Comparison of higher dose and lower dose ganciclovir for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in seropositive heart transplant recipients

S.‐O. Lee, J.H. Rim, H. Sung, S.‐H. Kim, S.‐H. Choi, C.W. Lee, T.J. Yun, J.‐W. Lee, J.H. Woo, Y.S. Kim, J.‐J. Kim. Comparison of higher dose and lower dose ganciclovir for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in seropositive heart transplant recipients.
Transpl Infect Dis 2010: 12: 31–37. All rights reserved...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Transplant infectious disease 2010-02, Vol.12 (1), p.31-37
Hauptverfasser: Lee, S.-O., Rim, J.H., Sung, H., Kim, S.-H., Choi, S.-H., Lee, C.W., Yun, T.J., Lee, J.-W., Woo, J.H., Kim, Y.S., Kim, J.-J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:S.‐O. Lee, J.H. Rim, H. Sung, S.‐H. Kim, S.‐H. Choi, C.W. Lee, T.J. Yun, J.‐W. Lee, J.H. Woo, Y.S. Kim, J.‐J. Kim. Comparison of higher dose and lower dose ganciclovir for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in seropositive heart transplant recipients.
Transpl Infect Dis 2010: 12: 31–37. All rights reserved Background. We performed a retrospective historical cohort study to compare the efficacy of higher dose (HD, 10 mg/kg/day for 2 weeks, followed by 5 mg/kg/day intravenously for 2 weeks) and lower dose (LD, 5 mg/kg/day for 4 weeks) ganciclovir (GCV) for cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in seropositive heart transplant recipients. Methods. All consecutive patients undergoing heart transplantation (HT) between June 1999 and January 2008 at our institution were enrolled. All recipients were seropositive for CMV before HT. Before October 2005, 72 patients received the HD regimen and after October 2005, 36 patients received the LD regimen. We followed up all patients for 1 year. Results. In the HD group 43 of 72 patients (60%) developed CMV infections vs. 21 of 36 patients (58%) in the LD group (P=0.89). CMV diseases occurred in 4 patients of the HD group (6%) and 4 patients of the LD group (11%) (P=0.44). The incidence of acute rejection was not significantly different between the 2 groups (14% vs. 6%; P=0.33). Among patients who completed 4‐week courses of prophylaxis, 32 of 58 patients (55%) in the HD group developed CMV infections vs. 18 of 30 patients (60%) in the LD group (P=0.66). CMV diseases occurred in 3 patients of the HD group (5%) and 4 of the LD group (13%) (P=0.22). Acute rejection incidence did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (17% vs. 7%; P=0.21). Conclusions. LD GCV for CMV prophylaxis may not be inferior to the HD regimen in seropositive HT recipients.
ISSN:1398-2273
1399-3062
DOI:10.1111/j.1399-3062.2009.00450.x