The long-term outcome of treated sensitized patients who undergo heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Sensitized patients prior to heart transplantation are reportedly at risk for hyperacute rejection and for poor outcome after heart transplantation. It is not known whether the reduction of circulating antibodies pre-transplant alters post-transplant outcome. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between July 1993 and July 2003, we reviewed 523 heart transplant patients of which 95 had pre-transplant panel reactive antibody (PRAs) >10%; 21/95 were treated pre-transplant for circulating antibodies. These 21 patients had PRAs > 10% (majority 50-100%) and were treated with combination therapy including plasmapheresis, intravenous gamma globulin and rituximab to reduce antibody counts. The 74 untreated patients with PRAs > 10% (untreated sensitized group) and those patients with PRAs < 10% (control group) were used for comparison. Routine post-transplant immunosuppression included triple-drug therapy. After desensitization therapy, circulating antibody levels pre-transplant decreased from a mean of 70.5 to 30.2%, which resulted in a negative prospective donor-specific crossmatch and successful heart transplantation. Compared to the untreated sensitized group and the control group, the treated sensitized group had similar five-yr survival (81.1% and 75.7% vs. 71.4%, respectively, p = 0.523) and freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy (74.3% and 72.7% vs. 76.2%, respectively, p = 0.850). CONCLUSION: Treatment of sensitized patients pre-transplant appears to result in acceptable long-term outcome after heart transplantation.

Benefit of immune monitoring in heart transplant patients using ATP production in activated lymphocytes.

BACKGROUND: Balancing immunosuppression to prevent rejection while minimizing infection or drug toxicity risk is a major challenge in heart transplantation. Therapeutic drug monitoring alone is inadequate to measure the immune response. An immune monitoring (IM) assay (ImmuKnow; Cylex, Columbia, MD) performed on peripheral blood measures adenosine triphosphatase (ATP) release from activated lymphocytes and may predict the immune state. Therefore, we sought to determine the utility of IM in heart transplant recipients. METHODS: Between November 2005 and July 2008, 296 heart transplant recipients had a total of 864 IM assays performed at 2 weeks to 10 years post-transplant and were correlated with infection and rejection events that occurred within 1 month after IM testing. All patients received standard triple-drug immunosuppressive therapy with tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil and corticosteroids, without induction therapy. RESULTS: There were 38 infectious episodes and 8 rejection episodes. The average IM score was significantly lower during infection than steady state (187 vs 280 ng ATP/ml, p < 0.001). The average IM score was not significantly different during rejection when compared with steady state (327 vs 280 ng ATP/ml, p = 0.35). Interestingly, 3 of 8 rejection episodes were antibody-mediated rejections and had hemodynamic compromise and, for these, the mean IM score was significantly higher than for steady-state patients (491 vs 280 ng ATP/ml, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The non-invasive IM test appears to predict infectious risk in heart transplant patients. The association between high IM scores and rejection risk is inconclusive due to the small number of rejection episodes. Further studies with larger sample sizes for rejection episodes are required.