ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Tularemia is a rare zoonotic infection caused by bacterium Francisella tularensis. It has been well described in immunocompetent patients but poorly described in immunocompromised patients notably in solid organ transplant recipients. CASE PRESENTATIONS: We report here two cases of tularemia in solid organ transplant recipients including first case after heart transplant. We also carried out an exhaustive review of literature describing characteristics of this infection in solid organ transplant recipients.
Subject(s)
Tularemia/diagnosis , Zoonoses/diagnosis , Animals , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Drug Therapy, Combination , Francisella tularensis/isolation & purification , Humans , Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Male , Middle Aged , Organ Transplantation , Severity of Illness Index , Transplant Recipients , Tularemia/drug therapy , Tularemia/parasitology , Tularemia/pathology , Zoonoses/drug therapy , Zoonoses/parasitology , Zoonoses/pathologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of acute rejection in cardiac transplant recipients requires invasive technique with endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) which has risks and limitations. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) with T2 and T1 mapping is a promising technique for characterizing myocardial tissue. The purpose of the study was to evaluate T2, T1 and extracellular volume fraction (ECV) quantification as novel tissue markers to diagnose acute rejection. METHODS: CMR was prospectively performed in 20 heart transplant patients providing 31 comparisons EMB-CMR. CMR was performed close to EMB. Images were acquired on a 1.5 Tesla scanner including T2 mapping (T2 prepared balanced steady state free precession) and T1 mapping (modified Look-Locker inversion recovery sequences: MOLLI) at basal, mid and apical level in short axis view. Global and segmental T2 and T1 values were measured before and 15 min (for T1 mapping) after contrast administration. RESULTS: Acute rejection was diagnosed in seven patients: six cellular rejections (4 grade IR, 2 grade 2R) and one antibody mediated rejection. Patients with acute rejection had significantly higher global T2 values at 3 levels: 58.5 ms [55.0-60.3] vs 51.3 ms [49.5-55.2] (p = 0.007) at basal; 55.7 ms [54.0-59.7] vs 51.8 ms [50.1-53.6] (p = 0.002) at median and 58.2 ms [54.0-63.7] vs 53.6 ms [50.8-57.4] (p = 0.026) at apical level. The area under the curve (AUC) for each level was 0.83, 0.79 and 0.78 respectively. Patients with acute rejection had significantly higher ECV at basal level: 34.2% [32.8-37.4] vs 27.4% [24.6-30.6] (p = 0.006). The AUC for basal level was 0.84. The sensitivity, specificity and diagnosis accuracy for basal T2 (cut off: 57.7 ms) were 71, 96 and 90% respectively; and for basal ECV: (cut off 32%) were 86, 85 and 85% respectively. Combining basal T2 and basal ECV allowed diagnosing all acute rejection and avoiding 63% of EMB. CONCLUSIONS: In heart transplant patients, a combined CMR approach using T2 mapping and ECV quantification provides a high diagnostic accuracy for acute rejection diagnosis and could potentially decrease the number of routine EMB.
Subject(s)
Graft Rejection/diagnostic imaging , Heart Transplantation/adverse effects , Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Myocardium/pathology , Acute Disease , Adult , Biopsy , Case-Control Studies , Female , Graft Rejection/immunology , Graft Rejection/pathology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Predictive Value of Tests , Prospective Studies , Reproducibility of Results , Risk Factors , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Mitral valve replacement using a bioprosthesis remains controversial in young patients because data on long-term outcomes are missing. This study evaluated the long-term results of the PERIMOUNT pericardial mitral bioprosthesis in patients aged 65 years or younger. METHODS: From 1984 to 2010, 148 Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT mitral bioprostheses were implanted in 148 patients aged 65 years or younger. Baseline clinical, perioperative and follow-up data were recorded prospectively. Structural valve deterioration (SVD) was defined by strict echocardiographic assessment. RESULTS: The mean follow-up period was 8.6 ± 5.5 years, for a total of 1269 valve-years. Operative mortality rate was 2.0%. Fifty-one late deaths occurred (linearized rate 4.0% per valve-year). Actuarial survival rates averaged 70 ± 4%, 53 ± 6% and 31 ± 7% after 10, 15 and 20 years of follow-up, respectively. Actuarial freedom from SVD at 10, 15 and 20 years was 78 ± 5%, 47 ± 7% and 19 ± 7%, respectively. Reoperation was associated with no operative mortality. Actuarial freedom from reoperation due to SVD at 10, 15 and 20 years was 82 ± 4%, 50 ± 6% and 25 ± 8%, respectively. Competing risk analysis demonstrated an actual risk of explantation secondary to SVD at 20 years of 44 ± 5%. Expected valve durability was 14.2 years for this age group. CONCLUSIONS: In the selected patients aged 65 years or younger undergoing mitral valve replacement with a pericardial bioprosthesis, the expected valve durability was 14.2 years. Reoperation for SVD was associated with a low risk of mortality.
