BACKGROUND: Evaluation of humoral sensitization, commonly determined by the panel-reactive antibody (PRA) screen, is accepted as an important part of pre-transplant assessment. A variety of definitions and approaches to sensitization have been described in the literature but no analyses of actual practice have been reported. METHODS: We sent surveys to 108 adult heart transplant program directors and 20 tissue-typing laboratories to obtain information about their approaches to PRA and crossmatch determination and management of sensitized patients. RESULTS: Among 65 responding directors (60%), 63.1% were cardiologists and 36.9% surgeons. The most common threshold to consider PRA as positive is > or = 10%. Fifty-five of the respondents consider reactivity with T or B lymphocytes to be significant, whereas 34% consider only T-lymphocyte reactivity. Timing of PRA determination varies considerably among programs. Conversion to positive PRA results in more frequent PRA assessments and often therapy aimed to decrease the degree of sensitization. The most commonly utilized approaches are administration of immunoglobulin and plasmapheresis. The complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC) assay is the most commonly used method for PRA determination, but other techniques including flow cytometry and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) are also used. Crossmatches are performed utilizing CDC and flow cytometry methods. Many laboratories employ more than one technique. CONCLUSIONS: PRA screening, crossmatch determinations and management of sensitized patients vary considerably from center to center. Uncertainty exists about the importance of PRA values, threshold for treatment and clinical implications of sensitization. Important questions about the impact of sensitization on outcomes following heart transplantation may not be resolved until the measurement and management of sensitization becomes more uniform.
BACKGROUND: Evaluation of humoral sensitization, commonly determined by the panel-reactive antibody (PRA) screen, is accepted as an important part of pre-transplant assessment. A variety of definitions and approaches to sensitization have been described in the literature but no analyses of actual practice have been reported. METHODS: We sent surveys to 108 adult heart transplant program directors and 20 tissue-typing laboratories to obtain information about their approaches to PRA and crossmatch determination and management of sensitized patients. RESULTS: Among 65 responding directors (60%), 63.1% were cardiologists and 36.9% surgeons. The most common threshold to consider PRA as positive is > or = 10%. Fifty-five of the respondents consider reactivity with T or B lymphocytes to be significant, whereas 34% consider only T-lymphocyte reactivity. Timing of PRA determination varies considerably among programs. Conversion to positive PRA results in more frequent PRA assessments and often therapy aimed to decrease the degree of sensitization. The most commonly utilized approaches are administration of immunoglobulin and plasmapheresis. The complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC) assay is the most commonly used method for PRA determination, but other techniques including flow cytometry and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) are also used. Crossmatches are performed utilizing CDC and flow cytometry methods. Many laboratories employ more than one technique. CONCLUSIONS: PRA screening, crossmatch determinations and management of sensitized patients vary considerably from center to center. Uncertainty exists about the importance of PRA values, threshold for treatment and clinical implications of sensitization. Important questions about the impact of sensitization on outcomes following heart transplantation may not be resolved until the measurement and management of sensitization becomes more uniform.
Authors: JoonHo Lee; Roberto Romero; Yi Xu; Jung-Sun Kim; Ji Young Park; Juan Pedro Kusanovic; Tinnakorn Chaiworapongsa; Sonia S Hassan; Chong Jai Kim Journal: Am J Reprod Immunol Date: 2011-09-27 Impact factor: 3.886
Authors: H Haddad; D Isaac; J F Legare; P Pflugfelder; P Hendry; M Chan; B Cantin; N Giannetti; S Zieroth; M White; W Warnica; K Doucette; V Rao; A Dipchand; M Cantarovich; W Kostuk; R Cecere; E Charbonneau; H Ross; N Poirier Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Joonho Lee; Roberto Romero; Tinnakorn Chaiworapongsa; Zhong Dong; Adi L Tarca; Yi Xu; Po Jen Chiang; Juan Pedro Kusanovic; Sonia S Hassan; Lami Yeo; Bo Hyun Yoon; Nandor Gabor Than; Chong Jai Kim Journal: Am J Reprod Immunol Date: 2013-07-30 Impact factor: 3.886
Authors: JoonHo Lee; Roberto Romero; Yi Xu; Jezid Miranda; Wonsuk Yoo; Piya Chaemsaithong; Juan Pedro Kusanovic; Tinnakorn Chaiworapongsa; Adi L Tarca; Steven J Korzeniewski; Sonia S Hassan; Nandor Gabor Than; Bo Hyun Yoon; Chong Jai Kim Journal: Am J Reprod Immunol Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 3.886
Authors: JoonHo Lee; Roberto Romero; Yi Xu; Jung-Sun Kim; Vanessa Topping; Wonsuk Yoo; Juan Pedro Kusanovic; Tinnakorn Chaiworapongsa; Sonia S Hassan; Bo Hyun Yoon; Chong Jai Kim Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-02-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Michael E Plazak; Stormi E Gale; Brent N Reed; Sara Hammad; Van-Khue Ton; David J Kaczorowski; Ronson J Madathil; Bharath Ravichandran Journal: Transplant Direct Date: 2021-01-26
Authors: David J Kaczorowski; Jashodeep Datta; Malek Kamoun; Daniel L Dries; Y Joseph Woo Journal: J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2013-03-16 Impact factor: 1.637