Impact of Early Rejection Treatment on Infection Development in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Propensity Analysis

IF 0.9 Q3 SURGERY
Simran Gupta, Juan Gea-Banacloche, R. Heilman, Reena N. Yaman, H. Me, Nan Zhang, H. Vikram, L. Kodali
{"title":"Impact of Early Rejection Treatment on Infection Development in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Propensity Analysis","authors":"Simran Gupta, Juan Gea-Banacloche, R. Heilman, Reena N. Yaman, H. Me, Nan Zhang, H. Vikram, L. Kodali","doi":"10.1155/2024/6663086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction The impact of renal allograft rejection treatment on infection development has not been formally defined in the literature. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 185 rejection (case) and 185 nonrejection (control) kidney transplant patients treated at our institution from 2014 to 2020 to understand the impact of rejection on infection development. Propensity scoring was used to match cohorts. We collected data for infections within 6 months of rejection for the cases and 18 months posttransplant for controls. Results In 370 patients, we identified 466 infections, 297 in the controls, and 169 in the cases. Urinary tract infections (38.9%) and cytomegalovirus viremia (13.7%) were most common. Cumulative incidence of infection between the case and controls was 2.17 (CI 1.54–3.05); p < 0.001. There was no difference in overall survival (HR 0.90, CI 0.49–1.66) or graft survival (HR 1.27, CI 0.74–2.20) between the groups. There was a significant difference in overall survival (HR 2.28, CI 1.14–4.55; p = 0.019) and graft survival (HR 1.98, CI 1.10–3.56; p = 0.023) when patients with infection were compared to those without. Conclusions As previously understood, rejection treatment is a risk factor for subsequent infection development. Our data have defined this relationship more clearly. This study is unique, however, in that we found that infections, but not rejection, negatively impacted both overall patient survival and allograft survival, likely due to our institution's robust post-rejection protocols. Clinicians should monitor patients closely for infections in the post-rejection period and have a low threshold to treat these infections while also restarting appropriate prophylaxis.","PeriodicalId":45795,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Transplantation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Transplantation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/6663086","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction The impact of renal allograft rejection treatment on infection development has not been formally defined in the literature. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 185 rejection (case) and 185 nonrejection (control) kidney transplant patients treated at our institution from 2014 to 2020 to understand the impact of rejection on infection development. Propensity scoring was used to match cohorts. We collected data for infections within 6 months of rejection for the cases and 18 months posttransplant for controls. Results In 370 patients, we identified 466 infections, 297 in the controls, and 169 in the cases. Urinary tract infections (38.9%) and cytomegalovirus viremia (13.7%) were most common. Cumulative incidence of infection between the case and controls was 2.17 (CI 1.54–3.05); p < 0.001. There was no difference in overall survival (HR 0.90, CI 0.49–1.66) or graft survival (HR 1.27, CI 0.74–2.20) between the groups. There was a significant difference in overall survival (HR 2.28, CI 1.14–4.55; p = 0.019) and graft survival (HR 1.98, CI 1.10–3.56; p = 0.023) when patients with infection were compared to those without. Conclusions As previously understood, rejection treatment is a risk factor for subsequent infection development. Our data have defined this relationship more clearly. This study is unique, however, in that we found that infections, but not rejection, negatively impacted both overall patient survival and allograft survival, likely due to our institution's robust post-rejection protocols. Clinicians should monitor patients closely for infections in the post-rejection period and have a low threshold to treat these infections while also restarting appropriate prophylaxis.
早期排斥治疗对肾移植受者感染发展的影响:倾向分析
导言 肾移植排斥反应治疗对感染发展的影响尚未在文献中正式定义。方法 我们对 2014 年至 2020 年在本院接受治疗的 185 例排斥反应(病例)和 185 例非排斥反应(对照)肾移植患者进行了一项回顾性队列研究,以了解排斥反应对感染发生的影响。研究采用倾向评分法对队列进行匹配。我们收集了病例在排斥反应后 6 个月内和对照组在移植后 18 个月内的感染数据。结果 在370名患者中,我们发现了466例感染,其中对照组297例,病例组169例。最常见的感染是尿路感染(38.9%)和巨细胞病毒感染(13.7%)。病例和对照组的累计感染率为 2.17 (CI 1.54-3.05);P < 0.001。两组的总生存率(HR 0.90,CI 0.49-1.66)和移植物生存率(HR 1.27,CI 0.74-2.20)没有差异。与未感染的患者相比,感染患者的总生存率(HR 2.28,CI 1.14-4.55;P = 0.019)和移植物生存率(HR 1.98,CI 1.10-3.56;P = 0.023)有显著差异。结论 如前所述,排斥治疗是随后发生感染的一个风险因素。我们的数据更清楚地界定了这种关系。但本研究的独特之处在于,我们发现感染(而非排斥反应)对患者的总体存活率和同种异体移植存活率都有负面影响,这很可能是由于我们机构采取了强有力的排斥反应后治疗方案。临床医生应密切监测患者在排斥反应后的感染情况,并对这些感染进行低门槛治疗,同时重新启动适当的预防措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
4.00%
发文量
5
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信