Evaluation of Cytomegalovirus Infections in Liver Transplant Recipients Under Universal Prophylaxis: A Single Centre Experience


ALTUNIŞIK TOPLU S., KÖSE A., KARAKAŞ S., BAYINDIR Y., OTLU B., YILMAZ S.

HEPATITIS MONTHLY, cilt.21, sa.6, 2021 (SCI-Expanded) identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 21 Sayı: 6
  • Basım Tarihi: 2021
  • Doi Numarası: 10.5812/hepatmon.115370
  • Dergi Adı: HEPATITIS MONTHLY
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, CAB Abstracts, CINAHL, EMBASE, Veterinary Science Database
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: Cytomegalovirus Infection, CMV Prophylaxis, End-Organ CMV disease, Liver Transplantation, Probable CMV Syndrome, Quantitative Nucleic Acid Amplification (QNAT), VIRAL-INFECTION, SEROPREVALENCE, MANAGEMENT
  • İnönü Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Background: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is one of the leading viral agents that can pave the way for serious complications and organ damage in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients after transplantation. Strategies have been developed to protect at-risk patients from CMV infection following transplantation. Since more than 90% of adults in Turkey were positive for CMV IgG, universal CMV prophylaxis was applied, and the results were evaluated. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the results of universal CMV prophylaxis after liver transplantation in the long term. Methods: A total of 1,090 liver transplant patients were evaluated in terms of CMV infection in the Organ Transplantation Institute of Inonu University, Malatya, Turkey, from October 2014 to December 2019. In order to identify the CMV infections, quantitative nucleic acid amplification (QNAT) was used to detect potential CMV DNA. The cut-off value of CMV DNA was determined to be 1000 copies/mL after transplantation. Results: According to the clinical and laboratory assessments, 33 (3%) patients were diagnosed with CMV infection, and 25 (2.3%) patients were evaluated as possibly having CMV syndrome. Also, eight of the 33 patients were assessed as having end-organ CMV disease and 25 as probable CMV syndrome. In the late period following prophylaxis, CMV infection was observed in 10 (0.9%) cases. The infection rate after prophylaxis (0.9%) was lower than the infection rate (2.1%) seen during prophylaxis. Conclusions: Close clinical follow-up with CMV prophylaxis and strict monitoring of CMV DNA by determining a specific cut-off point are important in the follow-up of liver transplant patients.