Antibody-mediated rejection in the cardiac allograft: diagnosis, treatment and future considerations

Donor Age, Sex, and Cause of Death and Their Relationship to Heart Transplant Recipient Cardiac Death

BACKGROUND

Recent studies indicate that donor innate immune responses participate in initiating and accelerating innate responses and allorecognition in the recipient. These immune responses negatively affect recipient outcomes and predispose recipients to cardiovascular death (CV death). We hypothesized that a donor cause of death (COD) associated with higher levels of innate immune response would predispose recipients to more adverse outcomes post-transplant, including CV death.

METHODS

We performed a single-institution retrospective analysis comparing donor characteristics and COD to recipient adverse cardiovascular outcomes. We analyzed the medical records of local adult donors (age 18-64) in a database of donors where adequate data was available. Donor age was available on 706 donors; donor sex was available on 730 donors. We linked donor characteristics (age and sex) and COD to recipient CV death. The data were analyzed using logistic regression, the log-rank test of differences, and Tukey contrast.

RESULTS

Donor age, female sex, and COD of intracranial hemorrhage were significantly associated with a higher incidence of recipient CV death.

CONCLUSIONS

In this single institution study, we found that recipients with hearts from donors over 40 years, donors who were female, or donors who died with a COD of intracranial hemorrhage had a higher frequency of CV death. Donor monitoring and potential treatment of innate immune activation may decrease subsequent recipient innate responses and allorecognition stimulated by donor-derived inflammatory signaling, which leads to adverse outcomes.

Evidence of autoinflammation as a principal mechanism of myocardial injury in SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive medical examiner cases

BACKGROUND

Disease from Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) remains the seventh leading cause of death in the United States. Many patients infected with this virus develop later cardiovascular complications including myocardial infarctions, stroke, arrhythmia, heart failure, and sudden cardiac death (20-28%). The purpose of this study is to understand the primary mechanism of myocardial injury in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

We investigated a consecutive cohort of 48 medical examiner cases who died with PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 (COVpos) infection in 2020. We compared them to a consecutive cohort of 46 age- and sex-matched controls who were PCR-negative for SARS-CoV-2 (COVneg). Clinical information available at postmortem examination was reviewed on each patient. Formalin-fixed sections were examined using antibodies directed against CD42 (platelets), CD15 (myeloid cells), CD68 (monocytes), C4d, fibrin, CD34 (stem cell antigen), CD56 (natural killer cells), and myeloperoxidase (MPO) (neutrophils and neutrophil extracellular traps(NETs)). We used a Welch 2-sample T-test to determine significance. A cluster analysis of marker distribution was also done.

RESULTS

We found a significant difference between COVpos and COVneg samples for CD42, CD15, CD68, C4d, fibrin, and MPO, all of which were significant at p < 0.001. The most prominent features were neutrophils (CD15, MPO) and MPO-positive debris suggestive of NETs. A similar distribution of platelets, monocytes, fibrin and C4d was seen in COVpos cases. Clinical features were similar in COVpos and COVneg cases for age, sex, and body mass index (BMI).

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest an autoinflammatory process is likely involved in cardiac damage during SARS-CoV-2 infection. No information about clinical cardiac disease was available.

Bias in Medicine: Lessons Learned and Mitigation Strategies

Cognitive bias consists of systematic errors in thinking due to human processing limitations or inappropriate mental models. Cognitive bias occurs when intuitive thinking is used to reach conclusions about information rather than analytic (mindful) thinking. Scientific progress is delayed when bias influences the dissemination of new scientific knowledge, as it has with the role of human leucocyte antigen antibodies and antibody-mediated rejection in cardiac transplantation. Mitigating strategies can be successful but involve concerted action by investigators, peer reviewers, and editors to consider how we think as well as what we think.