Get access

Antifungal prophylaxis following heart transplantation: systematic review

Authors

  • Luis G. Uribe,

    1. Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases and Geographic Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
    2. Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia
    3. Fundación Cardiovascular de Colombia, Bucaramanga, Colombia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Jorge A. Cortés,

    Corresponding author
    1. Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia
    • Correspondence: Jorge Alberto Cortés, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Unniversidad Nacional de Colombia, Of. 510, Cra 30 no. 45-03, Bogotá, Colombia.

      Tel.:+57 1 3165000 Ext. 15011. Fax: +57 1 3165000 Ext. 15012.

      E-mail: jacortesl@unal.edu.co

    Search for more papers by this author
  • Carlos E. Granados,

    1. Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • José G. Montoya

    1. Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases and Geographic Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
    Search for more papers by this author

Summary

Patients with heart transplantation have a high incidence of infectious complications, especially fungal infections. The aim of the systematic review was to determine the best pharmacological strategy to prevent fungal infections among patients with heart transplant. We searched the PubMed and Embase databases for studies reporting the effectivenesss of pharmacologic strategies to prevent fungal infections in adult patient with a heart transplant. Our search yielded five studies (1176 patients), four of them with historical controls. Two studies used inhaled amphotericin B deoxycholate, three used itraconazole and one used targeted echinocandin. All studies showed significant reduction in the prophylaxis arm. Different products, doses and outcomes were noted. There is a highly probable benefit of prophylaxis use, however, better studies with standardised doses and comparators should be performed.

Ancillary