BACKGROUND: The requirement for a prospective crossmatch limits some organ allocation to local areas. The delay necessitated by the crossmatch restricts the distance across which offers can be made without unduly increasing the ischemia time. A collaborative study involving 14 transplant centers was undertaken by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing (OPTN/UNOS) Histocompatibility Committee to evaluate the accuracy with which the detection of unacceptable human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antigens by most advanced solid phase immunoassays can predict crossmatch results. In addition, using actual patients' unacceptable HLA antigens, the number of compatible donors that would have been available from the OPTN deceased kidney donors during 2002 to 2004 were investigated. METHODS: Panel reactive antibodies were performed by conventional or solid phase assays, and crossmatches were performed by cytotoxicity or flow cytometry. Analyses were stratified for T and B cell and by method of identifying unacceptable HLA antigens and crossmatch techniques. RESULTS: Combination of solid phase immunoassays and flow cytometry crossmatches resulted in a higher prediction rates of positive T cell (86.1%-93.5%) and B-cell crossmatches (91%-97.8%). Prediction of negative crossmatches based on different combination of panel reactive antibodies and crossmatch techniques varied from 14.3% to 57.1%. Furthermore, numerous potential compatible donors were identified for each patient, regardless of their ethnicity, in the OPTN database, when predicted incompatible ones were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: The above results showed that with the advent of solid phase immunoassays, HLA antibodies can now be accurately detected resulting in prediction of crossmatch outcome. This should facilitate organ allocation and prevents shipment of organs to distant incompatible recipients.
BACKGROUND: The requirement for a prospective crossmatch limits some organ allocation to local areas. The delay necessitated by the crossmatch restricts the distance across which offers can be made without unduly increasing the ischemia time. A collaborative study involving 14 transplant centers was undertaken by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing (OPTN/UNOS) Histocompatibility Committee to evaluate the accuracy with which the detection of unacceptable human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antigens by most advanced solid phase immunoassays can predict crossmatch results. In addition, using actual patients' unacceptable HLA antigens, the number of compatible donors that would have been available from the OPTN deceased kidney donors during 2002 to 2004 were investigated. METHODS: Panel reactive antibodies were performed by conventional or solid phase assays, and crossmatches were performed by cytotoxicity or flow cytometry. Analyses were stratified for T and B cell and by method of identifying unacceptable HLA antigens and crossmatch techniques. RESULTS: Combination of solid phase immunoassays and flow cytometry crossmatches resulted in a higher prediction rates of positive T cell (86.1%-93.5%) and B-cell crossmatches (91%-97.8%). Prediction of negative crossmatches based on different combination of panel reactive antibodies and crossmatch techniques varied from 14.3% to 57.1%. Furthermore, numerous potential compatible donors were identified for each patient, regardless of their ethnicity, in the OPTN database, when predicted incompatible ones were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: The above results showed that with the advent of solid phase immunoassays, HLA antibodies can now be accurately detected resulting in prediction of crossmatch outcome. This should facilitate organ allocation and prevents shipment of organs to distant incompatible recipients.
Authors: Dinesh Kannabhiran; John Lee; Joseph E Schwartz; Rex Friedlander; Meredith Aull; Thangamani Muthukumar; Sean Campbell; David Epstein; Surya V Seshan; Sandip Kapur; Vijay K Sharma; Manikkam Suthanthiran; Darshana Dadhania Journal: Transplantation Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Ross M Fasano; Harold Cliff Sullivan; Robert A Bray; Howard M Gebel; Erin K Meyer; Annie M Winkler; Cassandra D Josephson; Sean R Stowell; Alexander Sandy Duncan; John D Roback Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: D E Fumo; V Kapoor; L J Reece; S M Stepkowski; J E Kopke; S E Rees; C Smith; A E Roth; A B Leichtman; M A Rees Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 9.369
Authors: Steven E Lipshultz; Jayanthi J Chandar; Paolo G Rusconi; Alessia Fornoni; Carolyn L Abitbol; George W Burke; Gaston E Zilleruelo; Si M Pham; Elena E Perez; Ruchika Karnik; Juanita A Hunter; Danielle D Dauphin; James D Wilkinson Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) Date: 2014 Impact factor: 2.365