BACKGROUND: Rejection continues to be one of the leading causes of death during the first year after cardiac transplantation. With the advent of more potent immunosuppressive therapies, the incidence of graft rejection has been reported to be decreasing. Yet, this trend has not been well established due to differences in the interpretation of and the protocols for endomyocardial biopsy specimens. Additionally, the incidence of humoral (noncellular) rejection has not been adequately addressed. METHODS: Six thousand one hundred thirty endomyocardial biopsy specimens in 487 cardiac transplant recipients during the first year posttransplantation from 1990 to 2000 were reviewed to assess the incidences of acute cellular and treated noncellular rejection episodes. Cellular rejection was defined as ISHLT grades 3-4; noncellular rejection as a 20% decrease in echo LVEF, cardiac index <2.0, and/or inotropic support associated with ISHLT grades 0-2 necessitating treatment. RESULTS: The incidence of noncellular rejection has remained relatively unchanged at approximately 20% (P=nonsignificant for all years); in contrast, there has been a significant decrease (P <.001) in the incidence of cellular rejection from 54% to 5%. CONCLUSION: The incidence of noncellular rejection in cardiac transplant recipients has remained unchanged through the 1990s despite improved immunosuppressive therapies, which have significantly decreased the incidence of acute cellular rejection. There appears to be a need for newer immunosuppressive agents to effectively treat noncellular rejection. Clinical trials using allograft rejection as a major endpoint will need to increase the enrollment of patients to achieve adequate power to demonstrate differences between study groups.
BACKGROUND: Rejection continues to be one of the leading causes of death during the first year after cardiac transplantation. With the advent of more potent immunosuppressive therapies, the incidence of graft rejection has been reported to be decreasing. Yet, this trend has not been well established due to differences in the interpretation of and the protocols for endomyocardial biopsy specimens. Additionally, the incidence of humoral (noncellular) rejection has not been adequately addressed. METHODS: Six thousand one hundred thirty endomyocardial biopsy specimens in 487 cardiac transplant recipients during the first year posttransplantation from 1990 to 2000 were reviewed to assess the incidences of acute cellular and treated noncellular rejection episodes. Cellular rejection was defined as ISHLT grades 3-4; noncellular rejection as a 20% decrease in echo LVEF, cardiac index <2.0, and/or inotropic support associated with ISHLT grades 0-2 necessitating treatment. RESULTS: The incidence of noncellular rejection has remained relatively unchanged at approximately 20% (P=nonsignificant for all years); in contrast, there has been a significant decrease (P <.001) in the incidence of cellular rejection from 54% to 5%. CONCLUSION: The incidence of noncellular rejection in cardiac transplant recipients has remained unchanged through the 1990s despite improved immunosuppressive therapies, which have significantly decreased the incidence of acute cellular rejection. There appears to be a need for newer immunosuppressive agents to effectively treat noncellular rejection. Clinical trials using allograft rejection as a major endpoint will need to increase the enrollment of patients to achieve adequate power to demonstrate differences between study groups.
Authors: Maria Estefânia Bosco Otto; Aline Maria Araújo Martins; Aline de Oliveira Martins Campos Dall'Orto; Simone Ferreira Leite; Marco Antonio Freitas de Queiroz Mauricio Filho; Natalia Taveira Martins; Samuel Rabelo de Araújo; Soraya Vasconcelos Almeida; Mariana Ubaldo Barbosa Paiva; Fernando Antibas Atik Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-04-27
Authors: Antonio Cuadrado; David San Segundo; Marcos López-Hoyos; Javier Crespo; Emilio Fábrega Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Khurram Shahzad; Martin Cadeiras; Kotaro Arai; Dmitry Abramov; Elizabeth Burke; Mario C Deng Journal: Cardiol Res Pract Date: 2010-06-22 Impact factor: 1.866
Authors: Małgorzata Sobieszczańska-Małek; Jerzy Korewicki; Krzysztof Komuda; Małgorzata Karczmarz; Sylwia Szymańska; Alicja Cicha-Mikołajczyk; Paweł Bekta; Adam Parulski; Maciej Pronicki; Wiesława Grajkowska; Grzegorz Małek; Przemysław Leszek; Maria Kaczorowska; Mariusz Kuśmierczyk; Tomasz Zieliński Journal: Ann Transplant Date: 2017-11-17 Impact factor: 1.530
Authors: Paula E North; Emily Ziegler; Donna K Mahnke; Karl D Stamm; Angela Thomm; Paul Daft; Mary Goetsch; Huan Ling Liang; Maria Angeles Baker; Adam Vepraskas; Chris Rosenau; Mahua Dasgupta; Pippa Simpson; Michael E Mitchell; Aoy Tomita-Mitchell Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-01-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Christopher A Miller; Josephine H Naish; Steven M Shaw; Nizar Yonan; Simon G Williams; David Clark; Paul W Bishop; Mark P Ainslie; Alex Borg; Glyn Coutts; Geoffrey J M Parker; Simon G Ray; Matthias Schmitt Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2014-07-20 Impact factor: 5.364