4.2 Review

Neutrophilic Reversible Allograft Dysfunction (NRAD) and Restrictive Allograft Syndrome (RAS)

期刊

出版社

THIEME MEDICAL PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1348463

关键词

neutrophilic reversible allograft dysfunction (NRAD); restrictive allograft syndrome (RAS); chronic lung allograft dysfunction; lung transplantation

资金

  1. Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) [G.0723.10, G.0705.12, G.0679.12]
  2. 'Onderzoeksfonds KULeuven [OT/10/050]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lung transplantation is currently considered as an ultimate live-saving treatment for selected patients suffering from end-stage pulmonary disease. Long-term survival, however, is hampered by chronic rejection, or chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD). Recently, various phenotypes within CLAD have been identified, challenging the established clinical definition of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS). Some patients with presumed BOS, for instance, demonstrate an important improvement in forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration (FEV1) after treatment with azithromycin. These patients are characterized by the presence of excess (>= 15%) bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) neutrophils, in absence of concurrent infection. This phenotype of CLAD has been redefined as neutrophilic reversible allograft dysfunction (NRAD), and these patients generally have a very good prognosis after diagnosis. Another group of patients with CLAD develop a restrictive rather than an obstructive pulmonary function defect (defined as a decline in total lung capacity of at least 10%) and demonstrate persistent interstitial and ground-glass opacities on chest computed tomographic (CT) scan. This phenotype is called restrictive allograft syndrome (RAS), and patients with RAS have a much worse prognosis after diagnosis. This review further discusses both of these CLAD phenotypes that do not fit the classical definition of BOS. Potential pathophysiological mechanisms, etiology, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatments are discussed.

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

4.2
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