4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Immunological and echocardiographic evaluation of decellularized versus cryopreserved allografts. during the Ross operation

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY
卷 27, 期 4, 页码 572-577

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2004.12.057

关键词

allograft heart valve; humoral immune response; short-term valve function

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Compare the immunological and echocardiographic data of decellularized versus cryopreserved allografts used for RVOT reconstruction during Ross operation. Methods: From 16/01/03 thru 07/10/03, 20 Ross operations were performed using decellularized (n=11) or cryopreserved (n=9) allografts. Echocardiography was done at discharge, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months and annually thereafter. Samples for determination of antibodies against HLA class I and II were obtained preoperatively and at days 5, 10, 30, 90 and 180 postoperatively. These samples were tested by the ELISA method in LAT-M dishes (unspecific) for identification of circulating antibodies and the results expressed as mean sample values (Is= DO/cutoff). If positive, LAT-E (specific) was performed and PRA levels determined. Results: There was no mortality. Cryopreserved allografts showed marked Is values elevations for class I and II antibodies which started at the first month and remained elevated up to 6 months. In contrast, of the patients receiving decellularized allografts, seven remained negative, two patients had only marginal elevation of class I antibodies and two patients showed abnormal elevations of PRA levels. This response happened earlier than in the cryopreserved group, starting on the 5th postoperative day and has returned to baseline levels in one case. Echocardiography showed mild, but significant, elevation of gradients in cryopreserved valves but none in the decellularized. Conclusions: Decellularized allografts had normal function up to 18 months and showed important reduction of the immunogenic response when compared to cryopreserved valves. (c) 2005 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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