4.3 Article

Urgent desensitization in patients bridged to heart transplantation under extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support: A preliminary experience

期刊

CLINICAL TRANSPLANTATION
卷 35, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ctr.14146

关键词

extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; heart transplantation; plasmapheresis; sensitization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study retrospectively reviewed six patients who underwent plasmapheresis under extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) before urgent heart transplantation. The results showed that plasmapheresis under ECMO support was associated with favorable early outcomes in highly sensitized candidates for urgent heart transplantation.
Antihuman leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibodies restrict the access to cardiac allografts. Desensitization therapy is a major challenge in patients with cardiogenic shock waiting for urgent heart transplantation (HT). We retrospectively reviewed six patients (mean age of 37.5 years [16-70]) who underwent plasmapheresis (PP) under extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) before transplant between January 2017 and September 2018. The average duration of follow-up was 25 months [20-32]. Mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) of HLA-specific antibodies was reported as follows: score 4 for MFI < 1000, score 6 for 1000 3000. The mean duration of ECMO support was 29 days [1-74] and 6.8 [1-29] PP sessions were performed per patient before transplant. The mean number of HLA-specific antibodies before HT was 9.6 for score 6 [4-13] and 5.8 for score 8 [1-12]. Four patients had major complications after transplantation (2 hemorrhagic shocks, 5 infectious events). Mean MFI reduction rate was 94% [79-100] for Class I and 44.2% for Class II [0-83]. Hospital survival was 100%, and early antibody-mediated rejection was diagnosed in one patient at 7 days after HT. Plasmapheresis under ECMO support was associated with favorable early outcomes in highly sensitized candidates for urgent 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

4.3
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