Table 2.
Overview of the outcome in CMV reactivating and non-reactivating critically ill patients and the rate of antiviral treatment in observational studies.
| Mortality | ICU LOS (days) | Duration of MV (days) | Infections or sepsis | Antiviral treatment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Domart et al. (18) | Higher when reactivation | 69 vs. 48 P < 0.05 |
– | – | – |
| Cook et al. (19) | 65 vs. 35% p < 0.01 |
No difference | – | – | 75% |
| Kutza et al. (20) | No difference | – | – | – | – |
| Heininger et al. (21) | 55 vs. 36% p = 0.17 |
30 vs. 23 p = 0.04 |
– | – | 2 patients, both died |
| Cook et al. (22) | 50 vs. 27% p = 0.15 |
40.5 vs. 18.9 p = 0.001 |
32.8 vs. 12.7 p < 0.001 |
7.9 vs. 3.5 episodes p = 0.0001 |
– |
| Jaber et al. (23) | 50 vs. 28% p = 0.02 |
41 vs. 31 p = 0.04 |
35 vs. 24 P = 0.03 |
75 vs. 50% p < 0.05 |
– |
| Von müller et al. (24) | 63 vs. 35% non-significant | 42 vs. 18 p < 0.01 |
39 vs. 16 p < 0.01 |
50 vs. 59% not significant |
No patients treated |
| Limaye et al. (25) | –a | –a | – | – | – |
| Ziemann et al. (26) | 28.6 vs. 10.9% p = 0.048 |
32.6 vs. 22.1 p < 0.001 |
21.1 vs. 16.2 P = 0.02 |
– | 1 patient, survived |
| Chiche et al. (27) | 54 vs. 37% p = 0.082 |
32 vs. 12 p < 0.001 |
In survivors: 27 vs. 10 p < 0.001 |
69 vs. 33% p < 0.001 |
54% |
| Chilet et al. (28) | 61 vs. 46% p = 0.40 |
37 vs. 11 P = 0.01 | – | – | No patients treated |
| Bordes et al. (29) | 20 vs. 33% p = 0.59 |
57.7 vs. 24.0 p = 0.06 |
39 vs. 10 p = 0.37 |
3.1 vs. 1.2 episodes p = 0.06 |
– |
| Heininger et al. (30) | 37.1 vs. 35.3% p = 0.86 |
30.0 vs. 12.0 p = 0.02 |
22.0 vs. 7.5 p < 0.001 |
– | No patients treated |
| Chiche et al. (31) | 40 vs. 13.3% p = 0.21 |
28 vs. 14 p = 0.01 |
24 vs. 8 P < 0.02 |
– | – |
| Coisel et al. (32) | 55 vs. 20% p < 0.01 |
25.5 vs. 13.0 p = 0.04 |
19.5 vs. 10.0 p < 0.01 |
46 vs. 13% p < 0.01 |
All reactivations treated |
| Bravo et al. (33) | 55.6 vs. 35.7% p = 0.11 |
27 vs. 10 p < 0.001 |
24 vs. 7 p < 0.001 |
– | No patients treated |
| Osman et al. (34) | 74.3 vs. 31.1% p = 0.003 |
8.14 vs. 4.31 p = 0.08 |
– | 82.9 vs. 100% p = 0.16 |
– |
| Walton et al. (14) | Higher 90d mortality | Almost doubled | – | Significant more fungal and bacterial infections | – |
| Al-Musawi et al. (35) | 80.8 vs. 51.1% p = 0.003 |
103 vs. 60 p = 0.22 |
– | – | – |
| Frantzeskaki et al. (36) | 45 vs. 27% non-significant |
32 vs. 21 non-significant |
27.5 vs. 18 p < 0.001 |
– | – |
| Lopez Roa et al. (37) | –b | – | – | – | – |
| Ong et al. (38) | – | – | – | – | – |
| Osawa et al. (39) | – | – | – | – | – |
| Ong et al. (40) | 31 vs. 15% p < 0.01c |
– | 15 vs. 8 (p < 0.01) No difference when multivariable correction |
– | – |
| Ong et al. (41) | 33 vs. 23% P < 0.01 |
– | – | – | – |
| Hraiech et al. (42) | 71 vs. 59% non-signficant |
29 vs. 16 non-significant |
– | – | 51% patients treated |
a
higher risk for continued hospitalisation or death at day 30 when CMV reactivation.
b
death or continued hospitalisation at day 30: 45 vs. 41%, significant after multivariable analysis.
c
difference not significant after multivariable correction.
ICU, intensive care unit; LOS, length of stay; MV, mechanical ventilation.