Comparison of activation requirements and activation phenotype of allogeneic and xenogeneic rodent responses in vivo and in vitro.

BACKGROUND: Both discordant and concordant xenogeneic responses are dominated by humoral immunity. Recent advances in molecular engineering approaches may largely prevent rejection by means of this pathway, leaving the cellular arm of the immune response as the principal remaining barrier to successful engraftment. METHODS: To characterize further the cellular response to xenogeneic tissues, we used the intracellular fluorescent marker CFSE (5-(and-6)-carboxyfluorescein diacetate succinimidyl ester) to track the mitotic record of T cells (and T cell subsets) after either xenogeneic or allogeneic activation in vitro or in vivo. Activation marker expression was monitored by simultaneous labeling with antibodies for either CD25 or CD134. RESULTS: The in vitro and in vivo responses of Lewis lymphocytes were generally similar in magnitude and timing comparing activation with allogeneic or xenogeneic stimulators. However, the xenogeneic T cell precursor frequency was found to be markedly higher than that previously reported and were comparable to that seen in allogeneic responses. Xenogeneic responses were unique in the continued expression of activation markers in later division cycles. In addition, CD4 and CD8 T-cell proliferation was highly dependent on stimulator class II expression, highlighting the importance of CD4 T cells and the indirect pathway in the xenogeneic response. CONCLUSIONS: An unexpectedly high precursor frequency was detected for xenogeneic cellular responses in the rat anti-mouse combination and was comparable to that seen in allogeneic responses. Differences in xenogeneic versus allogeneic activation profiles exist that may result from the cellular pathways used for activation.

Preoperative factors associated with outcome and their impact on resource use in 1148 consecutive primary liver transplants.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic transplantation is a highly effective but costly treatment for end-stage hepatic dysfunction. One approach to improve efficiency in the use of scarce organs for transplantation is to identify preoperative factors that are associated with poor outcome posttransplantation. This may assist both in selecting patients optimal for transplantation and in identifying strategies to improve survival. METHODS: In the present work, we retrospectively reviewed consecutive liver transplants performed at the University of California at Los Angeles during a 6-year period and determined preoperative variables that were associated with outcome in primary grafts. In addition, we used the hospital's cost accounting database to determine the impact of these variables on the degree of resource use by high-risk patients. RESULTS: We found five variables to have independent prognostic value in predicting graft survival after primary liver transplantation: (1) donor age, (2) recipient age, (3) donor sodium, (4) recipient creatinine, and (5) recipient ventilator requirement pretransplant. Recipient ventilator requirement and elevated creatinine were associated with significant increases in resource use during the transplant admission. CONCLUSIONS: Patients at high risk for graft failure and costly transplants can be identified preoperatively by a set of parameters that are readily available, noninvasive, and inexpensive. Selection of recipients on the basis of these data would improve the efficiency of liver transplantation and reduce its cost.