English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Abstract Background IMI have high mortality among LTR. Prevention is critical. Data supporting guideline-recommended three-tiered approach to antifungal prophylaxis based on risk for IMI are lacking. Methods Retrospective study of 534 adult LTR at the Cleveland Clinic (CCF) August 2010–December 2014. We analyzed the association between IMI and risk factors: retransplantation, hemodialysis, reoperation, and fulminant hepatic failure. Model of end-stage liver disease (MELD) was evaluated as novel risk factor. We compared the incidence of IMI among three subgroups: no antifungal prophylaxis, prophylaxis against yeast alone, and prophylaxis against yeast and mold. Results Mean age was 56 ± 11 years. 68% were male (n = 364). The most common underlying diseases were hepatitis C virus (32%), hepatocellular carcinoma (28%), alcoholic cirrhosis (19%), and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (19%). The overall incidence of IMI was 0.9% (n = 5). The incidence of IMI among LTR with (n = 128) and without (n = 406) risk factors was 0.78 and 0.98%, respectively (see Figure). Table 1 details the risk factors and outcomes by subgroups. Only one patient with IMI had a risk factor for mold (reoperation). The other four had none. Incidence of IMI among LTR who did not receive antifungal prophylaxis was 1 and 0% in those who received yeast or mold prophylaxis. There was no association between MELD and IMI.Table 1. Risk factors and outcomes of 534 adult LTR at CCF, 2010–2014. No prophylaxis  N = 410 (%) Prophylaxis  against Candida  N = 91 (%) Prophylaxis  against mold  N = 33 (%) Risk factors Re-transplantation 3 (0.7) 8 (9) 7 (21) Reoperation after transplant 35 (9) 24 (26) 11 (33) Renal replacement therapy 28 (7) 26 (29) 14 (42) Fulminant hepatic failure 4 (1) 2 (2) 0 (0) Mean MELD (±SD) 23 (6) 29 (7) 32 (8) MELD >22 179 (44) 73 (80) 28 (85) MELD >29 51 (12) 38 (42) 20 (61) Outcomes Any invasive fungal infection 21 (5) 4 (4) 1 (3) Invasive mold 5 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) One-year all-cause mortality 34 (8) 12 (13) 5 (15) Conclusion Risk factors and MELD did not predict IMI. Because risks are used to recommend mold-active prophylaxis, antifungal agent overuse may be a concern. Additional studies are needed to reconsider risk factors so that transplant providers may target antifungal agents appropriately, practice antifungal stewardship and improve outcomes. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

open forum infectious diseases

Invasive Mold Infections (IMI) among Liver Transplant Recipients (LTR): Is It Time to Reconsider the Risk Factors that Determine Antifungal Prophylaxis?