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.

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

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.

http://www.jsht.jp/uploads/ISHLT_GL_TaskForce2_110810.pdf

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

Background Hypercholesterolemia is common after cardiac transplantation and may contribute to the development of coronary vasculopathy. Pravastatin, a 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitor, has been shown to be effective and safe in lowering cholesterol levels after cardiac transplantation. Cell-culture studies using inhibitors of HMG-CoA reductase have suggested an immunosuppressive effect. Methods Early after transplantation, we randomly assigned consecutive patients to receive either pravastatin (47 patients) or no HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (50 patients). Results Twelve months after transplantation, the pravastatin group had lower mean (±SD) cholesterol levels than the control group (193±36 vs. 248±49 mg per deciliter, P<0.001), less frequent cardiac rejection accompanied by hemodynamic compromise (3 vs. 14 patients, P = 0.005), better survival (94 percent vs. 78 percent, P = 0.025), and a lower incidence of coronary vasculopathy in the transplant as determined by angiog...

Effect of pravastatin on outcomes after cardiac transplantation.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1034/j.1600-6143.2003.00072.x

Antibody-mediated rejection criteria - an addition to the Banff 97 classification of renal allograft rejection.

BACKGROUND The introduction of solid-phase immunoassay (SPI) technology for the detection and characterization of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibodies in transplantation while providing greater sensitivity than was obtainable by complement-dependent lymphocytotoxicity (CDC) assays has resulted in a new paradigm with respect to the interpretation of donor-specific antibodies (DSA). Although the SPI assay performed on the Luminex instrument (hereafter referred to as the Luminex assay), in particular, has permitted the detection of antibodies not detectable by CDC, the clinical significance of these antibodies is incompletely understood. Nevertheless, the detection of these antibodies has led to changes in the clinical management of sensitized patients. In addition, SPI testing raises technical issues that require resolution and careful consideration when interpreting antibody results. METHODS With this background, The Transplantation Society convened a group of laboratory and clinical experts in the field of transplantation to prepare a consensus report and make recommendations on the use of this new technology based on both published evidence and expert opinion. Three working groups were formed to address (a) the technical issues with respect to the use of this technology, (b) the interpretation of pretransplantation antibody testing in the context of various clinical settings and organ transplant types (kidney, heart, lung, liver, pancreas, intestinal, and islet cells), and (c) the application of antibody testing in the posttransplantation setting. The three groups were established in November 2011 and convened for a "Consensus Conference on Antibodies in Transplantation" in Rome, Italy, in May 2012. The deliberations of the three groups meeting independently and then together are the bases for this report. RESULTS A comprehensive list of recommendations was prepared by each group. A summary of the key recommendations follows. Technical Group: (a) SPI must be used for the detection of pretransplantation HLA antibodies in solid organ transplant recipients and, in particular, the use of the single-antigen bead assay to detect antibodies to HLA loci, such as Cw, DQA, DPA, and DPB, which are not readily detected by other methods. (b) The use of SPI for antibody detection should be supplemented with cell-based assays to examine the correlations between the two types of assays and to establish the likelihood of a positive crossmatch (XM). (c) There must be an awareness of the technical factors that can influence the results and their clinical interpretation when using the Luminex bead technology, such as variation in antigen density and the presence of denatured antigen on the beads. Pretransplantation Group: (a) Risk categories should be established based on the antibody and the XM results obtained. (b) DSA detected by CDC and a positive XM should be avoided due to their strong association with antibody-mediated rejection and graft loss. (c) A renal transplantation can be performed in the absence of a prospective XM if single-antigen bead screening for antibodies to all class I and II HLA loci is negative. This decision, however, needs to be taken in agreement with local clinical programs and the relevant regulatory bodies. (d) The presence of DSA HLA antibodies should be avoided in heart and lung transplantation and considered a risk factor for liver, intestinal, and islet cell transplantation. Posttransplantation Group: (a) High-risk patients (i.e., desensitized or DSA positive/XM negative) should be monitored by measurement of DSA and protocol biopsies in the first 3 months after transplantation. (b) Intermediate-risk patients (history of DSA but currently negative) should be monitored for DSA within the first month. If DSA is present, a biopsy should be performed. (c) Low-risk patients (nonsensitized first transplantation) should be screened for DSA at least once 3 to 12 months after transplantation. If DSA is detected, a biopsy should be performed. In all three categories, the recommendations for subsequent treatment are based on the biopsy results. CONCLUSIONS A comprehensive list of recommendations is provided covering the technical and pretransplantation and posttransplantation monitoring of HLA antibodies in solid organ transplantation. The recommendations are intended to provide state-of-the-art guidance in the use and clinical application of recently developed methods for HLA antibody detection when used in conjunction with traditional methods.

https://www.nefro.cl/DOCS/evento1/papers/Consesus_Guide_lines_Anti-HLA_2013_Dr.%20Jimenez.pdf

Consensus guidelines on the testing and clinical management issues associated with HLA and non-HLA antibodies in transplantation.

We prospectively studied 551 sequential endomyocardial biopsies from 36 consecutive cardiac allografts. With the use of a combination of light microscopy (including careful evaluation of vascular changes) and immunofluorescence to detect the deposition of immunoglobulin and complement, we identified three patterns of allograft rejection, designated as cellular rejection, vascular (humoral) rejection, and mixed rejection. Cellular rejection was diagnosed with modified Billingham criteria. Vascular rejection was diagnosed by finding the combination of prominent endothelial cell swelling and/or vasculitis on light microscopy and the vascular deposition of immunoglobulin and complement by immunofluorescence. In such patients, cellular lymphoid infiltrates were uniformly absent at the time the vascular changes were detected. Mixed rejection consisted of findings of both cellular and vascular rejection occurring simultaneously. Twenty of 36 allografts exhibited cellular rejection; seven allografts showed vascular rejection, and nine allografts developed mixed rejection. The vascular (humoral) pattern of rejection was important to identify because the patients with this type of rejection had a significantly decreased survival compared with that of patients with cellular rejection (p less than 0.05). Survival in the mixed rejection category was intermediate. Positive donor-specific cross-match and/or panel-reactive antibody greater than or equal to 5% and systolic dysfunction were seen in three of the seven allografts with vascular (humoral) rejection but not in the other types. In the early period after transplant (up to 3 weeks after transplant), the only reliable identifying characteristics of patients with vascular (humoral) rejection were the presence of vascular immunoglobulin and complement assessed by immunofluorescence and endothelial cell swelling and interstitial edema as confirmed by histologic examination. We conclude that immunofluorescence should be routinely done on all heart biopsies for the first month after transplantation. Patients with vascular (humoral) rejection cannot be reliably identified by any other means.

Vascular (humoral) rejection in heart transplantation: pathologic observations and clinical implications.

We have prospectively monitored 268 patients by our previously described method of routine immunofluorescence of endomyocardial biopsy specimens. We have classified these patients according to their rejection pattern: cellular, vascular, and mixed. The criteria for these designations have been previously described. In this study we retrospectively reviewed coronary angiograms of these patients to assess the presence and time-course of developing allograft coronary artery disease. All available explanted hearts and postmortem hearts were also assessed by light microscopic examination for acute coronary vasculitis and allograft coronary artery disease and by immunofluorescent microscopy for vascular immune complex deposition in a manner identical to immunofluorescent microscopic examination of endomyocardial biopsy specimens. Patients were also monitored for sensitization to immunoprophylactically administered murine monoclonal CD3 antibody (OKT3) and those demonstrated to be sensitized were separately analyzed. Clinical features and treatment of patients were retrospectively reviewed. We found that 141 patients could be classified as having cellular rejection, 76 as having vascular rejection, and 52 as having a mixed rejection pattern. The allograft survival in vascular rejection patients was significantly worse than in allografts of patients with cellular or mixed rejection, confirming our earlier results. Most importantly, we found a significant difference in the time to the development of allograft coronary artery disease based on the rejection pattern. This difference existed whether or not patients sensitized to OKT3 were excluded from evaluation. Patients with mixed rejection had an intermediate time to the development of allograft coronary artery disease between that of patients with cellular and vascular rejection.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Vascular rejection and its relationship to allograft coronary artery disease.

Despite advances in immunosuppression over the past ten years, the overall longevity of the cardiac allograft has only minimally increased. The average allograft half-life has increased only 6 months (8.8 years to 9.4 years) between the time periods of 1986–1990 and 1991–1997.1 The single major cause of allograft loss after one year remains allograft coronary artery disease (ACAD).1 This entire issue of the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation is devoted to the potential etiologic factors as well as the clinical manifestations of ACAD. Traditionally, the immune response to allotransplantation has been divided into the cellular (T-cell) and humoral (B-cell) processes. While it is likely that both processes are activated and ongoing simultaneously in most allograft recipients, patients who appear to have a predominately humoral process have been reported to have worse long-term outcomes.2–10 Patients developing circulating anti-HLA antibodies or the immunohistopathologic pattern of vascular rejection early after cardiac transplantation have demonstrated poorer survival and increased risk for the development of ACAD.4–10

Allograft coronary artery disease: clinical correlations with circulating anti-HLA antibodies and the immunohistopathologic pattern of vascular rejection.

Vascular rejection injures the vascular endothelium in cardiac allografts in the absence of significant intramyocardial lymphocytic infiltration. When compared with cellular rejection, vascular rejection occurs earlier after transplantation, is more resistant to immunosuppressive augmentation, causes more allograft dysfunction, and is associated with a higher frequency of allograft loss. Between January 1990 and October 1992, acute hemodynamically significant vascular rejection developed in 13 of 170 patients (8%). Endomyocardial biopsy specimens revealed the typical findings of endothelial cell activation, immune complex deposition, and interstitial fibrin deposition in the absence of significant lymphocytic infiltration. All patients had clinical evidence of allograft dysfunction. In addition to high-dose corticosteroids, all patients received cyclophosphamide as an oral pulse for 4 days and underwent plasmapheresis for 3 consecutive days. Eight patients received OKT3 (n = 6) or antilymphoblast globulin (n = 2), and nine patients underwent systemic anticoagulation. Six patients required inotropic therapy for hemodynamic instability. Although one patient died during the initial episode, rejection resolved and left ventricular function returned to normal in 12 of 13 patients. However, vascular rejection recurred in three patients, two of whom subsequently died. Two other patients died during late follow-up because of noncompliance. Eight patients remain alive with normal allograft function and angiographically normal coronary arteries. Whereas the addition of cyclophosphamide and plasmapheresis may improve the outcome of vascular rejection, the results of treatment with currently available treatment modalities remain unacceptably poor.

Yowell Rl

Papers

Vascular (humoral) rejection in heart transplantation: pathologic observations and clinical implications.

Vascular rejection and its relationship to allograft coronary artery disease.

Allograft coronary artery disease: clinical correlations with circulating anti-HLA antibodies and the immunohistopathologic pattern of vascular rejection.

Vascular rejection in heart transplantation: clinical correlation, treatment options, and future considerations.

Vascular rejection of human cardiac allografts and the role of humoral immunity in chronic allograft rejection.