The impact of sirolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, cyclosporine, azathioprine, and steroids on wound healing in 513 kidney-transplant recipients

被引:124
|
作者
Flechner, SM [1 ]
Zhou, LM [1 ]
Derweesh, I [1 ]
Mastroianni, B [1 ]
Savas, K [1 ]
Goldfarb, D [1 ]
Modlin, CS [1 ]
Krishnamurthi, V [1 ]
Novick, A [1 ]
机构
[1] Cleveland Clin Fdn, Transplant Ctr, Glickman Urol Inst, Sect Renal Transplantat, Cleveland, OH 44195 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1097/01.TP.0000093502.26208.42
中图分类号
R392 [医学免疫学]; Q939.91 [免疫学];
学科分类号
100102 ;
摘要
Background. The aim of this study was to determine whether there has been an increase in the incidence or severity of wound-healing complications that can be attributed to the introduction of newer immunosuppressive drugs. Methods. Consecutive series of adult kidney-only transplant recipients were selected from our Unified Transplant Database backward from September 2002. There were 513 patients divided into groups on the basis of their maintenance immunosuppression given for at least the first 30 days posttransplant. Group I (152) was given sirolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and prednisone (SRL/XMF/P) between March 2000 and September 2002; group II (168) was given cyclosporine A (CsA)/MMF/P between January 1999 and July 2002; and group III (193) was given azathioprine (AzA)/CsA/P between January 1993 and December 1997. A classification system for wound-healing problems was developed, and each of the three groups was analyzed by univariate and multivariate analysis. Results. From groups III to II to 1, there was a significant increase in mean age (42.4 vs. 49 years), percent of patients diabetic (17% vs. 29%), mean body mass index (BMI) (24.2 vs. 27.1 kg/m(2)), and percent BMI greater than 30 (13.5% vs. 27%). The cumulative percentage of all wound-healing problems between group I (19.7%) vs. group II (16.1%) and group III (15.6%) was not significantly different. The most significant risk factor was a recipient BMI greater than 30 (P=0.0012) and delayed graft function (P=0.0041). Conclusions. During a 10-year period marked by changing recipient demographics, the introduction of MMF and SRL did not result in a significant increase in transplant wound-healing complications. The most significant risk factor associated with transplant wound-healing complications remains body weight, which was the major influence for each of the immunosuppressive drug combinations described.
引用
收藏
页码:1729 / 1734
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine in simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant recipients on cyclosporine
    Fabrega, AJ
    Corwin, CL
    Hunsicker, L
    [J]. TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS, 1998, 30 (04) : 1562 - 1563
  • [2] Safe conversion of mycophenolate mofetil to azathioprine in kidney transplant recipients with sirolimus-based immunosuppression
    El-Agroudy, Amgad E.
    El-Dahshan, Khaled F.
    Wafa, Ehab W.
    Sheashaa, Hussien A.
    Gad, Ziad A.
    Ismail, Amani M.
    Shokeir, Ahmed A.
    Ghoneim, Mohamed A.
    [J]. NEPHROLOGY, 2009, 14 (02) : 255 - 261
  • [3] Thymoglobulin Induction and Sirolimus Versus Tacrolimus in Kidney Transplant Recipients Receiving Mycophenolate Mofetil and Steroids
    Glotz, Denis
    Charpentier, Bernard
    Abramovicz, Daniel
    Lang, Philippe
    Rostaing, Lionel
    Rifle, Gerard
    Vanrenterghem, Yves
    Berthoux, Francois
    Bourbigot, Bernard
    Delahousse, Michel
    Chalopin, Jean-Marc
    Cassuto, Elisabeth
    Lefrancois, Nicole
    [J]. TRANSPLANTATION, 2010, 89 (12) : 1511 - 1517
  • [4] Sirolimus versus cyclosporine in kidney recipients receiving Thymoglobulin®, mycophenolate mofetil and a 6-month course of steroids
    Buechler, M.
    Caillard, S.
    Barbier, S.
    Thervet, E.
    Toupance, O.
    Mazouz, H.
    de Ligny, B. Hurault
    Le Meur, Y.
    Thierry, A.
    Villemain, F.
    Heng, A.-E.
    Moulin, B.
    Morin, M. P.
    Noel, C.
    Lebranchu, Y.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2007, 7 (11) : 2522 - 2531
  • [5] Outcome in cadaveric renal transplant recipients treated with cyclosporine A and mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclosporine A and azathioprine
    Lee, CM
    Markezich, AJ
    Scandling, JD
    Dafoe, DC
    Alfrey, EJ
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH, 1998, 76 (02) : 131 - 136
  • [6] Primary immunosuppression with tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclosporine and azathioprine in heart transplant recipients
    Teebken, OE
    Strüber, M
    Harringer, W
    Pichlmaier, MA
    Haverich, A
    [J]. TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS, 2002, 34 (04) : 1265 - 1268
  • [7] AZATHIOPRINE METABOLISM IN KIDNEY-TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS
    LENNARD, L
    BROWN, CB
    FOX, M
    MADDOCKS, JL
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, 1984, 18 (05) : 693 - 700
  • [8] Human leukocyte antigens class II expression in heart transplant recipients treated with cyclosporine in combination with azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil or sirolimus
    Wojnicz, R.
    Zakliczynski, M.
    Nozynski, J.
    Majkusiak, A.
    Przybylski, R.
    Zembala, M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HEART AND LUNG TRANSPLANTATION, 2006, 25 (02): : S103 - S103
  • [9] Oral ulcers in kidney transplant recipients treated with sirolimus and mycophenolate mofetil.
    van Gelder, T
    ter Meulen, CG
    Hené, R
    Weimar, W
    Hoitsma, A
    [J]. TRANSPLANTATION, 2003, 75 (06) : 788 - 791
  • [10] Association of Skin Cancer With the Use of Azathioprine And Mycophenolate Mofetil in Kidney Transplant Recipients
    Ali, Hatem
    Briggs, David
    Krishnan, Nithya
    [J]. TRANSPLANTATION, 2022, 106 (09) : S406 - S406