Literature DB >> 15993777

Nodular endocardial infiltrates (Quilty lesions) cause significant variability in diagnosis of ISHLT Grade 2 and 3A rejection in cardiac allograft recipients.

Charles C Marboe1, Margaret Billingham, Howard Eisen, Mario C Deng, Helen Baron, Mandeep Mehra, Sharon Hunt, Jay Wohlgemuth, Irfan Mahmood, James Prentice, Gerald Berry.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Endomyocardial biopsy is used to guide therapy after heart transplantation. An accurate and reliable diagnosis of rejection is critical for proper patient management.
METHODS: A sub-set of 827 biopsies from 273 patients were identified from 8 centers participating in the Cardiac Allograft Gene Expression Observational Study. These included all biopsies graded by local center pathologists as International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) Grade 1B or higher and also randomly chosen Grade 0 and 1A biopsies. Each of these cases was reviewed in a blinded manner by 3 study pathologists in the absence of clinical data. The study pathologists were assigned an ISHLT grade and noted nodular endocardial infiltrates (Quilty lesions).
RESULTS: The study pathologists were significantly more likely than local pathologists to diagnose ISHLT Grade 0, 1A and 3B rejection and significantly less likely to diagnose ISHLT Grade 1B, 2 and 3A rejection. Concordance between local and study pathologists was lowest for Grade 2 (17% agreement). Quilty lesions were noted in 3.3% of local Grade 0 cases and in 31% and 37% of local Grade 2 and 3A cases, respectively. Quilty lesions were recognized by study pathologists in 35% of local Grade 2 cases "downgraded" to Grade 0 or 1, but in only 10% of local Grade 2 cases confirmed by study pathologists.
CONCLUSIONS: The greatest variability between pathologists in application of the ISHLT grading system is in Grade 2 biopsies, and Quilty lesions are a major contributing factor to the lack of concordance. Accurate application of the ISHLT grading system requires improved recognition and understanding of Quilty lesions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15993777     DOI: 10.1016/j.healun.2005.04.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Heart Lung Transplant        ISSN: 1053-2498            Impact factor:   10.247


  30 in total

Review 1.  [Biomarker for diagnosis of rejection after heart transplantation].

Authors:  Matthias Frick; Herwig Antretter; Otmar Pachinger; Gerhard Pölzl
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 1.443

Review 2.  Updates on Heart Transplantation.

Authors:  Kevin S Shah; Michelle M Kittleson; Jon A Kobashigawa
Journal:  Curr Heart Fail Rep       Date:  2019-10

3.  Applying rigor and reproducibility standards to assay donor-derived cell-free DNA as a non-invasive method for detection of acute rejection and graft injury after heart transplantation.

Authors:  Sean Agbor-Enoh; Ilker Tunc; Iwijn De Vlaminck; Ulgen Fideli; Andrew Davis; Karen Cuttin; Kenneth Bhatti; Argit Marishta; Michael A Solomon; Annette Jackson; Grace Graninger; Bonnie Harper; Helen Luikart; Jennifer Wylie; Xujing Wang; Gerald Berry; Charles Marboe; Kiran Khush; Jun Zhu; Hannah Valantine
Journal:  J Heart Lung Transplant       Date:  2017-05-20       Impact factor: 10.247

4.  Testing the Efficacy of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in Detecting Transplant Rejection Using a Murine Model of Heart Transplantation.

Authors:  K Fischer; S Ohori; F C Meral; M Uehara; S Giannini; T Ichimura; R N Smith; F A Jolesz; I Guleria; Y Zhang; P J White; N J McDannold; K Hoffmeister; M M Givertz; R Abdi
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2017-02-01       Impact factor: 8.086

5.  Identification and classification of acute cardiac rejection by intragraft transcriptional profiling.

Authors:  Cécile T J Holweg; Luciano Potena; Helen Luikart; Tianwei Yu; Gerald J Berry; John P Cooke; Hannah A Valantine; Edward S Mocarski
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2011-05-09       Impact factor: 29.690

6.  Surveillance Endomyocardial Biopsy in the Modern Era Produces Low Diagnostic Yield for Cardiac Allograft Rejection.

Authors:  Keyur B Shah; Maureen P Flattery; Melissa C Smallfield; Grace Merinar; Daniel G Tang; Emily H Sheldon; Leroy R Thacker; Vigneshwar Kasirajan; Richard H Cooke; Michael L Hess
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 4.939

7.  Unexplained Graft Dysfunction after Heart Transplantation-Role of Novel Molecular Expression Test Score and QTc-Interval: A Case Report.

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

Review 8.  Advances in diagnostics for transplant rejection.

Authors:  Michael Nasr; Tara Sigdel; Minnie Sarwal
Journal:  Expert Rev Mol Diagn       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 5.225

Review 9.  Where, when and how much: regulation of myelin proteolipid protein gene expression.

Authors:  P A Wight; A Dobretsova
Journal:  Cell Mol Life Sci       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 9.261

Review 10.  Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in the diagnosis of acute heart transplant rejection: a review.

Authors:  Craig R Butler; Richard Thompson; Mark Haykowsky; Mustafa Toma; Ian Paterson
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2009-03-12       Impact factor: 5.364

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.