A comparative analysis between survivors and nonsurvivors with antibody mediated cardiac allograft rejection.

BACKGROUND: Antibody mediated rejection (AMR) is an important cause of graft loss in the post heart transplant period. The following study was conducted to determine differences between survivors and nonsurvivors who developed post heart transplant AMR. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of patients who received a heart transplant between January 1993 and December 2002. Patients with biopsy proven AMR were identified. This group was divided into survivors and nonsurvivors. Groups were compared with regards to demographics, T-cell flow panel of reactive antibodies (PRA), flow cross-matches (anti-donor HLA Class I and II), and short- and long-term outcomes. Results of endomyocardial biopsies were collected to allow calculation of sensitivity, specificity, negative- and positive predictive values as well as accuracy of immunoglobulins and complement split products in association to death. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients (8.9%) were diagnosed with AMR. Mean age was 48 y (range: 8-68 y) and 53.8% were males. Episodes of hemodynamic instability associated with AMR were observed in 37% of patients. Only two deaths were directly attributed to acute AMR. Nearly 20% of AMR patients developed transplant coronary artery disease. Univariate analysis identified T-PRA (P < 0.001), mean T-cell molecules of equivalent soluble fluorochrome (MESF) (P < 0.001) and mean B-cell MESF (P < 0.001) as possible factors associated with death. Neither demographics of complement split products were associated to late death. CONCLUSION: When studying patients with AMR, pretransplant T-PRA, T-cell, and B-cell MESF may identify individuals at risk of late death.

Ventricular assist devices and aggressive immunosuppression: looking beyond overall survival.

BACKGROUND: Patients bridged to heart transplantation with a ventricular assist device (VAD) developed coronary vasculopathy at the same rate as non-bridged patients despite having higher levels of pre-formed antibodies. We hypothesized that allosensitized VAD patients have higher levels of immunosuppression and thus different morbidity and causes of mortality. METHODS: Patients who received a transplant between January 1996 and May 2002 were separated into 2 groups based on the need for VAD support as a bridge to transplantation. Transplant and Inpatient Pharmacy Databases and charts were queried for date of transplantation, degree of allosensitization, use of desensitization therapy, immunosuppressive strategies, number of treated rejection episodes, and specific causes of death. RESULTS: This study investigated 238 patients (125 VAD patients, 113 non-VAD patients). VAD patients were more likely to be allosensitized than non-VAD patients (20% vs 5%, p < 0.01). OKT3 was given to 22% of VAD patients as anti-rejection prophylaxis and 14% received pre-transplant plasmapheresis. Non-VAD patients rarely were desensitized (2.6% of non-VAD patients). After transplantation, 68 VAD patients (54%) and 44 non-VAD patients (39%) had episodes of severe rejection requiring therapy. Episodes of rejection in VAD patients were commonly treated with steroids (90%), plasmapheresis (10%), and OKT3 (7%), and episodes of rejection in non-VAD patients were treated with steroids (76%) and OKT3 (8%). The 5-year survival for both groups was similar (90% and 86% respectively, p = 0.31). VAD patients commonly died of sepsis (75%), and non-VAD patients died of rejection (39%) and ischemic transplant cardiomyopathy (30%). CONCLUSION: When short-term outcomes between bridged and non-bridged heart transplant recipients were compared, overall survival was similar but causes of death differed. Findings in this study might aid in the post-operative management of patients bridged to transplantation with a VAD.