Influence of an historically positive crossmatch on cadaveric renal transplantation

Pancreas transplantation in crossmatch-positive recipients

BACKGROUND

Prolonged cold preservation time can unfavorably affect outcome in pancreas transplantation. To reduce this ischemic time, cadaver pancreas grafts, in selected cases, are sometimes transplanted before crossmatch results are known. We report our experience with pancreas transplants in recipients with either current or historically positive T- or B-cell crossmatches.

METHODS

Crossmatch-positive pancreas transplants were identified using a computerized database. T-cell crossmatches were performed using an antihuman-globulin-augmented complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC) test; B-cell crossmatches were performed using an extended incubation CDC test. All patients received anti-T-cell induction therapy and either cyclosporine (1987-1993) or tacrolimus-based (1994-2001) immunosuppression. More recent recipients (2000-2001) also received intravenous gamma globulin and postoperative plasmapheresis.

RESULTS

Between October 1, 1987 and March 31, 2001, of a total of 1076 pancreas transplants performed, 59 (5.48%) were crossmatch-positive. Of these, 8 had a current T-cell-positive crossmatch and 15 had a current B-cell-positive crossmatch. One recipient was both current B- and T-positive, and the rest were past B- and/or T-cell positive. One-year pancreas graft survival for current T- and B-cell crossmatch-positive transplants was 63% and 67%, respectively. T- or B-cell crossmatch-negative transplants had a 1-yr survival of 70%. In the T-cell crossmatch-positive group, four grafts are still functioning (follow-up range, 2-12 yr), one patient died with a functioning graft at 4 months, and four grafts failed (one each from pancreatitis, infection, primary nonfunction, and vascular thrombosis). No grafts were lost to rejection. In the B-cell crossmatch-positive group, six grafts are still functioning (follow-up range, 2-11 yr) and nine have failed (four from chronic rejection, three from vascular thromboses, and two from pancreatitis). Crossmatch-positive cases were significantly more likely to be retransplants (70.8%) than crossmatch-negative cases (14.8%, p < 0.0001). In a multivariate analysis, crossmatch positivity did not affect pancreas graft outcome, whereas retransplants had a significant impact on outcome (relative risk 1.84, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

(: i) Pancreas transplants performed in the setting of a positive current crossmatch may have long-term function. (ii) With current immunosuppressive protocols, graft loss from hyperacute and acute rejection may be prevented in current crossmatch-positive pancreas transplants. Chronic rejection was only seen in B-cell crossmatch-positive cases. (iii) High rates of technical graft loss in crossmatch-positive cases may reflect a high frequency of retransplants in this group.

Flow cytometry beads rather than the antihuman globulin method should be used to detect HLA Class I IgG antibody (PRA) in cadaveric renal regraft candidates

HLA Class I antibody screening can be performed by flow cytometry using a mixture of 30 distinct bead populations each coated with the Class I antigen phenotype derived from different cell lines. In this study we compared the efficacy of Class I antibody screens done by flow cytometry beads with the antihuman globulin (AHG) method for patients awaiting cadaveric renal retransplantation. Class I panel reactive antibody (PRA) screening by flow cytometric beads of 21 regraft serum samples that had all been found to be negative by AHG DTT Class I PRA, revealed that 57.1% (12 of 21) had a flow Class I PRA of > or = 10%. Furthermore, when five regraft sera with an intermediate PRA were screened (mean AHG DTT PRA = 33.2 +/- 13%) the mean flow Class I PRA almost doubled (mean flow PRA = 72.4 +/- 10.2%) (p < 0.01). When active UNOS waiting list regraft candidates, after several months of screening the Class I PRA by flow beads, were divided into the three PRA categories based on their peak flow Class I PRA value (0-20%, 21-79% and > or = 80%), the incidence of a positive flow cross-match was 0%, 72% and 85% and the incidence of retransplantation was 60%, 22% and 10%, in each of these groups, respectively. These data provided our histocompatibility laboratory with the rationale to stop performing the AHG PRA and perform only the flow Class I PRA method for regraft candidates.