ArticleBMC infectious diseases2024
Gram-negative bacterial colonizations before bilateral lung transplant. The impact of 'targeted' versus 'standard' surgical prophylaxis.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research advances in consistency and variability inJournal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Antimicrobial Stewardship in Transplant Recipients: A Scoping Review of Interventions, Outcomes, and Policy Implications.Infectious diseases & clinical microbiology · 2026Article
- Review
- Can We Lower the Burden of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) in Heavily Immunocompromised Patients? A Narrative Review and Call to Action.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInfections are one of the most common causes of death after lung transplant (LT). However, the benefit of 'targeted' prophylaxis in LT recipients pre-colonized by Gram-negative (GN) bacteria is still unclear.
methodsAll consecutive bilateral LT recipients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit of the University Hospital of Padua (February 2016-2023) were retrospectively screened. Only patients with pre-existing GN bacterial isolations were enrolled and analyzed according to the antimicrobial surgical prophylaxis ('standard' vs. 'targeted' on the preoperative bacterial isolation).
resultsOne hundred eighty-one LT recipients were screened, 46 enrolled. Twenty-two (48%) recipients were exposed to 'targeted' prophylaxis, while 24 (52%) to 'standard' prophylaxis. Overall prevalence of postoperative multi-drug resistant (MDR) GN bacteria isolation was 65%, with no differences between the two surgical prophylaxis (p = 0.364). Eleven (79%) patients treated with 'standard' prophylaxis and twelve (75%) with 'targeted' therapy reconfirmed the preoperative GN pathogen (p = 0.999). The prevalence of postoperative infections due to MDR GN bacteria was 50%. Of these recipients, 4 belonged to the 'standard' and 11 to the 'targeted' prophylaxis (p = 0.027).
conclusionsThe administration of a 'targeted' prophylaxis in LT pre-colonized recipients seemed not to prevent the occurrence of postoperative MDR GN infections.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.