PURPOSE: To evaluate the utility of endothelial/Descemet membrane complex (En/DM) characteristics in diagnosing corneal graft rejection. DESIGN: Diagnostic reliability study. METHODS: One hundred thirty-nine eyes (96 corneal grafts post penetrating keratoplasty or Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: 40 clear, 23 actively rejecting, 24 rejected, and 9 nonimmunologic failed grafts; along with 43 age-matched control eyes) were imaged using high-definition optical coherence tomography. Images were used to describe En/DM and measure central corneal thickness (CCT) and central En/DM thickness (DMT). En/DM rejection index (DRI) was computed to detect the relative En/DM thickening to the entire cornea. RESULTS: In actively rejecting grafts, DMT and DRI were significantly greater than controls and clear grafts (28, 17, and 17 μm and 1.5, 1 and 1, respectively; P < .001). Rejected grafts had the highest DMT and DRI compared to all groups (59 μm and 2.1; P < .001). DMT and DRI showed excellent accuracy, significantly better than that of CCT, in differentiating actively rejecting from clear grafts (100% and 96% sensitivity; 92.5% and 92.5% specificity), actively rejecting from rejected grafts (88% and 83% sensitivity; 91% and 83% specificity), and nonimmunologic failed from rejected grafts (100% and 100% sensitivity; 88% and 100% specificity). DMT correlated significantly with rejection severity (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In corneal grafts, in vivo relative thickening of the En/DM is diagnostic of graft rejection as measured by DMT and DRI. These indices have excellent accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity in detecting graft immunologic status, superior to CCT. DMT is a quantitative index that correlates accurately with the severity of rejection.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the utility of endothelial/Descemet membrane complex (En/DM) characteristics in diagnosing corneal graft rejection. DESIGN: Diagnostic reliability study. METHODS: One hundred thirty-nine eyes (96 corneal grafts post penetrating keratoplasty or Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: 40 clear, 23 actively rejecting, 24 rejected, and 9 nonimmunologic failed grafts; along with 43 age-matched control eyes) were imaged using high-definition optical coherence tomography. Images were used to describe En/DM and measure central corneal thickness (CCT) and central En/DM thickness (DMT). En/DM rejection index (DRI) was computed to detect the relative En/DM thickening to the entire cornea. RESULTS: In actively rejecting grafts, DMT and DRI were significantly greater than controls and clear grafts (28, 17, and 17 μm and 1.5, 1 and 1, respectively; P < .001). Rejected grafts had the highest DMT and DRI compared to all groups (59 μm and 2.1; P < .001). DMT and DRI showed excellent accuracy, significantly better than that of CCT, in differentiating actively rejecting from clear grafts (100% and 96% sensitivity; 92.5% and 92.5% specificity), actively rejecting from rejected grafts (88% and 83% sensitivity; 91% and 83% specificity), and nonimmunologic failed from rejected grafts (100% and 100% sensitivity; 88% and 100% specificity). DMT correlated significantly with rejection severity (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In corneal grafts, in vivo relative thickening of the En/DM is diagnostic of graft rejection as measured by DMT and DRI. These indices have excellent accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity in detecting graft immunologic status, superior to CCT. DMT is a quantitative index that correlates accurately with the severity of rejection.
Authors: K Aita; Y Yamaguchi; S Horita; M Ohno; K Tanabe; S Fuchinoue; S Teraoka; H Toma; M Nagata Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Candice A Roufosse; Ian Shore; Jill Moss; Linda B Moran; Michelle Willicombe; Jack Galliford; Ka-kit K Chan; Paul A Brookes; Hanneke de Kort; Adam G McLean; David Taube; H Terence Cook Journal: Transplantation Date: 2012-08-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Anthony J Aldave; Jennifer DeMatteo; David B Glasser; Elmer Y Tu; Bernardino Iliakis; Michael L Nordlund; Jachin Misko; David D Verdier; Fei Yu Journal: Cornea Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 2.651
Authors: Mohamed Abou Shousha; Carol L Karp; Ana Paula Canto; Kelly Hodson; Patrick Oellers; Andrew A Kao; Brett Bielory; Jared Matthews; Sander R Dubovy; Victor L Perez; Jianhua Wang Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2013-01-21 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Jonathan H Lass; Alan Sugar; Beth Ann Benetz; Roy W Beck; Mariya Dontchev; Robin L Gal; Craig Kollman; Robert Gross; Ellen Heck; Edward J Holland; Mark J Mannis; Irving Raber; Walter Stark; R Doyle Stulting Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2010-01
Authors: Ryan VanDenBerg; Vasilios F Diakonis; Alison Bozung; Gustavo Rosa Gameiro; Oliver Fischer; Ahmed El Dakkak; Jan Paul Ulloa-Padilla; Apostolos Anagnostopoulos; Sander Dubovy; Mohamed Abou Shousha Journal: Cornea Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 2.651
Authors: Taher K Eleiwa; Amr Elsawy; Zeba A Syed; Vatookarn Roongpoovapatr; Ahmed M Sayed; Sonia H Yoo; Mohamed Abou Shousha Journal: Curr Eye Res Date: 2020-02-16 Impact factor: 2.424
Authors: Christopher Smith; Daniel Kaitis; Jordan Winegar; Sean Edelstein; Matthew Council; George Kontadakis; Rocio Bentivegna; Mohamed Abou Shousha Journal: Ther Adv Ophthalmol Date: 2018-12-03
Authors: Zeba A Syed; Gustavo Rosa Gameiro; Marco Ruggeri; Amr Elsawy; Ibrahim Sayed-Ahmed; Vatookarn Roongpoovapatr; Mohamed Abdel-Mottaleb; Mohamed Abou Shousha Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2019-05-08
Authors: Taher Eleiwa; Amr Elsawy; Eyup Ozcan; Collin Chase; William Feuer; Sonia H Yoo; Victor L Perez; Mohamed F Abou Shousha Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-07-15 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Jaskirat S Takhar; Ashlin S Joye; Thanapong Somkijrungroj; Wipada Laovirojjanakul; Chang-Ping Lin; Thomas M Lietman; Travis C Porco; Jeremy D Keenan; Elisabeth A Gebreegziabher; Gerami D Seitzman; Jennifer Rose-Nussbaumer; Thuy A Doan; Nisha R Acharya; John A Gonzales Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-12-19 Impact factor: 2.692