4.6 Article

Human Leukocyte Antigen Antibody-Incompatible Renal Transplantation: Excellent Medium-Term Outcomes With Negative Cytotoxic Crossmatch

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 92, 期 8, 页码 900-906

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e31822dc38d

关键词

HLA antibodies; Plasmapheresis; Antibody-incompatible transplantation; Antibody-mediated rejection; Antithymocyte globulin

资金

  1. National Health Service

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibody-incompatible renal transplantation has been increasingly performed since 2000 but with few data on the medium-term outcomes. Methods. Between 2003 and 2011, 84 patients received renal transplants with a pretreatment donor-specific antibody (DSA) level of more than 500 in a microbead assay. Seventeen patients had positive complement-dependent cytotoxic (CDC) crossmatch (XM), 44 had negative CDC XM and positive flow cytometric XM, and 23 had DSA detectable by microbead only. We also reviewed 28 patients with HLA antibodies but no DSA at transplant. DSAs were removed with plasmapheresis pretransplant, and patients did not routinely receive antithymocyte globulin posttransplant. Results. Mean follow-up posttransplantation was 39.6 (range 2-91) months. Patient survival after the first year was 93.8%. Death-censored graft survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 97.5%, 94.2%, and 80.4%, respectively, in all DSA+ve patients, worse at 5 years in the CDC+ve than in the CDC-ve/DSA+ve group at 45.6% and 88.6%, respectively (P < 0.03). Five-year graft survival in the DSA+ve group was 82.1%. Rejection occurred in 53.1% of DSA+ve patients in the first year compared with 22% in the DSA+ve patients (P < 0.003). Conclusions. HLA antibody-incompatible renal transplantation had a high success rate if the CDC XM was negative. Further work is required to predict which CDC+ve XM grafts will be successful and to treat slowly progressive graft damage because of DSA in the first few years after transplantation.

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