The effect of a positive T-lymphocytotoxic crossmatch on hepatic allograft survival and rejection

BSHI and BTS UK guideline on the detection of alloantibodies in solid organ (and islet) transplantation

Solid organ transplantation represents the best (and in many cases only) treatment option for patients with end-stage organ failure. The effectiveness and functioning life of these transplants has improved each decade due to surgical and clinical advances, and accurate histocompatibility assessment. Patient exposure to alloantigen from another individual is a common occurrence and takes place through pregnancies, blood transfusions or previous transplantation. Such exposure to alloantigen's can lead to the formation of circulating alloreactive antibodies which can be deleterious to solid organ transplant outcome. The purpose of these guidelines is to update to the previous BSHI/BTS guidelines 2016 on the relevance, assessment, and management of alloantibodies within solid organ transplantation.

Liver Transplantation in Recipients With a Positive Crossmatch: A Retrospective Single-Center Match-Pair Analysis

A positive crossmatch (XM+) is considered a contraindication to solid abdominal organ transplantation except liver transplantation (LT). Conflicting reports exist regarding the effects of XM+ on post-transplant outcomes. The goal of this retrospective single-center analysis is to evaluate the influence of XM+ on relevant outcome parameters such as survival, graft rejection, biliary and arterial complications. Forty-nine adult patients undergoing LT with a XM+ between 2002 and 2017 were included. XM+ LT recipients were matched 1:2 with crossmatch negative (XM-) LT recipients based on the balance of risk (BAR) score. Patient and graft survival were compared using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the log-rank test. Comparative analysis of clinical outcomes in XM+ and XM- groups were conducted. Patient and graft survival were similar in XM+ and XM- patients. Rejection episodes did not differ either. Recipients with a strong XM+ were more likely to develop a PCR+ CMV infection. A XM+ was not associated with a higher incidence of biliary or arterial complications. Donor age, cold ischemia time, PCR+ CMV infection and a rejection episode were associated with the occurrence of ischemic type biliary lesions. A XM+ has no effects on patient and graft survival or other relevant outcome parameters following LT.

2016 Comprehensive Update of the Banff Working Group on Liver Allograft Pathology: Introduction of Antibody-Mediated Rejection

The Banff Working Group on Liver Allograft Pathology reviewed and discussed literature evidence regarding antibody-mediated liver allograft rejection at the 11th (Paris, France, June 5-10, 2011), 12th (Comandatuba, Brazil, August 19-23, 2013), and 13th (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, October 5-10, 2015) meetings of the Banff Conference on Allograft Pathology. Discussion continued online. The primary goal was to introduce guidelines and consensus criteria for the diagnosis of liver allograft antibody-mediated rejection and provide a comprehensive update of all Banff Schema recommendations. Included are new recommendations for complement component 4d tissue staining and interpretation, staging liver allograft fibrosis, and findings related to immunosuppression minimization. In an effort to create a single reference document, previous unchanged criteria are also included.

ABO-compatible liver allograft antibody-mediated rejection: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Liver allograft antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) studies have lagged behind parallel efforts in kidney and heart because of a comparative inherent hepatic resistance to AMR. Three developments, however, have increased interest: first, solid phase antibody testing enabled more precise antibody characterization; second, increased expectations for long-term, morbidity-free survival; and third, immunosuppression minimization trials.

RECENT FINDINGS

Two overlapping liver allograft AMR phenotypic expressions are beginning to emerge: acute and chronic AMR. Acute AMR usually occurs within the several weeks after transplantation and characterized clinically by donor-specific antibodies (DSA) persistence, allograft dysfunction, thrombocytopenia, and hypocomplementemia. Acute AMR appears histopathologically similar to acute AMR in other organs: diffuse microvascular endothelial cell hypertrophy, C4d deposits, neutrophilic, eosinophilic, and macrophag-mediated microvasculitis/capillaritis, along with liver-specific ductular reaction, centrilobular hepatocyte swelling, and hepatocanalicular cholestasis often combined with T-cell-mediated rejection (TCMR). Chronic AMR is less well defined, but strongly linked to serum class II DSA and associated with late-onset acute TCMR, fibrosis, chronic rejection, and decreased survival. Unlike acute AMR, chronic AMR is a slowly evolving insult with a number of potential manifestations, but most commonly appears as low-grade lymphoplasmacytic portal and perivenular inflammation accompanied by unusual fibrosis patterns and variable microvascular C4d deposition; capillaritis can be more difficult to identify than in acute AMR.

SUMMARY

More precise DSA characterization, increasing expectations for long-term survival, and immunosuppression weaning precipitated a re-emergence of liver allograft AMR interest. Pathophysiological similarities exist between heart, kidney, and liver allografts, but liver-specific considerations may prove critical to our ultimate understanding of all solid organ AMR.

Crossmatch-positive liver transplantation in patients receiving thymoglobulin-rituximab induction

BACKGROUND

Positive crossmatch (CM) in liver transplantation (LT) is associated with worse outcomes. Role of induction immunosuppression in this setting remains to be studied.

METHODS

One thousand consecutive LT patients receiving rabbit antithymocyte globulin±rituximab induction were studied. Pretransplantation sera of 55 CM-positive (CM) patients were tested for C1q-fixing donor-specific antibodies (DSA). Diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection required presence of diffuse vascular C4d expression on liver biopsies.

RESULTS

CM was positive in 112 (11%) recipients. Antibody-mediated rejection was observed in 3 (0.03%) patients, whereas acute cellular rejection (ACR) occurred in 31 (3%) patients. CM status was associated with a higher incidence of ACR (9% in CM vs. 2% in CM-negative [CM]; P<0.01) and chronic rejection (4% in CM vs. 1% in CM; P<0.01). Graft survival was slightly lower in CM patients (at 1 year; 85% in CM vs. 89% in CM; P=0.26). Patients with autoimmune hepatitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, and primary biliary cirrhosis as a group had a tendency toward CM status as well as developing ACR. Upon multivariate analysis, CM status was the strongest predictor of ACR (B=1.14; P=0.02). Only half of CM patients harbored C1q-fixing DSA. Presence of C1q-fixing DSA was not associated with increased incidence of ACR.

CONCLUSIONS

In LT, CM status is associated with an increased incidence of acute rejection, chronic rejection, and slightly worse graft survival. With the use of rabbit antithymocyte globulin±rituximab induction, overall low rejection rates can be achieved in CM LT.

Pretransplant donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies as predictors of early allograft rejection in ABO-compatible liver transplantation

The significance of preexisting donor-specific HLA antibodies (HLA-DSAs) for liver allograft function is unclear. Our previous studies have shown that humoral alloreactivity frequently accompanies acute cellular rejection (ACR). In the present study, we set out to determine whether pretransplant HLA-DSAs correlate with clinically significant ACR in the first 90 days after transplantation and, if so, to determine their predictive values. Class I HLA-DSAs and class II HLA-DSAs were determined by single-antigen bead flow cytometry for 113 consecutive adult transplants. A statistical analysis was performed for data from 109 consecutive patients with graft survival greater than or equal to 90 days. All patients who developed biochemical graft dysfunction underwent liver biopsy for hematoxylin-eosin and complement component 4d staining. Cox proportional hazards models and associated hazard ratios revealed a significant association of pretransplant HLA-DSAs with clinically significant ACR: this association started with a mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) as low as 300 for both class I (hazard ratio = 2.7, P  < 0.01) and class II (hazard ratio = 6.0, P  < 0.01). Pretransplant HLA-DSAs were associated with an increased risk of ACR: P  < 0.01 for class I (42% versus 18%), P  < 0.001 for class II (37% versus 7%), and P  < 0.001 for either class I or II (36% versus 3%). Class I or II HLA-DSAs with an MFI ≥ 1000 had the best positive predictive value for clinically significant ACR at 46%, whereas class I or II HLA-DSAs with an MFI ≥ 300 had the best negative predictive value at 97.1%. Although our study was based on consecutive patients, it was limited by the relatively low number of single-center subjects. In conclusion, the present study indicates that pretransplant HLA-DSAs, even at low levels of allosensitization, correlate with the risk of clinically significant ACR. Our findings suggest that anti-human leukocyte antigen antibodies could serve as donor-specific markers of immunoreactivity to the liver graft.

Liver transplantation with a strongly positive crossmatch: case study and literature review

A positive crossmatch has been associated with increased risk in liver transplantation. To study the clinical significance of preformed donor-specific human leukocyte antigen antibodies (DSAs) in liver transplantation, we reviewed patients who underwent liver transplantation with a strongly positive flow cytometry crossmatch. DSAs were evaluated with a Luminex solid phase assay. The complement-fixing ability of DSAs was tested with a complement component 1q (C1q) assay. Using an assay correlation between complement-dependent cytotoxicity crossmatch, flow cytometry crossmatch, and DSA results, we reviewed the effects of DSAs on the outcomes of our patients as well as reported cases in the literature. Five of 69 liver recipients had a strongly positive crossmatch: 4 had a positive T cell crossmatch [median channel shift (MCS) = 383.5 ± 38.9], and 5 had a positive B cell crossmatch (MCS = 408.8 ± 52.3). The DSAs were class I only in 1 patient, class I and II in 3 patients, and class II only in 1 patient. Cholestasis, acute rejection, or both were observed in 3 of the 4 patients with a positive T cell crossmatch with an MCS approximately greater than 300. The C1q assay was positive for 3 patients. Two had either persistent cholestasis or early acute rejection. One patient who was treated with preemptive intravenous immunoglobulin had an unremarkable outcome despite a positive C1q result. One of the 2 patients with a negative C1q assay experienced persistent cholestasis and early and recurrent acute rejection; the other had an unremarkable outcome. None of the patients died or lost a graft within the first year of transplantation. Our study suggests that human leukocyte antigen antibody screening, flow cytometry crossmatch MCS levels, DSA mean fluorescent intensity levels, and C1q assays may be useful in assessing the risk of antibody-mediated rejection and timely interventions in liver transplantation.

Significance of true-positive and false-positive pretransplantation lymphocytotoxic crossmatch in primary liver allograft outcomes

BACKGROUND

At the time of transplantation, a recipient's serum is tested against the prospective donor's lymphocytes to identify specific reactivity and to look for a donor-specific crossmatch (CXM). Here, we investigated the relationship between the pretransplantation lymphocytotoxic CXM results and the long-term outcome of liver transplantation at a single center.

METHODS

From October 1998 to April 2011, medical records, laboratory data, and pretransplantation lymphocytotoxic CXM results were collected from 1133 consecutive liver transplant recipients.

RESULTS

We performed liver transplantations on 80 (7.1%) patients after a true-positive CXM (t+CXM). The t+CXM group exhibited higher initial aminotransferase levels immediately after transplantation compared with a negative CXM group. However, no significant differences in rejection, biliary or vascular complications, viral disease recurrence, or de novo malignancies were found. Although overall graft and patient survival did not differ between the groups, liver-specific graft survival was inferior in the t+CXM group. It was also found that, in 42 (3.7%) recipients, initially positive results converted to final negative results after the elimination of immunoglobulin M autoantibodies. We defined this subpopulation as a false-positive CXM. Significantly decreased posttransplantation aminotransferase levels with a higher incidence of de novo malignancies were observed in this group compared with negative controls.

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrate that t+CXM transplants show increased aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase peak immediately after transplantation, which influences liver-specific graft outcomes. Additionally, the presence of circulating immunoglobulin M autoantibodies against recipients' own antigens may be protective in liver grafts. However, this may be a predisposing factor for de novo malignancies.

The effect of a positive T-lymphocytotoxic crossmatch on clinical outcomes in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation

Purpose

There is controversy concerning the effect of a positive T-lymphocytotoxic crossmatch (TLC) on clinical outcomes in adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of TLC on clinical outcomes in LDLT and to determine how long a pretransplant positive TLC continues after liver transplantation (LT).

Methods

Between January 2005 and June 2010, 219 patients underwent adult LDLT at National Cancer Center. The TLC test was routinely performed before LDLT. TLC test results were positive in 8 patients (3.7%). Patients were divided into 2 groups according to the result of TLC: positive TLC (n = 8) and negative TLC (n = 211) groups. All patients with a pretransplant positive TLC (n = 6) underwent a TLC test every week until negative conversion of TLC, except 2 patients who refused to receive the TLC test.

Results

Acute cellular rejection, surgical complications and patient or graft survival were not significantly different between both groups. All patients with a positive TLC (n = 6) had a posttransplant negative TLC. The median time to negative conversion of TLC was 1.5 weeks (range, 1 to 3 weeks).

Conclusion

A pretransplant positive TLC does not affect clinical outcomes in adult LDLT. Moreover, T-lymphocytotoxic cross-reactivity disappeared within 3 weeks (range, 1 to 3 weeks) after LT.

Implications of a positive crossmatch in liver transplantation: a 20-year review

Whether a positive crossmatch result has any relevance to liver transplantation (LT) outcomes remains controversial. We assessed the impact of a positive crossmatch result on patient and graft survival and posttransplant complications. During a 20-year period, 2723 LT procedures with crossmatch results were identified: 2479 primary transplants and 244 retransplants. The rates of positive B cell and T cell crossmatches were 10.1% and 7.4%, respectively, for primary transplants and 14.6% and 6.4%, respectively, for retransplants (P = 0.049 for a B cell crossmatch). Across all primary transplants, females (P < 0.001) and patients with autoimmune hepatitis (P < 0.001) had greater frequencies of positive crossmatches. There was no effect from race or age. For both primary transplants and retransplants, patient survival and graft survival were not affected by the presence of a positive crossmatch. With respect to posttransplant complications, there were no differences in rejection episodes (hyperacute, acute, or chronic) or technical complications (biliary and vascular) between negative and positive crossmatch groups. However, there were significant differences in the pathological findings of preservation injury (PI) on liver biopsy samples taken at the time of transplantation and within the first week of transplantation (P = 0.003 for B cells and P = 0.03 for T cells). In summary, a positive crossmatch had no significant impact on patient survival or graft outcomes. However, there was a significantly higher incidence of PI in primary LT recipients with a positive crossmatch. This finding is important for a broader understanding of PI, which may include a significant immunological component.

Re-examination of the lymphocytotoxic crossmatch in liver transplantation: can C4d stains help in monitoring?

C4d-assisted recognition of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues (FFPE) from donor-specific antibody-positive (DSA+) renal allograft recipients prompted study of DSA+ liver allograft recipients as measured by lymphocytotoxic crossmatch (XM) and/or Luminex. XM results did not influence patient or allograft survival, or cellular rejection rates, but XM+ recipients received significantly more prophylactic steroids. Endothelial C4d staining strongly correlates with XM+ (<3 weeks posttransplantation) and DSA+ status and cellular rejection, but not with worse Banff grading or treatment response. Diffuse C4d staining, XM+, DSA+ and ABO- incompatibility status, histopathology and clinical-serologic profile helped establish an isolated AMR diagnosis in 5 of 100 (5%) XM+ and one ABO-incompatible, recipients. C4d staining later after transplantation was associated with rejection and nonrejection-related causes of allograft dysfunction in DSA- and DSA+ recipients, some of whom had good outcomes without additional therapy. Liver allograft FFPE C4d staining: (a) can help classify liver allograft dysfunction; (b) substantiates antibody contribution to rejection; (c) probably represents nonalloantibody insults and/or complete absorption in DSA- recipients and (d) alone, is an imperfect AMR marker needing correlation with routine histopathology, clinical and serologic profiles. Further study in late biopsies and other tissue markers of liver AMR with simultaneous DSA measurements are needed.

Living donor liver transplantation using sensitized lymphocytotoxic crossmatch positive graft

We describe a successful living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using a lymphocytotoxic crossmatch highly positive graft. A 41-year-old woman with alcoholic liver cirrhosis was referred as a potential candidate for LDLT, and her husband was willing to donate his partial liver. As the T-lymphocytotoxic crossmatch titer was over 10,000×, the patient was first infused with rituximab for preoperative desensitization, and then five rounds of plasmapheresis were performed. After the third plasmapheresis, the lymphocytotoxic crossmatch test was negative. A left liver graft including the caudate lobe was implanted, and anti-CD25 antibody (basiliximab) was administered on postoperative days 1 and 4. The postoperative course was uneventful except for an episode of mild acute cellular rejection on postoperative day 27. Although the impact of a lymphocytotoxic crossmatch-positive liver graft on acute cellular rejection and graft survival in LDLT remains controversial, perioperative desensitization may provide benefits when using a highly sensitized liver graft.

Lymphocytotoxic crossmatch in pediatric living donor liver transplantation

To investigate the relationship between the pretransplant LCT results and the outcome after pediatric LDLT in a single center. The clinical data of 76 children undergoing 79 LDLTs including three retransplantations from May 2001 to January 2006 were retrospectively analyzed. All of the children had end-stage liver disease, and their median age was 1.4 yr (range, six months to 16.5 yr). Immunosuppressive therapy consisted of cyclosporine- or FK-based regimens with steroids. The children were classified into two groups (positive or negative) according to the pretransplant LCT results. The incidences of post-transplant surgical complications and of rejection episodes were compared. The relationship between the pretransplant LCT results and patient and graft survival rates was also analyzed. Seventy-nine pretransplant crossmatch tests were done; 13 (16.5%) were positive, and 66 (83.5%) were negative. No significant difference was found in the pretransplant clinical factors between two crossmatch groups. There was no significant difference between the groups in the incidence of vascular and biliary tract complications, in the rate of early or steroid-resistant cellular rejections, or in one- and three-yr patient (91.7%, 91.7%, respectively, in the positive group, 93.5%, 93.5%, respectively, in the negative group, p = 0.80) and graft (92.3%, 92.3%, respectively, in the positive group, 88.8%, 86.4%, respectively, in the negative group, p = 0.63) survival. The present study demonstrates that there is no reason to do pretransplant LCT to select the living donor for pediatric LDLT.

C4d immunopositivity is uncommon in ABO-compatible liver allografts, but correlates partially with lymphocytotoxic antibody status

AIMS

To determine whether C4d immunopositivity helps recognition of humoral rejection in dysfunctional liver allografts.

METHODS AND RESULTS

C4d immunopositivity was retrospectively evaluated in liver allografts. There were three staining patterns: portal venular plexus, sinusoidal and hepatocellular. The latter was related to ischaemic necrosis and not scored as positive. C4d immunopositivity was not encountered in 10 preperfusion or 15 consecutive early protocol biopsies. However, three of 12 early protocol biopsy specimens from crossmatch-positive patients were C4d+, two showing repeated positivity on at least one further biopsy specimen, while others remained negative. C4d was also positive in 2/16 early moderate acute cellular rejections, 3/14 cases of centrilobular necroinflammation, 3/11 biliary obstructions, 3/13 chronic rejections and 1/10 primary non-functional allografts.

CONCLUSION

C4d immunopositivity is uncommon in liver allografts. There is a weak positive correlation with a positive lymphocytotoxic crossmatch and some patterns of allograft dysfunction. The morphological associations resemble those reported in lymphocytotoxic crossmatch-positive patients, plus occasional sinusoidal and hepatocellular injury. Although the practical utility of C4d immunohistochemistry seems limited, it may identify a small subgroup of individuals in whom chronic humoral microvascular injury contributes to allograft dysfunction.

Influence of HLA compatibility and lymphocyte cross-matching on acute cellular rejection following living donor adult liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Reports on the relevance of immunogenetic factors in living donor adult liver transplantation (LDALT) are often conflicting or inconclusive. We therefore investigated the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) mismatches, lymphocyte crossmatch positivity, and the reactivity in mixed lymphocyte culture (MLC) in a series of LDALT.

METHODS

A total of 104 LDALT patients were studied. The minimum follow-up was 12 months, and the graft survival rates were assessed. The incidence of the most common complications was analyzed. And the influence of HLA, the flow cytometric analysis findings, enhanced cytotoxic cross-matching and MLC on graft survival, and acute rejection was also investigated.

RESULTS

As a result, 96 negative cross-matching and eight positive cross-matching cases were identified. Positive cytotoxic cross-matching had a significant effect on graft survival (P<0.05), while flow cytometric cross-matching also had an additional effect on acute rejection (P<0.05). The MLC of the patients with three HLA mismatches was significantly higher than the MLC of patients with zero HLA mismatches. The incidence of acute cellular rejection (ACR) was higher in the patients with three mismatches than in the other patients, and moderate rejection only occurred in the patients with three mismatches.

CONCLUSION

HLA mismatching was not statistically associated with the overall graft survival after LDALT. The graft failure rates were higher in the positive cross-matching cases and therefore a strong immuosuppressant might be needed for positive cross-matching cases.

Equal overall rejection rate in pre-transplant flow-cytometric cross-match negative and positive adult recipients in liver transplantation

T cell IgG flow-cytometric cross-matches (FCXM) using 48 stored pre-transplant patient serum samples and 40 stored serum samples collected 3 wk after liver transplantation and frozen spleen cells of cadaveric donors in 48 consecutive liver transplantations were performed retrospectively. T cell IgG FCXM using pre-transplant serum samples was compared with 46 complement-dependent lymphocytotoxic cross-matches (CDCXM) performed at the time of transplantation. Clinical relevance of these tests was evaluated in relation to acute rejection, 1-, 3- and 5-yr graft and patient survival. The incidence of positive FCXM was 33% (16 of 48) and 13% (six of 46) by CDCXM. The median time of acute rejection was 29 d after transplantation in FCXM positive group (range 13-101 d) and 22 d in FCXM negative group (range 7-157 d, NS). Rejection rate was similar in 16 pre-transplant FCXM positive patients (eight of 16, 50%) compared with six pre-transplant CDCXM positive patients (three of six, 50%; NS). Recipients having graft rejection tended to be more often pre-transplant FCXM positive (eight of 21, 38%) than CDCXM positive (three of 21, 14%), but the difference was not significant (p > 0.1). No difference was found in the positive predictive value in relation to acute rejection between positive FCXM and CDCXM (69% vs. 50%; NS). Furthermore there was no correlation between post-transplant positive FCXM and acute rejection. No difference was found between pre-transplant T cell IgG FCXM positive and negative recipients in relation to graft or patient survival. Our findings are supportive for little risk associated with preformed donor-specific antibodies in liver transplantation.

Positive T lymphocytotoxic cross-match in living donor liver transplantation

The influence of lymphocytotoxic cross-match on survival or acute rejection in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has not been well examined. We analyzed 133 consecutive adult LDLT cases and assessed patient survival and acute rejection rates. Patients with a positive T lymphocytotoxic cross-match (n = 12) had a significantly higher chance of rejection within 6 weeks of LDLT (67% versus 28%, P <.001). All of the rejection episodes were successfully treated with bolus methylprednisolone therapy or anti-T cell monoclonal antibody. T lymphocytotoxic cross-match-positive grafts had no influence on patient survival (79% versus 90% at 3 years, P =.91). The results show that a positive cross-match graft should not be considered a contraindication for LDLT.

Risk factors for acute rejection in living donor liver transplantation

The influence of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) compatibility and lymphocytotoxic crossmatch on acute rejection in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has not been well examined. We analyzed 100 consecutive adult LDLT cases. The patient and graft survival rates and post-operative complications were assessed. The relation between the incidence of acute rejection and some clinical factors including HLA and lymphocytotoxic matching was also examined. Patients with HLA DR zero mismatching (p = 0.02) or negative T-lymphocytotoxic crossmatch (p = 0.04) had a significantly lower chance of rejection within 6 wk after LDLT. However the results had no influence on the patient survival. Our results demonstrate that in LDLT, a graft from an HLA-DR zero mismatching or negative T-lymphocytotoxic crossmatch might be advantageous because of the decreased probability of early acute rejection.

Analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing database comparing renal allografts and patient survival in combined liver-kidney transplantation with the contralateral allografts in kidney alone or kidney-pancreas transplantation

BACKGROUND

Combined liver-kidney transplantation (LKT) is the accepted treatment for patients with liver failure and irreversible renal insufficiency. Controversy exists as to whether simultaneous LKT with organs from the same donor confers immunologic and graft survival benefit to the kidney allograft. This study compares the outcomes of simultaneous LKT with the contralateral kidneys used for kidney alone transplantation (KAT) or combined pancreas-kidney transplantation (PKT) to understand the factors that account for the differences in survival.

METHODS

From October 1987 to October 2001, LKTs with organs from 899 cadaver donors were reported to the United Network for Organ Sharing; 800 contralateral kidneys from these donors were used in 628 KAT and 172 PKT recipients. These 800 paired control patients were the basis of this analysis.

RESULTS

Graft and patient survival rates were lower among LKT recipients compared with KAT (P<0.001) and PKT recipients (P<0.001), because of a higher patient mortality rate during the first 3 months posttransplant. Among human leukocyte antigen-mismatched transplants, LKT recipients demonstrated the highest 1-year rejection-free survival rate (LKT 70%, KAT 61%, and PKT 57% ) (P=0.005 vs. KAT, P=0.005 vs. PKT). There was a lower incidence of renal graft loss resulting from chronic rejection among LKT recipients (LKT 2% vs. KAT 8% vs. PKT 6%, P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing LKT exhibit a higher rate of mortality during the first year posttransplant compared with patients undergoing KAT and KPT. Analysis of the data indicates an allograft-enhancing effect of liver transplantation on the renal allograft.

Significance of positive cytotoxic cross-match in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation using small graft volume

A positive cross-match in cadaveric liver transplantation is relatively acceptable, but its role in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is less well known. The aim of this study is to examine the significance of cytotoxic cross-match in adult-to-adult LDLT using small-for-size grafts. Forty-three adult-to-adult LDLTs were performed at Seoul National University Hospital (Seoul, Korea) from January 1999 to July 2001. Subjects consisted of 27 men and 16 women with an average age of 45.4 years. Average liver graft weight was 565.3 +/- 145.7 g, and average graft-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) was 0.89% +/- 0.20%. HLA cross-match testing by lymphocytotoxicity and flow cytometry was performed routinely preoperatively. Factors that may influence survival, such as age; sex; blood group type A, type B, type O compatibility; cytotoxic cross-match; donor age; surgical time; cold ischemic time; and GRWR, were analyzed. Nine patients (20.9%) died in the hospital. There was a greater in-hospital mortality rate in women than men (37.5% v 11.1%; P = .049). The extra-small-graft group (0.54% < or = GRWR < 0.8%; n = 14) showed greater in-hospital mortality rates than the small-graft group (0.8% < or = GRWR < or = 1.42%; n = 29; 42.9% v 10.3%; P = .022). A positive cross-match was detected in 4 women transplant recipients, and 3 of these patients belonged to the extra-small-graft group. All patients with a positive cross-match died of multiorgan failure after early postoperative acute rejection episodes. Positive cross-match was the only significant factor in multivariate analysis (P = .035). In conclusion, when lymphocytotoxic cross-match and flow cytometry are significantly positive, adult-to-adult LDLT using small-for-size grafts should not be performed.

Antibody elimination by apheresis in living donor liver transplant recipients

In the present study, we investigated retrospectively the indications and the efficacy of the elimination of preexisting antiallogeneic antibodies in liver transplant recipients. Three patients who were ABO blood type incompatible were subjected to plasmapheresis and double filtration plasmapheresis before the living donor liver transplantation (LDLTx), and the titers decreased to less than 8. After transplantation, plasmapheresis was also performed in 3 cases, and continuous hemodiafiltration in 1 case, and in 2 out of these 3 patients acute rejection was recognized. Two patients who were crossmatch positive were subjected to plasmapheresis before transplantation, and the T warm titers were reduced to less than Score 2. These 2 patients had no acute rejections after transplantation. We conclude that in liver transplant patients apheresis is effective to prevent acute rejection induced by preexisting anti-A and/or anti-B antibodies and anti-donor specific antibodies before transplantation, but it is not effective in a patient with accelerated humoral rejection occurring after transplantation.

SIGNIFICANCE OF A T-LYMPHOCYTOTOXIC CROSSMATCH IN LIVER AND COMBINED LIVER-KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION

BACKGROUND

In contrast to kidney transplants a positive crossmatch is no contraindication for liver transplantation (OLT). In liver transplantation, antibody mediated rejections are rarely reported and a liver graft is suspected to have protective effects for kidney grafts when transplanted simultaneously. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a positive crossmatch on outcome after OLT and combined liver and kidney transplantation (CLKTx).

METHODS

We analyzed retrospectively the impact of a positive crossmatch on graft survival and rejection episodes after OLT (793pats) and CLKTx (18pats, 2.2%). Immunosuppression consisted of either Cyclosporine- or Tacrolimus-based regimens.

RESULTS

A total of 50/811 (6%) of patients had a positive crossmatch, 45/793 (5.6%) with liver transplantation alone and 5/18 (28%) of patients with CLKTx. Follow-up ranged from 1 to 122.5 months (median 45.8 months). One- and 5-year graft survival rates of liver transplants alone with a positive crossmatch were 89.6% and 75.3%, respectively and were 88% and 77.5% in crossmatch negative recipients. Additionally, the incidence of acute and steroid-resistant rejection (44% and 15.5%) was not significantly increased in patients with a positive crossmatch when compared with patients with a negative crossmatch (38% and 19%). None of the patients with a positive crossmatch and CLKTx underwent a hyperacute-rejection episode after transplantation, and kidney graft survival 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, a positive crossmatch is no contraindication for OLT and CLKTx. Furthermore, not having to wait for results of donor/recipient crossmatching can shorten cold ischemia time and may improve the clinical outcome.