4.6 Article

Re-examination of the Lymphocytotoxic Crossmatch in Liver Transplantation: Can C4d Stains Help in Monitoring?

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages 171-182

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2011.03786.x

Keywords

Allograft monitoring; antibody-mediated rejection; complement C4d; crossmatching; liver allograft

Ask authors/readers for more resources

C4d-assisted recognition of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues (FFPE) from donor-specific antibody-positive (DSA+) renal allograft recipients prompted study of DSA+ liver allograft recipients as measured by lymphocytotoxic crossmatch (XM) and/or Luminex. XM results did not influence patient or allograft survival, or cellular rejection rates, but XM+ recipients received significantly more prophylactic steroids. Endothelial C4d staining strongly correlates with XM+ (<3 weeks posttransplantation) and DSA+ status and cellular rejection, but not with worse Banff grading or treatment response. Diffuse C4d staining, XM+, DSA+ and ABO incompatibility status, histopathology and clinicalserologic profile helped establish an isolated AMR diagnosis in 5 of 100 (5%) XM+ and one ABO-incompatible, recipients. C4d staining later after transplantation was associated with rejection and nonrejection-related causes of allograft dysfunction in DSA and DSA+ recipients, some of whom had good outcomes without additional therapy. Liver allograft FFPE C4d staining: (a) can help classify liver allograft dysfunction; (b) substantiates antibody contribution to rejection; (c) probably represents nonalloantibody insults and/or complete absorption in DSA recipients and (d) alone, is an imperfect AMR marker needing correlation with routine histopathology, clinical and serologic profiles. Further study in late biopsies and other tissue markers of liver AMR with simultaneous DSA measurements are needed.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available