Search

Prediction of PTLD after pediatric lung transplant remains difficult. Use of EBV VL in WB has been poorly predictive, while measurement of VL in BAL fluid has been suggested to have enhanced utility. The NIH-sponsored Clinical Trials in Organ Transplantation in Children (CTOTC-03) prospectively obtained serial quantitative measurements of EBV PCR in both WB and BAL fluid after pediatric lung transplantation. Descriptive statistics, contingency analyses, and Kaplan-Meier analyses evaluated possible association between EBV and PTLD. Of 61 patients, 34 (56%) had an EBV+PCR (at least once in WB or BAL). EBV donor (D)+patients more often had a positive PCR (D+/recipient (R)-: 13/18; D+/R+: 14/23) compared to EBV D- patients (6/17). Several D-/R- (5/12) patients developed EBV, but none developed PTLD. All four PTLD patients were D+/R- with EBV+PCR. Neither the time to first EBV+PCR nor the CT for PCR positivity in BAL or WB was statistically different between those with and without PTLD. Having an EBV-seropositive donor was associated with increased risk of EBV+PCR in WB. EBV load in BAL was not predictive of PTLD.

RSV infection can be severe after pediatric lung transplantation. Strategies to prevent and treat RSV in this population are underreported. To assess the current practices, we surveyed the members of the IPLTC regarding RSV prevention and treatment strategies. Twenty-eight programs were surveyed; 18 (64.3%) responded at least partially. A median of 53 transplants (range, 8-355) occurred since inception. RSV testing occurs in asymptomatic (6/17) and symptomatic (17/17) patients. Diagnostic method is polymerase chain reaction at 13 sites and DFA at 8. Transplant candidates were received prophylaxis at 10 sites, with nine following national (5) or local (4) guidelines. All use palivizumab IM and/or IV. Recipients were received prophylaxis with palivizumab at eight centers (eight IM, one IV). Fourteen were treated for RSV (seven all patients; seven age-related). Medications include inhaled (6), oral (4), or IV (4) ribavirin, plus IVIG (9), steroids (8), and IV (2) or IM (3) palivizumab. Prevention and treatment barriers include insurance/hospital concerns, such as institutional reluctance to use inhaled ribavirin. RSV prevention and treatment strategies are diverse at pediatric lung transplant programs. Many centers offer prophylaxis (9/17) and treatments (14/17), but strategies are not uniform.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection after pediatric lung transplantation is a significant risk factor for morbidity and mortality in the first year after transplantation. Multiple strategies have been reported for CMV prevention among adult lung transplant programs. In contrast, little information has been reported regarding protocols for prevention and detection of CMV from pediatric programs. We conducted a survey to better understand the range of practice patterns for CMV prevention and detection at pediatric lung transplant centers. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to 11 pediatric lung transplant centers identified through the International Pediatric Lung Transplant Collaborative in September 2002. A member of the lung transplant team from each institution was asked to provide the methods of CMV prevention and surveillance. Eight of 11 centers surveyed responded to the questionnaire accounting for 45.6% (26 of 57) and 100% (three of three) of the pediatric lung transplants performed in the US and UK in 2001, respectively. All centers used prophylactic therapy against CMV with either ganciclovir or valganciclovir with duration ranging from 3.5 wk to indefinitely. Most centers (six of eight) prescribed a prophylactic regimen based on donor and recipient CMV serostatus. Half (four of eight) of the centers report using CMV hyperimmune globulin in addition to an antiviral agent. Method for CMV detection varied widely, including use of conventional viral culture (n = 1), antigenemia (n = 7), and polymerase chain reaction (n = 2). A wide range of strategies is used to prevent and detect CMV in pediatric lung transplant recipients with little empiric evidence demonstrating the optimal approach. A retrospective analysis among these centers is being conducted to evaluate the efficacy of these approaches.