Paul J Michaels

Bio: Paul J Michaels is an academic researcher from University of California, Los Angeles. The author has contributed to research in topics: Heart transplantation & Transplantation. The author has an hindex of 8, co-authored 9 publications receiving 706 citations. Previous affiliations of Paul J Michaels include Harvard University.

Humoral rejection in cardiac transplantation: risk factors, hemodynamic consequences and relationship to transplant coronary artery disease.

Abstract: Background Acute cellular rejection is the mechanism of most immune-related injury in cardiac transplant recipients. However, antibody-mediated humoral rejection (HR) has also been implicated as an important clinical entity following orthotopic heart transplantation. Humoral rejection has been reported to play a role in graft dysfunction in the early post-transplant period, and to be a risk factor for the development of transplant coronary artery disease. Some involved in transplantation pathology doubt the existence of clinically significant humoral rejection in cardiac allografts. Those who recognize its existence disagree on its possible role in graft dysfunction or graft coronary artery disease. In this study, we report clinical features of patients with the pathologic diagnosis of HR at our institution since July 1997, when we began systematic surveillance for humoral rejection. Methods We reviewed medical records of patients with the pathologic diagnosis of HR without concurrent cellular rejection between July 1997 and January 2001. Diagnosis was based on routine histology (“swollen cells” distending capillaries, interstitial edema and hemorrhage) and immunofluorescence (capillary deposition of immunoglobulin and complement with HLA-DR positivity), or immunoperoxidase staining of paraffin-embedded tissue (numerous CD68-positive macrophages and fewer swollen endothelial cells distending capillaries). Results A total of 44 patients (4 to 74 years old) showed evidence of HR without concurrent cellular rejection at autopsy or on one or more biopsies. Although females comprised only 26% of our transplant population, 23 patients (52%) with HR were female. A positive peri-operative flow cytometry T-cell crossmatch was observed in 32% of HR patients compared with 12% of controls ( p = 0.02). Hemodynamic compromise consisting of shock, hypotension, decreased cardiac output/index and/or a rise in capillary wedge or pulmonary artery pressure was observed in 47% of patients at the time of diagnosis of HR. Six patients (5 females) died (14% mortality) with evidence of HR at or just before autopsy, 6 days to 16 months after transplantation. The incidence of transplant coronary artery disease was 10% greater at 1 year, and 36% greater at 5 years, in patients with HR when compared with non-HR patients. Conclusion Humoral rejection was associated with acute hemodynamic compromise in 47% of patients, and was the direct cause of death in 6 patients (13%). Humoral rejection is a clinicopathologic entity with a high incidence in women and is associated with acute hemodynamic compromise, accelerated transplant coronary artery disease and death.

Humoral rejection of human organ transplants.

Abstract: Although T-cell mediated rejection has remained the most common form of acute rejection, humoral rejection now accounts for a substantial fraction in patients with kidney or heart allografts, and probably causes the majority of acute graft losses. The frequency, variously estimated at 20-30%, is attributed to improved methods of detection, including staining for C4d in tissues, which is more sensitive and specific than histological features. Detection of circulating anti-donor reactive antibody (usually to donor HLA antigens) confirms the diagnosis. The clinico-pathological entity of acute humoral rejection is well accepted in kidney and increasingly in heart transplantation. Recent evidence points to a new category of chronic humoral rejection, which accounts for about 60% of chronic rejection of kidneys. Importantly, the hallmark of humoral rejection, C4d, can be detected in the grafts before development of histological evidence of chronic rejection. Humoral rejection is generally not responsive to the usual anti-T cell immunosuppressive agents, but small, non-controlled trials suggest humoral rejection can be reversed with plasmapheresis, intravenous immunoglobulin, anti-CD20 and other treatments, all of which deserve formal clinical evaluation. Prophylaxis for chronic rejection is expected to require donor-specific serological monitoring and protocol biopsies.

Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of secondary neoplasms of the thyroid gland: A multi-institutional study of 62 cases

Abstract: Secondary neoplasms of the thyroid gland (SNTGs) are uncommon, and it is important to recognize them in thyroid fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB).

Differential expression of RANTES chemokine, TGF-β, and leukocyte phenotype in acute cellular rejection and quilty B lesions

Abstract: Background Because of the complexity of the trabeculated endocardial surface and tangential histologic sectioning, the differentiation of acute cellular rejection (ACR) from Quilty B lesions (QB) in endomyocardial biopsies (EMBs) is problematic. We hypothesized that the phenotype chemokine RANTES (regulated upon activation, normal T cell expressed and secreted) expression of infiltrating cells and the pattern of expression of transforming growth factor–β (TGF-β) may distinguish ACR from QB. In previous studies, the number of RANTES-positive cells and the expression of TGF-β correlated with the severity of rejection. Methods We used immunohistochemical techniques to stain sections of human EMBs with only QB ( n = 14) or with only ACR (International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Grades 1A and 1B, n = 7; Grades 3A and 3B, n = 7) for B (CD20) and T-lymphocytes (CD3), macrophages (CD68), RANTES, and TGF-β expression. We graded the percentage of positive cells from 0 to 4 (1 = 1% to 25%; 2=26% to 50%; 3=51% to 75%, and 4=76% to 100%). Results When ACR was compared with QB, we found no difference in the proportion of myocardial B cells (0.9 ± 0.3 vs 1.1 ± 0.3, p = 0.17); however, we found a lesser proportion of T cells (1.8 ± 0.5 vs 2.8 ± 0.9, p p p = 0.03). In QB, many endocardial vessels stained for TGF-β (2.9 ± 1.6). Myocardial vessels and injured myocytes in both ACR and QB expressed TGF-β. Conclusions In ACR, although T-lymphocytes are numerous, more than 50% of infiltrating cells are macrophages and more than 50% express RANTES. In QB lesions, more than 50% of infiltrating cells are T-lymphocytes and less that 50% of leukocytes will express RANTES. B cells are present in both ACR and QB, but on average comprise only 25% of the cells present. Thus, a relatively simple immunohistochemical analysis of endomyocardial biopsies may be useful in distinguishing ACR from QB.

Revision of the 1990 Working Formulation for the Standardization of Nomenclature in the Diagnosis of Heart Rejection

Abstract: In 1990, an international grading scheme for the grading of pulmonary allograft rejection was adopted by the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) and was modified in 1995 by an expanded group of pathologists. The original and revised classifications have served the lung transplant community well, facilitating communication between transplant centers with regard to both patient management and research. In 2006, under the direction of the ISHLT, a multi-disciplinary review of the biopsy grading system was undertaken to update the scheme, address inconsistencies of use, and consider the current knowledge of antibody-mediated rejection in the lung. This article summarizes the revised consensus classification of lung allograft rejection. In brief, acute rejection is based on perivascular and interstitial mononuclear infiltrates, Grade A0 (none), Grade A1 (minimal), Grade A2 (mild), Grade A3 (moderate) and Grade A4 (severe), as previously. The revised (R) categories of small airways inflammation, lymphocytic bronchiolitis, are as follows: Grade B0 (none), Grade B1R (low grade, 1996, B1 and B2), Grade B2R (high grade, 1996, B3 and B4) and BX (ungradeable). Chronic rejection, obliterative bronchiolitis (Grade C), is described as present (C1) or absent (C0), without reference to presence of inflammatory activity. Chronic vascular rejection is unchanged as Grade D. Recommendations are made for the evaluation of antibody-mediated rejection, recognizing that this is a controversial entity in the lung, less well developed and understood than in other solid-organ grafts, and with no consensus reached on diagnostic features. Differential diagnoses of acute rejection, airway inflammation and chronic rejection are described and technical considerations revisited. This consensus revision of the working formulation was approved by the ISHLT board of directors in April 2007.

The International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for the care of heart transplant recipients

Abstract: Institutional Affiliations Chair Costanzo MR: Midwest Heart Foundation, Lombard Illinois, USA Task Force 1 Dipchand A: Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto Ontario, Canada; Starling R: Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA; Anderson A: University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA; Chan M: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Desai S: Inova Fairfax Hospital, Fairfax, Virginia, USA; Fedson S: University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA; Fisher P: Ochsner Clinic, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA; Gonzales-Stawinski G: Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA; Martinelli L: Ospedale Niguarda, Milano, Italy; McGiffin D: University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama, USA; Parisi F: Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesu, Rome, Italy; Smith J: Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK Task Force 2 Taylor D: Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA; Meiser B: University of Munich/Grosshaden, Munich, Germany; Baran D: Newark Beth Israel Medical Center, Newark, New Jersey, USA; Carboni M: Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA; Dengler T: University of Hidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; Feldman D: Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA; Frigerio M: Ospedale Niguarda, Milano, Italy; Kfoury A: Intermountain Medical Center, Murray, Utah, USA; Kim D: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Kobashigawa J: Cedar-Sinai Heart Institute, Los Angeles, California, USA; Shullo M: University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Stehlik J: University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA; Teuteberg J: University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Uber P: University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Zuckermann A: University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. Task Force 3 Hunt S: Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA; Burch M: Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK; Bhat G: Advocate Christ Medical Center, Oak Lawn, Illinois, USA; Canter C: St. Louis Children Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri, USA; Chinnock R: Loma Linda University Children's Hospital, Loma Linda, California, USA; Crespo-Leiro M: Hospital Universitario A Coruna, La Coruna, Spain; Delgado R: Texas Heart Institute, Houston, Texas, USA; Dobbels F: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Grady K: Northwestern University, Chicago, Illlinois, USA; Kao W: University of Wisconsin, Madison Wisconsin, USA; Lamour J: Montefiore Medical Center, New York, New York, USA; Parry G: Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Patel J: Cedar-Sinai Heart Institute, Los Angeles, California, USA; Pini D: Istituto Clinico Humanitas, Rozzano, Italy; Pinney S: Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, New York, USA; Towbin J: Cincinnati Children's Hospital, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA; Wolfel G: University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado, USA Independent Reviewers Delgado D: University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Eisen H: Drexler University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA; Goldberg L: University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA; Hosenpud J: Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA; Johnson M: University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA; Keogh A: St Vincent Hospital, Sidney, New South Wales, Australia; Lewis C: Papworth Hospital Cambridge, UK; O'Connell J: St. Joseph Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; Rogers J: Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA; Ross H: University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Russell S: Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Vanhaecke J: University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium.