Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 20, 2026
Lung Rapid Recovery Procurement Combined with Abdominal Normothermic Regional Perfusion in Controlled Donation after Circulatory Death
Published on: August 15, 2022
Cytomegalovirus infection in living-donor and cadaveric lung transplantations
Keiji Ohata1, Toyofumi F Chen-Yoshikawa1, Koji Takahashi1
1Department of Thoracic Surgery, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Objectives:
Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection remains a major cause of morbidity after lung transplantation. Some studies have reported prognostic factors for the postoperative development of CMV infection in cadaveric lung transplantation (CLT), but no research has been performed in living-donor lobar lung transplantation (LDLLT). Therefore, we analysed the possible risk factors of post-transplant CMV infection and the differences between LDLLT and CLT.
Methods:
The development of CMV disease and viraemia in 110 patients undergoing lung transplantation at Kyoto University Hospital in 2008-2015 were retrospectively assessed. The prognostic factors in the development of CMV infection and the differences between LDLLT and CLT were analysed.
Results:
Among 110 patients, 58 LDLLTs and 52 CLTs were performed. The 3-year freedom rates from CMV disease and viraemia were 92.0% and 58.5%, respectively. There was no difference in the development of CMV infection between LDLLT and CLT (disease: 94.6% vs 91.0%, P = 0.58 and viraemia: 59.3% vs 57.2%, P = 0.76). In preoperative anti-CMV immunoglobulin status, R-D+ recipients (recipient: negative, donor: positive) and R-D- recipients (recipient: negative, donor: negative) tended to have higher and lower cumulative incidences, respectively, of CMV infection (disease: P = 0.34 and viraemia: P = 0.24) than that with R+ recipients (recipient: seropositive). Significantly lower cumulative incidence of CMV viraemia was observed in patients receiving 12-month prophylactic medication (70.6% vs 36.8%, P < 0.001). Twenty-eight patients (25.5%) had early cessation of anti-CMV prophylaxis due to toxicity; however, the extended prophylaxis duration did not increase the incidence of early cessation (P = 0.88). These trends were seen in both LDLLT and CLT.
Conclusions:
We found that there was no difference in the development of CMV infection between LDLLT and CLT. Twelve-month prophylaxis protocol provides beneficial effect without increased toxicity also in LDLLT.
