BACKGROUND: Organ transplant candidates with serum antibodies directed against human leukocyte antigens (HLA) face longer waiting times and higher mortality while awaiting transplantation. This study examined the accuracy of virtual crossmatch, in which recipient HLA-specific antibodies, identified by solid-phase assays, are compared to the prospective donor HLA-type in heart transplantation. METHODS: We examined the accuracy of virtual crossmatch in predicting immune compatibility of donors and recipients in heart transplantation and clinical outcomes in immunologically sensitized heart transplant recipients in whom virtual crossmatch was used in allograft allocation. RESULTS: Based on analysis of 257 T-cell antihuman immunoglobulin complement-dependent cytotoxic (AHG-CDC) crossmatch tests, the positive predictive value of virtual crossmatch (the likelihood of an incompatible virtual crossmatch resulting in an incompatible T-cell CDC-AHG crossmatch) was 79%, and the negative predictive value of virtual crossmatch (the likelihood of a compatible virtual crossmatch resulting in a compatible T-cell CDC-AHG crossmatch) was 92%. When used in a cohort of 28 sensitized patients awaiting heart transplantation, 14 received allografts based on a compatible virtual crossmatch alone from donors in geographically distant locations. Compared with the other 14 sensitized patients who underwent transplant after a compatible prospective serologic crossmatch, the rejection rates and survival were similar. CONCLUSION: Our findings are evidence of the accuracy of virtual crossmatch and its utility in augmenting the opportunities for transplantation of sensitized patients.
BACKGROUND: Organ transplant candidates with serum antibodies directed against human leukocyte antigens (HLA) face longer waiting times and higher mortality while awaiting transplantation. This study examined the accuracy of virtual crossmatch, in which recipient HLA-specific antibodies, identified by solid-phase assays, are compared to the prospective donor HLA-type in heart transplantation. METHODS: We examined the accuracy of virtual crossmatch in predicting immune compatibility of donors and recipients in heart transplantation and clinical outcomes in immunologically sensitized heart transplant recipients in whom virtual crossmatch was used in allograft allocation. RESULTS: Based on analysis of 257 T-cell antihuman immunoglobulin complement-dependent cytotoxic (AHG-CDC) crossmatch tests, the positive predictive value of virtual crossmatch (the likelihood of an incompatible virtual crossmatch resulting in an incompatible T-cell CDC-AHG crossmatch) was 79%, and the negative predictive value of virtual crossmatch (the likelihood of a compatible virtual crossmatch resulting in a compatible T-cell CDC-AHG crossmatch) was 92%. When used in a cohort of 28 sensitized patients awaiting heart transplantation, 14 received allografts based on a compatible virtual crossmatch alone from donors in geographically distant locations. Compared with the other 14 sensitized patients who underwent transplant after a compatible prospective serologic crossmatch, the rejection rates and survival were similar. CONCLUSION: Our findings are evidence of the accuracy of virtual crossmatch and its utility in augmenting the opportunities for transplantation of sensitized patients.
Authors: George J Arnaoutakis; Timothy J George; Arman Kilic; Eric S Weiss; Stuart D Russell; John V Conte; Ashish S Shah Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2011-08-11 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Makoto Tonsho; Sebastian Michel; Zain Ahmed; Alessandro Alessandrini; Joren C Madsen Journal: Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med Date: 2014-05-01 Impact factor: 6.915
Authors: Warren A Zuckerman; Adriana Zeevi; Kristen L Mason; Brian Feingold; Carol Bentlejewski; Linda J Addonizio; Elizabeth D Blume; Charles E Canter; Anne I Dipchand; Daphne T Hsu; Robert E Shaddy; William T Mahle; Anthony J Demetris; David M Briscoe; Thalachallour Mohanakumar; Joseph M Ahearn; David N Iklé; Brian D Armstrong; Yvonne Morrison; Helena Diop; Jonah Odim; Steven A Webber Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Qiuheng Zhang; Michelle Hickey; Diana Drogalis-Kim; Ying Zheng; David Gjertson; Martin Cadeiras; Tam Khuu; Arnold S Baas; Eugene C Depasquale; Nancy J Halnon; Gregory Perens; Juan Alejos; Daniel Cruz; Nsair Ali; Richard Shemin; Murray Kwon; Michael C Fishbein; Abbas Ardehali; Mario Deng; Elaine F Reed Journal: Transplantation Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Josef Stehlik; Brian Armstrong; David A Baran; Nancy D Bridges; Anil Chandraker; Robert Gordon; Teresa De Marco; Michael M Givertz; Alain Heroux; David Iklé; Judson Hunt; Abdallah G Kfoury; Joren C Madsen; Yvonne Morrison; Erika Feller; Sean Pinney; Sudipta Tripathi; Peter S Heeger; Randall C Starling Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2019-01-22 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Jon Kobashigawa; Maria G Crespo-Leiro; Stephan M Ensminger; Hermann Reichenspurner; Annalisa Angelini; Gerald Berry; Margaret Burke; Lawrence Czer; Nicola Hiemann; Abdallah G Kfoury; Donna Mancini; Paul Mohacsi; Jignesh Patel; Naveen Pereira; Jeffrey L Platt; Elaine F Reed; Nancy Reinsmoen; E Rene Rodriguez; Marlene L Rose; Stuart D Russell; Randy Starling; Nicole Suciu-Foca; Jose Tallaj; David O Taylor; Adrian Van Bakel; Lori West; Adriana Zeevi; Andreas Zuckermann Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Ryan J Butts; Mark A Scheurer; Andrew M Atz; Omar Moussa; Ali L Burnette; Thomas C Hulsey; Andrew J Savage Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 8.790