Immunocompromised Host

Published on 07/03/2015 by admin

Filed under Critical Care Medicine

Last modified 07/03/2015

Print this page

rate 1 star rate 2 star rate 3 star rate 4 star rate 5 star
Your rating: none, Average: 0 (0 votes)

This article have been viewed 1264 times

Chapter 40 Immunocompromised Host

2 What is the “net state of immunosuppression,” and why is it important?

The concept of a net state of immunosuppression describes the infection potential in immunocompromised hosts. For example, a patient who underwent splenectomy 10 years ago after traumatic injury has a very different infection risk than does a patient with HIV/AIDS. This is important in understanding a patient’s susceptibility to, and risk for, infection. The net state of immunosuppression is determined by the following characteristics:

4 Do certain immunosuppressive therapies carry a specific risk of infection?

See Table 40-1.

Table 40-1 Common Immunosuppressive Medications

Agent Mechanism of action Associated risk of infection
Corticosteroids Down-regulates lymphocyte and macrophage function
Interferes with inflammatory response
Long-term use—PCP, hepatitis B, bacterial, molds, mycobacterial disease
Bolus use—CMV, BK virus nephropathy
Calcineurin inhibitors

Blocks T-cell activation targeting calcineurin Viral infections: BK, CMV, VZV
Bacterial and fungal infections Mycophenolate mofetil Blocks T- and B-cell proliferation Viral: CMV, BK virus Sirolimus Arrests cell replication
Decreases IL-2 PCP, CMV, BK virus T-lymphocyte depletion*

Depletes lymphocytes CMV, HSV reactivation late fungal and viral infections B-lymphocyte depletion

Depletes B cells Encapsulated bacterial infections Anti-TNF (TNF-α agents) Neutralizes the biologic activity of TNF-α Mycobacterial infections
Hepatitis B reactivation
Lymphoma

IL, Interleukin; TNF, tumor necrosis factor; VZV, varicella-zoster virus.

* Immunosuppression is greater when used as a bolus for antirejection rather than when used as initial induction therapy.

Modified from Fishman JA, Issa NC: Infections in organ transplantation: risk factors and evolving patterns of infection. Infect Dis Clin North Am 24:273-283, 2010, and Danovitch G: Immunosuppressive medications and protocols for kidney transplantation. In Danovitch G (ed): Handbook of Kidney Transplantation. Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2004, pp 72-134.

5 How does the timing of solid organ transplantation affect a patient’s risk for infection?

See Table 40-2.

Table 40-2 Risk of Infection and Time from Transplantation

Months after transplantation Type of infection
0-1 Hospital Derived

Donor-Derived Infections

1-6* Opportunistic Infections

Reactivation of Latent Recipient Infections

Reactivation of Latent Donor Derived

≥ 6 Community Acquired

Fungal Infections

Atypical Bacterial

Late Viral Infections

VZV, Varicella-zoster virus.

* Generally thought to be the time of greatest immunosuppression.

Modified from Fishman J: Infection in solid organ transplant recipients. N Engl J Med 357:2601-2614, 2007, and Syndman DR: Epidemiology of infections after solid-organ transplantation. Clin Infect Dis 33(Suppl 1):S5, 2001.

6 Describe the timing of infection in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients

Preengraftment: generally accepted as the first 2 to 4 weeks after transplantation and lasting until the engraftment of the transplant. During this period patients often have profound neutropenia and may have neutropenic fever and the ensuing complications. Patients are at risk for bacterial infections from their own endogenous bowel flora (Escherichia coli, Klebsiella, and Pseudomonas) and from skin flora such as Staphylococcus and Streptococcus because of invasive intravenous (IV) lines or skin breakdown. The longer the duration of neutropenia, the greater is the risk of invasive fungal infection with opportunistic fungi, such as aspergillus. Reactivation of latent viruses, such as CMV and herpes simplex virus (HSV), can occur during this period as well, leading to systemic infection.

Early postengraftment: the period from the time of neutrophil engraftment until day 100. With the exception of those patients who still have indwelling catheters, bacterial infection is less common during this time period. Patients who have difficulties with engraftment or those in whom graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) may develop, requiring increased doses of steroids, are at risk for invasive fungal infections as well as viral infections (CMV and HSV).

Late postengraftment: ranging from around day 100 until immunity is restored. Patients are generally at risk for encapsulated bacterial infections (Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Neisseria meningitidis), fungal infections (Candida spp. and Aspergillus spp.), and late CMV infection.

7 What is the initial recommended work-up of suspected infection in the immunocompromised host?

History and physical. Clinical clues regarding unusual exposures can assist in creating a broad differential for suspected infection. Certain physical examination findings can be indicative of certain types of infection, and through physical examination, including visualization of the oropharynx, skin, and perirectal areas, looking for occult abscess is important.

However, it is important to recognize that digital rectal examinations should not be performed in patients with neutropenia, nor should they be allowed to have rectal instillation of contrast for abdominal computed tomography (CT) scans, because of the risk of hematogenous dissemination of the patients’ endogenous bowel flora.

Questions that may provide clinical clues to source of infection:

Blood cultures. Two sets should be obtained. If a patient has an indwelling central venous catheter a set should be collected from each lumen; at least one peripheral set should be obtained as well.

Complete blood cell count with differential; serum creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, electrolytes, and liver function tests.

Cultures