Sensitization is common in pediatric heart transplant candidates and waitlist mortality is high. Transplantation across a positive crossmatch may reduce wait time, but is considered high risk. We prospectively recruited consecutive candidates at eight North American centers. At transplantation, subjects were categorized as nonsensitized or sensitized (presence of ≥1 HLA antibody with MFI ≥1000 using single antigen beads). Sensitized subjects were further classified as complement-dependent cytotoxicity crossmatch (CDC-crossmatch) positive or negative and as donor-specific antibodies (DSA) positive or negative. Immunosuppression was standardized. CDC-crossmatch-positive subjects also received perioperative antibody removal, maintenance corticosteroids, and intravenous immunoglobulin. The primary endpoint was the 1 year incidence rate of a composite of death, retransplantation, or rejection with hemodynamic compromise. 317 subjects were screened, 290 enrolled and 240 transplanted (51 with pretransplant DSA, 11 with positive CDC-crossmatch). The incidence rates of the primary endpoint did not differ statistically between groups; nonsensitized 6.7% (CI: 2.7%, 13.3%), sensitized crossmatch positive 18.2% (CI: 2.3%, 51.8%), sensitized crossmatch negative 10.7% (CI: 5.7%, 18.0%), P = .2354. The primary endpoint also did not differ by DSA status. Freedom from antibody-mediated and cellular rejection was lower in the crossmatch positive group and/or in the presence of DSA. Follow-up will determine if acceptable outcomes can be achieved long-term.
Anti-HLA donor-specific antibodies are associated with worse outcomes after organ transplantation. Among sensitized pediatric heart candidates, requirement for negative donor-specific cytotoxicity crossmatch increases wait times and mortality. However, transplantation with positive crossmatch may increase posttransplantation morbidity and mortality. We address this clinical challenge in a prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study of children listed for heart transplantation (Clinical Trials in Organ Transplantation in Children-04 [CTOTC-04]). Outcomes were compared among sensitized recipients who underwent transplantation with positive crossmatch, nonsensitized recipients, and sensitized recipients without positive crossmatch. Positive crossmatch recipients received antibody removal and augmented immunosuppression, while other recipients received standard immunosuppression with corticosteroid avoidance. This first CTOTC-04 report summarizes study rationale and design and relates pretransplantation sensitization status using solid-phase technology. Risk factors for sensitization were explored. Of 317 screened patients, 290 were enrolled and 240 underwent transplantation. Core laboratory evaluation demonstrated that more than half of patients were anti-HLA sensitized. Greater than 80% of sensitized patients had class I (with or without class II) HLA antibodies, and one-third of sensitized patients had at least 1 HLA antibody with median fluorescence intensity of ≥8000. Logistic regression models demonstrated male sex, weight, congenital heart disease history, prior allograft, and ventricular assist device are independent risk factors for sensitization.
Data on the clinical importance of newly detected donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies (ndDSAs) after pediatric heart transplantation are lacking despite mounting evidence of the detrimental effect of de novo DSAs in solid organ transplantation. We prospectively tested 237 pediatric heart transplant recipients for ndDSAs in the first year posttransplantation to determine their incidence, pattern, and clinical impact. One-third of patients developed ndDSAs; when present, these were mostly detected within the first 6 weeks after transplantation, suggesting that memory responses may predominate over true de novo DSA production in this population. In the absence of preexisting DSAs, patients with ndDSAs had significantly more acute cellular rejection but not antibody-mediated rejection, and there was no impact on graft and patient survival in the first year posttransplantation. Risk factors for ndDSAs included common sensitizing events. Given the early detection of the antibody response, memory responses may be more important in the first year after pediatric heart transplantation and patients with a history of a sensitizing event may be at risk even with a negative pretransplantation antibody screen. The impact on late graft and patient outcomes of first-year ndDSAs is being assessed in an extended cohort of patients.
Although liver biopsy is the gold standard for assessing allograft health, its attendant risk has deterred its use in routine monitoring of stable liver transplant recipients during long‐term follow‐up. We utilized prospectively collected data on adverse events from 2 clinical trials of immunosuppression withdrawal to quantify the risk of liver biopsy in pediatric liver transplant recipients. The trials included 451 liver biopsies in 179 children. No biopsies led to bleeding requiring transfusion or intervention, suggesting a clinically significant bleeding risk of <0.8%. Complications were reported in 5.5% of biopsies (95% CI 3.6%‐8.1%): 5.8% (21/363) of protocol biopsies and 4.5% (4/88) of for‐cause biopsies (P = .80). Mild complications occurred in 1.8% of biopsies, moderate in 1.8%, and severe in 2.0%. The majority of complications (89%) resolved within 1 week. Six of 9 (67%) severe complications were related to biliary issues; 5 were episodes of cholangitis. Biopsy‐related cholangitis occurred only in children with underlying biliary strictures. Overall, biopsy‐related complications were infrequent and resolved quickly. Severe complications were rare, with occult biliary stricture as the dominant driver. Our study provides evidence for clinicians who are considering the risk vs benefit of surveillance liver biopsies in pediatric liver transplant recipients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.