4.6 Article

Non-HLA Antibodies Targeting Vascular Receptors Enhance Alloimmune Response and Microvasculopathy After Heart Transplantation

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 94, 期 9, 页码 919-924

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e3182692ad2

关键词

Heart transplantation; Vasculopathy; Pathogenesis; Non-HLA antibodies

资金

  1. German Research Foundation [He 1669/13-1, Hi 799/5-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Non-human leukocyte antigen antibodies (Abs) targeting vascular receptors are implicated in the pathogenesis of renal allograft vascular rejection and in progressive vasculopathy in patients with systemic sclerosis. Methods. We prospectively tested in 30 heart transplant recipients the impact of Abs directed against endothelin-1 type A (ETAR) and angiotensin II type 1 receptors (AT(1)R, cell-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) at time of transplantation and during the first posttransplantation year on cellular and Ab-mediated rejection (immunohistochemistry, C3d, and immunoglobulins) and microvasculopathy in endomyocardial biopsy. Results. Cellular rejection, Ab-mediated rejection, and microvasculopathy was found in 40% and 13%, 57% and 18%, and 37% and 40% of biopsies at 1 month and 1 year posttransplantation, respectively. Maximum levels of AT(1)R and ETAR Abs were higher in patients with cellular (16.5 +/- 2.6 vs. 9.4 +/- 1.3; P=0.021 and 16.5 +/- 2.5 vs. 9.9 +/- 1.9; P=0.041) and Ab-mediated rejection (19.0 +/- 2.6 vs. 10.0 +/- 1.3; P=0.004 and 19.4 +/- 2.7 vs. 9.0 +/- 1.7; P=0.002), as compared with patients who had no rejection. Patients with elevated AT(1)R Abs (53% [16/30]) or ETAR Abs (50% [15/30]; pretransplantation prognostic rejection cutoff >16.5 U/L) presented more often with microvasculopathy (both, 67% vs. 23%; P=0.048) than patients without. Conclusions. Elevated levels of AT(1)R and ETAR Abs are associated with cellular and Ab-mediated rejection and early onset of microvasculopathy and should be routinely monitored after heart 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