4.3 Article

A comparison of desensitization methods: Rituximab with/without plasmapheresis in ABO-incompatible living donor liver transplantation

Journal

HEPATOBILIARY & PANCREATIC DISEASES INTERNATIONAL
Volume 17, Issue 2, Pages 119-125

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.hbpd.2018.02.005

Keywords

Desensitization; Rituximab; Plasmapheresis; ABO-incompatibility; Living donor; Liver transplantation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Plasmapheresis is a desensitization method used prior to ABO-incompatible (ABO-I) living donor liver transplantation. However, studies on its usefulness in the rituximab era are lacking. Methods: Fifty-six adult patients underwent ABO-I living donor liver transplantation between January 2012 and October 2015. A single dose of rituximab (300 mg/m(2)) was administered 2 weeks before surgery with plasmapheresis in all patients until February 2014 (RP group, n=26). Patients were administered rituximab only, without plasmapheresis between March 2014 and October 2015 (RO group, n =30). Results: The 6-, 12- and 18-month overall survival rates were 92.3%, 80.8% and 76.9% in the RP group and 96.6%, 85.4% and 85.4% in the RO group, respectively (P=0.574). When the initial isoagglutinin titers < 16, neither group showed a rebound rise of isoagglutinin titers. For patients with initial isoagglutinin titers >= 16, the rebound rise of isoagglutinin titers was more prominent in the RP group. There was no difference in time-dependent changes in B cell subpopulations and ABO-I-related complications. Conclusions: Sufficient desensitization for ABO-I living donor liver transplantation can be achieved using rituximab alone. This desensitization strategy does not affect the isoagglutinin titers, ABO-I-related complications and patient survival. (C) 2018 First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine in China. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available