4.2 Article

Epidemiology of invasive respiratory disease caused by emerging non-Aspergillus molds in lung transplant recipients

期刊

TRANSPLANT INFECTIOUS DISEASE
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 70-78

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/tid.12492

关键词

molds; prophylaxis; lung transplant; invasive fungal infections; amphotericin B; fungal colonization; emerging molds; emerging fungi; Scedosporium; Purpureocillium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectivesOur aim was to assess the impact of positive cultures for non-Aspergillus molds on the risk of progression to invasive fungal infection (IFI), and the effect of prophylactic nebulized liposomal amphotericin B (n-LAB) on these pathogens. MethodsThis was an observational study (2003-2013) including lung transplant recipients (LTR) receiving lifetime n-LAB prophylaxis, in whom non-Aspergillus molds were isolated on respiratory culture before and after transplantation (minimum 1-year follow-up). ResultsWe studied 412 patients, with a mean postoperative follow-up of 2.56 years (interquartile range 1.01-4.65). Pre- and post-transplantation respiratory samples were frequently positive for non-Aspergillus molds (11.9% and 16.9% of LTR respectively). Post transplantation, 10 (2.42%) patients developed non-Aspergillus mold infection (4 Scedosporium species, 4 Purpureocillium species, 1 Penicillium species, and 1 Scopulariopsis species); 5 (1.21%) had IFI, with 60% IFI-related mortality. Non-Aspergillus molds with intrinsic amphotericin B (AB) resistance were more commonly isolated in bronchoscopy samples than AB-variably sensitive or AB-sensitive molds (54.5% vs. 25%, P = 0.04) and were associated with a higher risk of infection (56.3% vs. 1.3%%, P < 0.01). ConclusionsIn LTR undergoing n-LAB prophylaxis, pre- and post-transplantation isolation of non-Aspergillus molds is frequent, but IFI incidence (1.21%) is low. Purpureocillium is an emerging mold. AB-resistant non-Aspergillus species were found more often in bronchoscopy samples and were associated with a higher risk of infection.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据