These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Impact of evolving trends in recipient and donor characteristics on cytomegalovirus infection in liver transplant recipients.
    Author: Singh N, Wannstedt C, Keyes L, Wagener MM, de Vera M, Cacciarelli TV, Gayowski T.
    Journal: Transplantation; 2004 Jan 15; 77(1):106-10. PubMed ID: 14724443.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: This study determines whether the recipient and donor characteristics that influence the cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection rate after liver transplantation have changed. METHODS: The recipient and donor characteristics that may affect the rate of CMV infection were assessed in 232 liver transplant recipients at our institution during a 14-year period (1989-2003). RESULTS: Since 1989, the age of recipients (P=0.0001) and donors (P=0.0001) has increased significantly. Pretransplant CMV seropositivity in recipients has decreased significantly (P=0.0001, 86.4% [1989-1992] to 53.7% [2000-2003]), whereas donor CMV seropositivity has remained unchanged (P>0.20). As a result, there has been a significant increase in the proportion of high-risk (CMV recipient-/donor+) patients (P=0.012); 10.6% of recipients from 1989 to 1992 versus 24.1% of recipients from 2000 to 2003 were CMV recipient-/donor+. The Child-Pugh scores of recipients have remained unchanged over time. However, the proportion of patients undergoing transplantation while being cared for in the intensive care unit has decreased significantly over time (P=0.0002). Despite an increase in the rate of CMV infection (P=0.09), the incidence of CMV disease has decreased significantly (P=0.0004). CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of high-risk patients (CMV recipient-/donor+) has increased significantly over time, attributable largely to a declining rate of CMV seropositivity in recipients before transplantation. These data have implications for guiding prophylactic practices and resource use after liver transplantation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]