Variable

Frequency in patients who developed
CMV disease

Frequency in patients who never developed CMV disease

p Value

Sex (M vs. F )

12 (80 %) vs. 3 (20 %)

23 (71.88%) vs 9 (28.13%)

0.725

Ethnic group
(Black vs. Non Black)

14 (93.33%) vs. 1 (6.67%)

24 (75%) vs. 8 (25%)

0.236

Donor type (Live vs. Cadaver)

0 (0%) vs. 15 (100%)

5 (15.63%) vs. 27 (84.38%)

0.162

Transfusion before onset of CMV disease (Yes vs. No)

3 (20%) vs. 12 (80%)

0 (0%) vs. 32 (100%)

0.028 *

Acute rejection before onset of CMV disease (Yes vs No) **

6 (40%) vs. 9 (60%)

14 (43.75%) vs. 18 (56.25%)

1.000

Therapy for Rejection before onset of CMV disease (Yes vs. No) **

6 (40%) vs. 9 (60%)

12 (37.5%) vs. 20 (62.50%)

1.000

*Although transfusion appeared to be a significant risk factor based on univariate analysis, it emerged as a significant confounder in the regression analysis, perhaps related to small and very disparate numbers of patients.

**Biopsy proven rejection rates overall in the D+/R+ group vs. the D-/R+ group were 36.2% and 31.8% respectively (p=0.79 Fisher’s exact test). In each group rejection was diagnosed and treated empirically in 0.06% and 0.09% of the overall patients respectively, with 85% and 77.8% of acute rejections proven on histology. As can be seen from the table, there was no temporal relationship between rejection, or therapy for rejection, and occurrence of CMV disease

Table 2: Categorical variables that may predict CMV disease (D+/R+ group) before prophylaxis