4.6 Article

A Virtual Crossmatch-based Strategy Facilitates Sharing of Deceased Donor Kidneys for Highly Sensitized Recipients

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 104, 期 6, 页码 1239-1245

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000002924

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. It is estimated that 19.2% of kidneys exported for candidates with >98% calculated panel reactive antibodies are transplanted into unintended recipients, most commonly due to positive physical crossmatch (PXM). We describe the application of a virtual crossmatch (VXM) that has resulted in a very low rate of transplantation into unintended recipients. Methods. We performed a retrospective review of kidneys imported to our center to assess the reasons driving late reallocation based on the type of pretransplant crossmatch used for the intended recipient. Results. From December 2014 to October 2017, 254 kidneys were imported based on our assessment of a VXM. Of these, 215 (84.6%) were transplanted without a pretransplant PXM. The remaining 39 (15.4%) recipients required a PXM on admission using a new sample because they did not have an HLA antibody test within the preceding 3 months or because they had a recent blood transfusion. A total of 93% of the imported kidneys were transplanted into intended recipients. There were 18 late reallocations: 9 (3.5%) due to identification of a new recipient medical problem upon admission, 5 (2%) due to suboptimal organ quality on arrival, and only 4 (1.6%) due to a positive PXM or HLA antibody concern. A total of 42% of the recipients of imported kidneys had a 100% calculated panel reactive antibodies. There were no hyperacute rejections and very infrequent acute rejection in the first year suggesting no evidence for immunologic memory response. Conclusions. Seamless sharing is within reach, even when kidneys are shipped long distances for highly sensitized recipients. Late reallocations can be almost entirely avoided with a strategy that relies heavily on VXM.

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