4.6 Article

Donor-Specific Anti-HLA Antibodies and Endothelial C4d Deposition-Association With Chronic Liver Allograft Failure

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 99, 期 9, 页码 1869-1875

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000000613

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The significance of humoral immune response for allograft survival after liver transplantation (LT) is still a matter of debate. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to assess immunological and clinical factors associated with advanced fibrosis (F3-F4) and chronic graft failure in LT recipients. Methods. Serum samples from 174 patients prospectively enrolled and followed up for 12 months were tested for anti-HLA antibodies and compared against donor HLA types. Immunohistochemical C4d staining was performed on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded liver tissue. Results. Mean time period from LT to enrollment was 66.9 +/- 51.9 months. Independent predictive factors for graft failure included donor-positive cytomegalovirus serostatus (P = 0.02), donor-specific antibodies (DSA) against HLA class II (P = 0.03), donor age (P = 0.01), hepatitis C virus allograft reinfection (P = 0.0008), and biliary complications (P = 0.003). HLA class II DSA and HLA class I antibody positivity, hepatitis C virus reinfection, and mycophenolate mofetil-free regimens were significant risk factors for advanced fibrosis after LT. There was a significant association between C4d deposition on allograft endothelial cells and presence of class II DSA (P < 0.0001). Patients with C4d deposits had a 4.3 times higher risk of graft failure than those with negative staining and a significantly lower median time to graft failure (94.6 months [range, 3.6-158.9 months] vs 176.4 months [range, 9.4-217.8 months], P < 0.0001). Conclusions. Screening for HLA DSA might be useful for early identification of LT recipients at increased risk of graft failure who could benefit from closer surveillance and tailored immunosuppressive regimens.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据