Srivastava Atul, Bagchi Soumita, Singh Sarman, Balloni Veena, Agarwal Sanjay Kumar
Department of Nephrology, Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi, India.
Department of Nephrology, AIIMS, New Delhi, India.
Indian J Nephrol. 2022 Jan-Feb;32(1):47-53. doi: 10.4103/ijn.IJN_463_20. Epub 2021 Mar 27.
Cytomegalovirus infection (CMV) in a kidney transplant recipient (KTR) is a serious complication resulting in increased morbidity, mortality and reduced graft survival. There is limited data on early (within 3 months posttransplant) CMV infection (ECMVI) vs. late CMV infection (LCMVI) in patients not receiving CMV prophylaxis. In India, majority of kidney transplants are D + R + combination. This study aimed to compare the risk factors and outcome of ECMVI vs. LCMVI in living related post-KTR.
This was a single-center ambispective study of adult KTR from living donor between January 2001 and December 2015 who had CMV infection. This study had two cohorts: retrospective and prospective. Retrospective cohort included all KTR from January 2001 to September 2014. Prospective cohort included KTR who received transplants from October 2014 to December 2015. Of both cohorts, patients with early and late CMV infection were included. All patients received triple-drug immunosuppression. CMV infection was diagnosed when KTR had detectable CMV copies > 500/mL. In the prospective cohort, CMV PCR was done at 45 days, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months in all patients. Patients with CMV were treated on conventional lines. All patients were followed up till June 2016.
Of 2175 retrospective cohort, 97 and of the 155 prospective cohorts 75 had CMV infection, total being 172 CMV infections. Of these, 90 patients had ECNVI and 82 LCMVI. Induction was used in 48.8% in ECMVI group vs. 35.3% in LCMVI group (p = 0.02). CNI toxicity was present prior to CMV infection in 15 (17.4%) in ECMVI as compared to 14 (17.9%) in LCMVI ( = 0.93). In the ECMVI, 6 (6.6%) had acute rejection as compared to 13 (15.8%) in the LCMVI ( = 0.05). While asymptomatic CMV infection was more common in early (63.3% vs 37.8%, = 0.001), symptomatic CMV without tissue diagnosis was more common in late (54.8% vs. 31.1%, = 0.002). Total duration of post-transplant follow-up was 22.8 ± 22.1 months in ECMVI as compared to 49.7 + 40.9 months in the LCMVI ( < 0.001). The serum creatinine at last follow-up was 1.9 ± 1.6 mg/dL in ECMVI group and 2.4 ± 2.0 mg/dL in LCMVI ( = 0.02).
In D+/R + living renal transplant recipients, without routine CMV prophylaxis, late CMV infection had more tissue invasive disease and is associated with inferior graft function on long-term follow-up.
肾移植受者(KTR)中的巨细胞病毒感染(CMV)是一种严重并发症,会导致发病率和死亡率增加,以及移植肾存活期缩短。对于未接受CMV预防的患者,关于早期(移植后3个月内)CMV感染(ECMVI)与晚期CMV感染(LCMVI)的数据有限。在印度,大多数肾移植是供者+受者+联合方式。本研究旨在比较亲属活体肾移植受者中ECMVI与LCMVI的危险因素及结局。
这是一项对2001年1月至2015年12月期间来自活体供者的成年KTR且发生CMV感染的单中心双向研究。本研究有两个队列:回顾性队列和前瞻性队列。回顾性队列包括2001年1月至2014年9月的所有KTR。前瞻性队列包括2014年10月至2015年12月接受移植的KTR。两个队列中,均纳入早期和晚期CMV感染患者。所有患者均接受三联药物免疫抑制治疗。当KTR的CMV拷贝数检测值>500/mL时,诊断为CMV感染。在前瞻性队列中,所有患者在45天、3、6、9和12个月时进行CMV PCR检测。CMV感染患者采用传统方法治疗。所有患者随访至2016年6月。
在2175例回顾性队列患者中,97例发生CMV感染,在155例前瞻性队列患者中,75例发生CMV感染,CMV感染总数为172例。其中,90例患者发生ECNVI,82例发生LCMVI。ECMVI组48.8%的患者使用了诱导治疗,而LCMVI组为35.3%(p = 0.02)。在CMV感染前,ECMVI组15例(17.4%)存在CNI毒性,而LCMVI组为14例(17.9%)( = 0.93)。ECMVI组中6例(6.6%)发生急性排斥反应,而LCMVI组为13例(15.8%)( = 0.05)。虽然无症状CMV感染在早期更常见(63.3%对37.8%, = 0.001),但无组织学诊断的有症状CMV感染在晚期更常见(54.8%对31.1%, = 0.002)。ECMVI组移植后随访总时长为22.8±22.1个月,而LCMVI组为49.7 + 40.9个月( < 0.001)。最后一次随访时,ECMVI组血清肌酐为1.9±1.6mg/dL,LCMVI组为2.4±2.0mg/dL( = 0.02)。
在未进行常规CMV预防的供者+/受者+亲属活体肾移植受者中,晚期CMV感染有更多组织侵袭性疾病,且在长期随访中与移植肾功能较差相关。