Humoral rejection in cardiac transplantation: risk factors, hemodynamic consequences and relationship to transplant coronary artery disease.
TL;DR: 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.
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.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: This article summarizes the revised consensus classification of lung allograft rejection and recommends 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.
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.
2,139 citations
National Heart Foundation of Australia1, University of Toronto2, Cleveland Clinic3, University of Chicago4, University of Alberta5, Inova Fairfax Hospital6, Ochsner Health System7, University of Alabama at Birmingham8, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust9, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich10, Saint Barnabas Medical Center11, Duke University12, Primary Children's Hospital13, University of Pittsburgh14, University of Utah15, University of Maryland, Baltimore16, University of Vienna17, Stanford University18, University College London19, Washington University in St. Louis20, Loma Linda University21, University of A Coruña22, The Texas Heart Institute23, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven24, Northwestern University25, University of Wisconsin-Madison26, Yeshiva University27, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center28, University of Colorado Denver29, Drexel University30, University of Pennsylvania31, Mayo Clinic32, St Vincent Hospital33, Papworth Hospital34, Emory University35, Johns Hopkins University36
TL;DR: 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; Starlings R: University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois,USA; Chan M: university of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada ; Desai S: Inova Fairfax Hospital, Fairfax, Virginia, USA.
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.
1,346 citations
Cites background from "Humoral rejection in cardiac transp..."
...Acute antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) is less common than ACR, occurring in approximately 10% of patients in conjunction with hemodynamic instability.(10) Allosensitized HT recipients are at greatest risk for AMR....
[...]
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine1, Harvard University2, University of Alberta3, University of Basel4, University of California, Los Angeles5, Catholic University of Leuven6, University of Pittsburgh7, Vanderbilt University8, University of Leicester9, University of Helsinki10, University of Iowa11, Yale University12, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston13, Nagoya City University14, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill15, University of Vienna16, University of Barcelona17, Cornell University18, Rockyview General Hospital19
TL;DR: This article presents international consensus criteria for and classification of AbAR developed based on discussions held at the Sixth Banff Conference on Allograft Pathology in 2001, to be revisited as additional data accumulate in this important area of renal transplantation.
1,018 citations
Cites methods from "Humoral rejection in cardiac transp..."
...A review of the UCLA data-base revealed 11% of patients had documented AbAR (23)....
[...]
Australian Red Cross Blood Service1, Heidelberg University2, Emory University3, University of Manitoba4, Leiden University5, University of California, Los Angeles6, University of Alberta7, Millennium Institute8, Harvard University9, University of Padua10, University of Oxford11, University of British Columbia12, University of Paris13, Charité14, Washington University in St. Louis15, Columbia University16, University of Gothenburg17, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust18, Stanford University19, University of Pittsburgh20
TL;DR: A group of laboratory and clinical experts in the field of transplantation was convened to prepare a consensus report and make recommendations on the use of this new technology based on both published evidence and expert opinion.
Abstract: 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.
677 citations
TL;DR: Antibody induces rejection acutely through the fixation of complement, resulting in tissue injury and coagulation, and complement activation recruits macrophages and neutrophils, causing additional endothelial injury.
Abstract: Recent studies show that alloantibodies mediate a substantial proportion of graft-rejection episodes, contributing to both early and late graft loss. Rejection that is caused by antibody is mediated by different mechanisms from rejection that is caused by T cells, thereby requiring other approaches to treatment and prevention. Antibody induces rejection acutely through the fixation of complement, resulting in tissue injury and coagulation. In addition, complement activation recruits macrophages and neutrophils, causing additional endothelial injury. Antibody and complement also induce gene expression by endothelial cells, which is thought to remodel arteries and basement membranes, leading to fixed and irreversible anatomical lesions that permanently compromise graft function.
460 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: It is demonstrated that CMV infection in cardiac transplant recipients is associated with more frequent rejection, graft atherosclerosis, and death.
Abstract: We studied the effects of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection on 301 cardiac transplant recipients who were treated during the cyclosporine era of immunosuppression (1980 to the present). These patients received varying combinations of cyclosporine, azathioprine, prednisone, rabbit antithymocyte globulin, and OKT3 as their immunosuppressive therapy. Two hundred ten patients were free of CMV infection (non-CMV group). During the same period CMV infection developed in 91 patients, as manifested by a fourfold IgG serologic titer rise, demonstration of CMV inclusion bodies in tissue, or positive cultures for the virus (CMV group). The rate of graft rejection was significantly higher in the CMV group. Graft atherosclerosis was significantly more severe in the CMV group as judged by angiographic criteria or by pathologic study. Patient survival rates were significantly lower in the CMV group. Death caused by graft atherosclerosis was significantly more common among patients in the CMV group. Finally, the graft loss rate (from either death or retransplantation for atherosclerosis) was significantly greater in the CMV group. These data demonstrate that CMV infection in cardiac transplant recipients is associated with more frequent rejection, graft atherosclerosis, and death. ( JAMA . 1989;261:3561-3566)
916 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, a model of hyperacute rejection was proposed and it was shown that if hyper-accurate rejection can be averted for a period after transplantation, prolonged xenograft survival is possible.
503 citations
TL;DR: It is suggested that rhesus IgM contributes significantly to the development of hyperacute rejection in the swine to Rhesus model and that the fixation of complement is a critical factor in the recruitment of the coagulation cascade and platelet aggregation--and possibly in the adherence and infiltration of PMN.
Abstract: Hyperacute rejection is the inevitable consequence of the transplantation of vascularized organs between phylogenetically distant species. The nature of the incompatibility and the pathogenetic mechanisms that lead to hyperacute xenograft rejection are incompletely understood. We investigated these issues by the immunopathological analysis of tissues from swine renal and cardiac xenografts placed in rhesus monkeys. Hyperacute rejection was associated with deposition of recipient IgM and classic but not alternative complement pathway components along endothelial surfaces, the formation of platelet and fibrin thrombi, and the infiltration of neutrophils. In animals from which natural antibody was temporarily depleted by organ perfusion, rejection was observed at 3 days to 5 days posttransplant. The immunopathology of rejection in these tissues revealed focal vascular changes similar to those observed in hyperacute rejection. A xenograft functioning for a prolonged period in a recipient temporarily depleted of circulating natural antibody contained recipient IgM along endothelial surfaces but no evidence for significant deposition of complement, formation of platelet and fibrin thrombi, or infiltration of neutrophils. These results suggest that rhesus IgM contributes significantly to the development of hyperacute rejection in the swine to Rhesus model and that the fixation of complement is a critical factor in the recruitment of the coagulation cascade and platelet aggregation--and possibly in the adherence and infiltration of PMN.
452 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: It is concluded that immunofluorescence should be routinely done on all heart biopsies for the first month after transplantation, because patients with vascular (humoral) rejection cannot be reliably identified by any other means.
Abstract: 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.
313 citations
TL;DR: I.v.IG appears to be an effective therapy to control posttransplant AR episodes in heart and kidney transplant recipients, including patients who have had no success with conventional therapies.
Abstract: Background Intravenous gammaglobulin (i.v.IG) contains anti-idiotypic antibodies that are potent inhibitors of HLA-specific alloantibodies in vitro and in vivo. In addition, highly HLA-allosensitized patients awaiting transplantation can have HLA alloantibody levels reduced dramatically by i.v.IG infusions, and subsequent transplantation can be accomplished successfully with a crossmatch-negative, histoincompatible organ. Methods In this study, we investigated the possible use of i.v.IG to reduce donor-specific anti-HLA alloantibodies arising after transplantation and its efficacy in treating antibody-mediated allograft rejection (AR) episodes. We present data on 10 patients with severe allograft rejection, four of whom developed AR episodes associated with high levels of donor-specific anti-HLA alloantibodies. Results Most patients showed rapid improvements in AR episodes, with resolution noted within 2-5 days after i.v.IG infusions in all patients. i.v.IG treatment also rapidly reduced donor-specific anti-HLA alloantibody levels after i.v.IG infusion. All AR episodes were reversed. Freedom from recurrent rejection episodes was seen in 9 of 10 patients, some with up to 5 years of follow-up. Results of protein G column fractionation studies from two patients suggest that the potential mechanism by which i.v.IG induces in vivo suppression is a sequence of events leading from initial inhibition due to passive transfer of IgG to eventual active induction of an IgM or IgG blocking antibody in the recipient. Conclusion I.v.IG appears to be an effective therapy to control posttransplant AR episodes in heart and kidney transplant recipients, including patients who have had no success with conventional therapies. Vascular rejection episodes associated with development of donor-specific cytotoxic antibodies appears to be particularly responsive to i.v.IG therapy.
254 citations