; David Weill; Meera R Gupta; Brad Raper; Stephanie G Laplace; Gisele A Lombard; Ryan W Bonvillain; David E Taylor; Gundeep S Dhillon Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2008-06-30 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Eliška Dvořáčková; Martin Šíma; Jakub Petrus; Eva Klapková; Petr Hubáček; Jiří Pozniak; Jan Havlín; Robert Lischke; Ondřej Slanař Journal: Pharmaceutics Date: 2022-02-13 Impact factor: 6.321