4.5 Review

Human leukocyte antigen matching in heart transplantation: systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

TRANSPLANT INTERNATIONAL
卷 27, 期 8, 页码 793-804

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.1111/tri.12335

关键词

cardiac allograft vasculopathy; graft rejection; graft survival; heart transplantation; human leukocyte antigen; outcome; patient survival

资金

  1. Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation
  2. Swedish Society of Medicine
  3. government grants for clinical research
  4. Region Skane Research Funds
  5. Donation Funds of Skane University Hospital
  6. Crafoord Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Allocation of donors with regard to human leukocyte antigen (HLA) is controversial in heart transplantation. This paper is a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available evidence. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched systematically for studies that addressed the effects of HLA matching on outcome after heart transplantation. Fifty-seven studies met the eligibility criteria. 34 studies had graft rejection as outcome, with 26 of the studies reporting a significant reduction in graft rejection with increasing degree of HLA matching. Thirteen of 18 articles that reported on graft failure found that it decreased significantly with increasing HLA match. Two multicenter studies and nine single- center studies provided sufficient data to provide summary estimates at 12 months. Pooled comparisons showed that graft survival increased with fewer HLA-DR mismatches [0-1 vs. 2 mismatches: risk ratio (RR) = 1.09 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.19; P = 0.04)]. Having fewer HLA-DR mismatches (0-1 vs. 2) reduced the incidence of acute rejection [(RR = 0.81 (0.66-0.99; P = 0.04)]. Despite the considerable heterogeneity between studies, the short observation time, and older data, HLA matching improves graft survival in heart transplantation. Prospective HLA-DR matching is clinically feasible and should be considered as a major selection criterion.

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

4.5
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