Open AccessEvaluation of Cytomegalovirus Infections in Liver Transplant Recipients Under Universal Prophylaxis: A Single Centre Experience
Author(s) -
Sibel Altunışık Toplu,
Adem Köse,
Serdar Karakaş,
Yaşar Bayındır,
Barış Otlu,
Sezai Yılmaz
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
hepatitis monthly
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.264
H-Index - 37
eISSN - 1735-3408
pISSN - 1735-143X
DOI - 10.5812/hepatmon.115370
Subject(s) - medicine , cytomegalovirus , transplantation , liver transplantation , organ transplantation , cytomegalovirus infection , antiviral treatment , gastroenterology , single center , immunology , human cytomegalovirus , viral disease , virus , herpesviridae , chronic hepatitis
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.