Universitätspublikationen
Refine
Year of publication
- 2020 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- risk factors (2) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
CD4+ T cell lymphopenia predicts mortality from Pneumocystis pneumonia in kidney transplant patients
(2020)
Background: Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PcP) remains a life-threatening opportunistic infection after solid organ transplantation, even in the era of Pneumocystis prophylaxis. The association between risk of developing PcP and low CD4+ T cell counts has been well established. However, it is unknown whether lymphopenia in the context of post-renal transplant PcP increases the risk of mortality. Methods: We carried out a retrospective analysis of a cohort of kidney transplant patients with PcP (n = 49) to determine the risk factors for mortality associated with PcP. We correlated clinical and demographic data with the outcome of the disease. For CD4+ T cell counts, we used the Wilcoxon rank sum test for in-hospital mortality and a Cox proportional-hazards regression model for 60-day mortality. Results: In univariate analyses, high CRP, high neutrophils, CD4+ T cell lymphopenia, mechanical ventilation, and high acute kidney injury network stage were associated with in-hospital mortality following presentation with PcP. In a receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) analysis, an optimum cutoff of ≤200 CD4+ T cells/µL predicted in-hospital mortality, CD4+ T cell lymphopenia remained a risk factor in a Cox regression model. Conclusions: Low CD4+ T cell count in kidney transplant recipients is a biomarker for disease severity and a risk factor for in-hospital mortality following presentation with PcP.
Aim: To evaluate the level of agreement between the periodontal risk assessment (PRA) and the periodontal risk calculator (PRC).
Materials and methods: Periodontal risk was retrospectively assessed among 50 patients using PRA and PRC. Both methods were modified. PRA by assessing probing pocket depths and bleeding on probing at four (PRA4) and six (PRA6) sites per tooth, PRC by permanently marking or unmarking the dichotomously selectable factors “irregular recall,” “oral hygiene in need of improvement” and “completed scaling and root planing” for PRC. Agreement between PRA and PRCred (summarized risk categories) was determined using weighted kappa.
Results: Fifty patients enrolled in periodontal maintenance (48% female, age: 63.8 ± 11.2 years) participated. PRA4 and PRA6 matched in 32 (64%) patients (κ‐coefficient = 0.48, p < .001). There was 100% agreement between both PRC versions. There was minimal agreement of PRA6 and PRCred (66%, 28% one different category, 6% two different categories; κ‐coefficient = 0.34; p = .001). PRA4 and PRCred did not match (60% agreement, 34% one different category, 6% two different categories; κ‐coefficient = 0.23; p = .13). For the SPT diagnosis of severe periodontitis, PRA6 and PRCred agreed weakly (κ‐coefficient = 0.44; p = .004).
Conclusion: PRA and PRC showed a minimal agreement. Specific disease severity may result in improved agreement.