4.7 Article

Increased C4d in post-reperfusion biopsies and increased donor specific antibodies at one-week post transplant are risk factors for acute rejection in mild to moderately sensitized kidney transplant recipients

Journal

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL
Volume 83, Issue 6, Pages 1185-1192

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/ki.2013.44

Keywords

antibody-mediated rejection; diagnosis; kidney transplantation

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [NIDDK-DK067981-5]
  2. NIDDK [R01 DK092454-01]
  3. Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program of the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR)
  4. National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In order to define the intensity of immunosuppression, we examined risk factors for acute rejection in desensitization protocols that use baseline donor-specific antibody levels measured as mean fluorescence intensity (MFImax). The study included 146 patients transplanted with a negative flow crossmatch and a mean follow-up of 18 months with the majority (83%) followed for at least 1 year. At the time of transplant, mean-calculated panel-reactive antibody and MFImax ranged from 10.3-57.2% and 262-1691, respectively, between low-and high-risk protocols. Mean MFImax increased significantly from transplant to 1 week and 1 year. The incidence of acute rejection (mean 1.65 months) as a combination of clinical and subclinical rejection was 32%, including 14% cellular, 12% antibody-mediated, and 6% mixed rejection. In regression analyses, only C4d staining in post-reperfusion biopsies (hazard ratio 3.3, confidence interval 1.71-6.45) and increased specific antibodies at 1-week post transplant were significant predictors of rejection. A rise in MFImax by 500 was associated with a 2.8-fold risk of rejection. Thus, C4d staining in post-reperfusion biopsies and an early rise in donor specific antibodies after transplantation are risk factors for rejection in moderately sensitized patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available