Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5212_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Introduction
- •Contents
- •Renin-Angiotensin Inhibitors: ACE Inhibitors (ACEi), Angiotensin Receptor Blockers (ARB), and Combined ARB/Neprilysin Inhibitors (ARNi)
- •Beta-Blockers
- •Mineralocorticoid-Receptor Antagonists
- •SGLT2 Inhibitors
- •Editor and Contributors
- •1 Medical Therapy for Patients with End-Stage Heart Failure
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Introduction
- •Medical Therapy for Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction HFrEF
- •Diuretics/Fluid Management
- •Hydralazine and Isosorbide Dinitrate
- •Additional Medications
- •Device Management of Advanced Heart Failure
- •Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy
- •Indwelling Pulmonary Artery Pressure Sensors
- •Treatment of the Hospitalized Patient with Acute Decompensation
- •References
- •2 Mechanical and Surgical Options for Patients with End-Stage Heart Failure
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Introduction
- •Ventricular Assist Device Categories: A Generational History
- •Trends in Ventricular Assist Device Use: Strategies and Outcomes
- •Contraindications to LVAD Insertion
- •Potential Adverse Events with Left Ventricular Assist Devices
- •Left Ventricular Assist Device Selection
- •Short-Term Options for Mechanical Circulatory Support
- •Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump
- •Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation
- •Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support
- •Heart Transplantation
- •References
- •3 Evaluation for Heart Transplant Candidacy
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Introduction
- •Indications for Heart Transplantation
- •The Evaluation
- •Assessment of Heart Failure Severity
- •Models to Predict Survival in Advanced HF Patients
- •Psychosocial Evaluation
- •References
- •4 Potential Contraindications to Heart Transplantation
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Introduction
- •Heart Transplant Contraindications
- •Obesity
- •Malignancy
- •Pulmonary Hypertension
- •Primary Pulmonary Disease
- •Diabetes Mellitus
- •Renal Dysfunction
- •Hepatic Dysfunction
- •Cerebrovascular and Peripheral Vascular Disease
- •Frailty
- •Infections
- •Hepatitis B
- •Hepatitis C
- •Tuberculosis
- •Chagas Disease
- •Substance Use
- •Other Systemic Diseases
- •Psychosocial Evaluation
- •Financial Considerations
- •References
- •5 Listing Criteria and Optimization of the Pre-transplant Patient
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Listing Process
- •Allocation Criteria
- •A Brief History
- •The 2018 Allocation Revision
- •Optimization of the Pre-transplant Patient
- •Medical Surveillance on the Waitlist
- •Immunological Optimization
- •Other Considerations for Patients on the Waitlist
- •References
- •6 Overview of Transplantation Immunobiology
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Innate Versus Adaptive Immunity
- •Human Leukocyte Antigens Polymorphism and Nomenclature
- •Overview and Polymorphism of HLA
- •HLA Nomenclature
- •Alloantigen Presentation
- •Antibody Production and Biology
- •Endothelial Cell Activation by Antibodies
- •Tolerance
- •References
- •Methods of Assessment for HLA and Non-HLA Antibodies
- •Panel Reactive Antibodies
- •Virtual Crossmatch
- •Non-HLA Antibodies
- •Calculated PRA (cPRA)
- •Therapeutic Options for the Sensitized Patient
- •Plasmapheresis and Immunoadsorption
- •Intravenous Immune Globulin (IVIg)
- •7 The Sensitized Patient Awaiting Heart Transplantation
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Introduction
- •Risk Factors for Sensitization
- •Clinical Implication of HLA Antibodies
- •Rituximab
- •Proteasome Inhibitors
- •Emerging Desensitization Strategies
- •Splenectomy
- •Eculizumab
- •Monitoring of Sensitized Patients While Awaiting Transplantation
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •8 Donor Organ Procurement and Preservation
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Donation After Brain Death (DBD)
- •Donation After Circulatory Death (DCD)
- •Donor Referral and Evaluation
- •Donor Acceptability and Recipient Matching
- •DCD Heart Evaluation
- •Donor Heart Procurement
- •Direct Procurement and Machine Perfusion (DP/MP)
- •Normothermic Regional Perfusion (NRP)
- •Donor Heart Preservation
- •Normothermic Machine Perfusion
- •Controlled Temperature Static Storage
- •Hypothermic Machine Perfusion
- •References
- •9 Surgical Considerations in Heart Transplantation
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Introduction
- •Surgical Technique of Donor Heart Recovery
- •Biatrial Orthotopic Cardiac Transplantation
- •Indications
- •Technique
- •Bicaval Technique
- •Operative Technique
- •Heterotopic Heart Transplantation
- •Indications
- •Operative Technique
- •Special Considerations
- •References
- •10 Physiology of the Transplanted Heart
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Introduction
- •The Autonomic Nervous System
- •Functional Anatomy
- •Parasympathetic Fibers
- •Sympathetic Fibers
- •Cardiac Pacemaker
- •Autonomic Physiology
- •Homeostasis of the Cardiovascular System
- •Exercise and the Denervated Heart
- •Allograft Response to Exercise
- •Exercise Protocols for the Heart Transplant Recipient
- •High-Intensity Interval Training
- •Reinnervation
- •Determinants of Reinnervation
- •Quantifying Reinnervation
- •Parasympathetic Reinnervation
- •Electrophysiology of the Transplanted Heart
- •Pharmacology of the Transplanted Heart
- •Beta-Blockers
- •Beta-Adrenergic Receptor Agonists
- •Atropine
- •Adenosine
- •Digoxin
- •References
- •11 Immediate Post-operative Management After Heart Transplantation
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Introduction
- •Recommended Hemodynamic Monitoring
- •Causes of Cardiac Allograft Dysfunction
- •Primary Graft Dysfunction
- •Management of Cardiac Allograft Dysfunction
- •Management of Vasoplegia
- •Hyperacute Rejection
- •Intrathoracic Hemorrhage and Cardiac Tamponade
- •Pulmonary Hypertension
- •Electrical Monitoring
- •Sinus Node Dysfunction
- •Atrial Fibrillation
- •Ventricular Tachycardia
- •Non-cardiac Medical Issues After Heart Transplant
- •Renal Dysfunction
- •Neurological Dysfunction
- •Gastrointestinal Dysfunction
- •Antibiotic Use for Prophylaxis of Infection
- •Debility
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •12 Maintenance Immunosuppression Strategies in Heart Transplantation
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Introduction to Transplant Immunosuppression
- •Immunosuppressive Agents for Maintenance Regimens
- •Corticosteroids
- •Mechanism of Action
- •Calcineurin Inhibitors: Cyclosporine and Tacrolimus
- •Mechanism of Action
- •Notes
- •Drug Interactions
- •Antiproliferative
- •Azathioprine
- •Mechanism of Action
- •Mycophenolate Mofetil (MMF)
- •Mechanism of Action
- •Notes
- •Proliferation Signal Inhibitors (PSIs): Sirolimus and Everolimus
- •Mechanism of Action
- •Notes
- •Drug Interactions
- •Statins
- •Major Clinical Trials of Maintenance Immunosuppression Regimens—Which Agent to Use?
- •Comparison by Survival
- •Comparison by Incidence of Rejection
- •Individualizing Immunosuppression
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •13 Induction Strategies in Heart Transplantation
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Introduction
- •Depleting Antibodies
- •Polyclonal Antibodies
- •Monoclonal Antibodies
- •Non-depleting Antibodies
- •Basiliximab
- •Eculizumab
- •References
- •14 Minimization of Immunosuppression in Heart Transplantation
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Introduction
- •Sequelae of Immunosuppression
- •Minimization of Immunosuppression Strategies
- •Standard Maintenance Immunosuppression
- •Prednisone Weaning
- •Calcineurin Minimization
- •Use of Proliferation Signal Inhibitors to Reduce or Replace Calcineurin Inhibitors
- •Tacrolimus Monotherapy to Minimize Immunosuppression
- •Personalizing Immunosuppression
- •T Cell Immune Function Assay
- •Future Directions to Minimize Immunosuppression
- •References
- •15 Pre-transplant Screening and Post-transplant Infection Prevention in Heart Transplant Recipients
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Pre-transplant Screening of the Donor and Recipient
- •Donor Screening
- •Bacterial Transmission
- •Fungal Transmission
- •Viral Transmission
- •Hepatitis B
- •Hepatitis C
- •Cytomegalovirus
- •Human T-Lymphotropic Virus
- •West Nile Virus
- •SARS-CoV2
- •Protozoal Transmission
- •Toxoplasma Gondii, Trypanosoma Cruzi (Chagas Disease)
- •Recipient Screening
- •Bacterial/Fungal/Viral Infections
- •Preventive Measures
- •References
- •16 Managing Infections After Heart Transplantation
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Bacterial Infections
- •Peri-Operative Prophylaxis
- •Gram-Positive Organisms
- •Staphylococci
- •Enterococci
- •Streptococcus Pneumoniae
- •Listeria Monocytogenes
- •Nocardia
- •Rhodococcus Equi
- •Mycobacteria
- •Gram-Negative Organisms
- •Aerobic Gram-Negative Bacilli
- •Legionella
- •Clostridium Difficile
- •Viral Infections
- •Peri-Operative Prophylaxis
- •Cytomegalovirus
- •Herpes Simplex Virus
- •Varicella Zoster Virus
- •Epstein Barr Virus
- •Community Respiratory Viruses
- •Hepatitis B
- •Hepatitis C
- •Other Viruses
- •Fungal Infections
- •Peri-Operative Prophylaxis
- •Candida Spp.
- •Aspergillus
- •Pneumocystis Jiroveci
- •Opportunistic Molds and Yeasts
- •Protozoa
- •Toxoplasma Gondii
- •Trypanosoma Cruzi
- •Clinical Approach to Infectious Features
- •Fever
- •Wound Infections
- •Urinary Tract Infections
- •CNS Infection
- •GI and Liver Infections
- •References
- •17 COVID-19 Considerations in Heart Transplantation
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Introduction
- •COVID-19 in Heart Transplant Recipients
- •Management of COVID-19-Positive Heart Transplant Patients
- •Adjusting Chronic Immunosuppressive Therapies
- •Pharmacologic Therapies
- •Ritonavir-Boosted Nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid)
- •Remdesivir
- •Molnupiravir
- •COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma
- •Corticosteroids
- •Interleukin-6 Inhibitors and Janus Kinase Inhibitors
- •COVID-19 Vaccination Immune Paresis in Heart Transplant Recipients
- •Correlates of Protection
- •Waning Immunity and Variant Evolution
- •Strategies to Mitigate COVID-19 Vaccine Immune Paresis in Heart Transplant Recipients
- •References
- •18 Cardiac Allograft Rejection Surveillance
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Introduction
- •Pathology and Diagnosis of Cardiac Allograft Rejection
- •The Endomyocardial Biopsy (EMB)
- •Procedural Technique
- •Procedural Limitations
- •Potential Complications
- •Scheduling of EMB
- •Histological Features of Allograft Rejection
- •Intragraft mRNA Transcript Diagnostics to Augment the EMB
- •Non-invasive Diagnostic Methods in Cardiac Allograft Rejection
- •Clinical Evaluation and Antibody Surveillance
- •Donor-Derived Cell-Free DNA
- •Electrocardiogram (ECG)
- •Echocardiography
- •Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging (CMRI)
- •Biomarkers
- •Future Directions
- •References
- •19 Cardiac Allograft Rejection Treatment
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Introduction
- •Acute Cellular Rejection (ACR)
- •Risk Factors for ACR
- •Treatment of ACR
- •Recurrent Cellular Rejection
- •Hyperacute Rejection
- •Antibody-Mediated Rejection (AMR)
- •Risk Factors for AMR
- •Treatment of AMR
- •Biopsy Negative Rejection
- •Late Acute Rejection
- •Future Directions
- •References
- •20 Medical Adherence and Outcomes After Heart Transplant
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Introduction
- •Metrics of Compliance and Associated Challenges
- •Adherence and Heart Transplant Outcomes
- •Factors Associated with Poor Medical Adherence
- •Compliance with Lifestyle Habits
- •Interventional Strategies to Improve Adherence in Heart Transplant Recipients
- •Future Directions
- •References
- •21 Cardiac Allograft Vasculopathy
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Epidemiology
- •Pathophysiology
- •Clinical Features
- •Diagnosis
- •Invasive Assessment of Cardiac Allograft Vasculopathy
- •Non-invasive Assessment of Cardiac Allograft Vasculopathy
- •Management
- •Medical
- •Interventional
- •References
- •22 Long-Term Complications in Heart Transplantation
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Outpatient Management
- •Malignancy
- •General Medical Management
- •Cardiovascular Risk Factors
- •Renovascular
- •Endocrine
- •Gastrointestinal
- •References
- •23 Pediatric Cardiomyopathies
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Dilated Cardiomyopathy
- •Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
- •Restrictive Cardiomyopathy
- •Oncological Cardiomyopathy
- •References
- •24 Pediatric Heart Transplantation
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Introduction
- •Indications for Heart Transplantation
- •Candidate Evaluation
- •Anatomy
- •Pulmonary Vascular Resistance
- •ABO Incompatibility
- •Pre-transplant Sensitization
- •Infection
- •Other Organ Systems
- •Psychosocial Factors
- •Donor Selection
- •Wait List Management
- •Bridge to Transplant
- •Post-operative Management and Complications
- •Cardiovascular System
- •Respiratory System
- •Renal Function
- •Gastrointestinal System
- •Immunosuppression
- •Infection
- •Rejection Surveillance
- •Rejection
- •Long-Term Complications
- •Cardiac Allograft Vasculopathy
- •Infection and Malignancy
- •Survival and Outcomes
- •Equity
- •Summary
- •References
- •25 Adult Congenital Heart Disease—Special Considerations
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Introduction
- •Challenges in Identifying Advancing ACHD-HF
- •Evaluation of the ACHD Patient Referred for Transplant Listing
- •Indications for Referral and Evaluation
- •Multi-disciplinary Evaluation
- •Role of the ACHD Cardiologist
- •HF Pharmacotherapy
- •Special Considerations for the ACHD Patient
- •Pre-transplant Hemodynamic and Vascular Assessment
- •Transplant Surgical Evaluation
- •Pulmonary Hypertension
- •Cyanosis
- •Sensitization
- •Liver Disease
- •Management of ACHD Patient Listed for Transplant
- •Mechanical Circulatory Support
- •ACHD Transplant Outcomes
- •References
- •26 Combined Heart and Other Organ Transplants
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Introduction
- •The Ethics of Dual Organ Transplantation: Evaluating Fairness in Organ Allocation
- •Heart-Kidney Transplantation
- •The Pathophysiology of Cardiorenal Disease Leading to End Organ Failure
- •Safety Net
- •Outcomes of Heart-Kidney Transplantation
- •Management of the sHKT Patient
- •Heart-Liver Transplantation
- •Concerns for CHD Patients, Particularly the Fontan Population Who Require CHLT
- •Criteria to Proceed with CHLT
- •Surgical Approach and CHLT for Highly Sensitized Patients
- •Recommendations for Post-CHLT Management
- •Heart–Lung Transplantation
- •Indications for Heart–Lung Transplantation
- •Recipient and Donor Considerations for Heart–Lung Transplant
- •Management and Complications of Heart Lung Transplant Recipients:
- •Survival After Heart–Lung Transplantation
- •References
- •27 Pregnancy in Heart Transplant Recipients
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Introduction
- •Preconception Counseling
- •Contraception
- •Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART)
- •Shared Decision-Making
- •Fatherhood After Transplantation
- •Risk Assessment, Management, and Outcomes of Pregnancy After Heart Transplantation
- •Timing of Pregnancy
- •Patient Risk Assessment
- •Surveillance
- •Baseline Evaluation of Graft Function and Risk Assessment
- •Surveillance of Rejection
- •Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Rejection
- •Maternal and Fetal Outcomes
- •Maternal Outcomes
- •Fetal Outcomes
- •Management of Comorbid Conditions During Pregnancy
- •Diabetes
- •Hypertension
- •Infections
- •Immunosuppression During Pregnancy
- •Postpartum Management
- •References
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Introduction
- •Historical Perspectives
- •Abiomed AbioCor TAH
- •Carmat Aeson TAH
- •BiVACOR TAH
- •Perioperative Management
- •Clinical TAH Outcomes
- •Summary and Future Directions
- •References
- •29 Xenotransplantation
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •History of Xenotransplantation
- •Xenograft Rejection
- •Hyperacute Rejection
- •Complement Activation
- •Acute Humoral Rejection
- •Acute Cellular Rejection
- •Graft Overgrowth
- •Infections
- •Ethical Considerations
- •References
- •30 Quality-of-Life After Heart Transplantation
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Introduction
- •Aspects of Quality-of-Life
- •Assessing Quality-of-Life
- •Physical Wellbeing
- •Functional Status
- •Employment
- •Operating Vehicles
- •Mental Health
- •Social Functioning
- •Reproductive Health
- •References
- •31 Patient Selection in the Context of Organ Scarcity
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Introduction
- •Ethical Principles
- •Optimizing Donor and Recipient Risk Matching
- •Psychosocial Considerations
- •Financial Considerations
- •Balancing Individual and Societal Interests
- •References
- •32 Diversity and Access in Heart Transplantation
- •Abstract
- •Clinical Pearls
- •Map of Racial Disparities in Heart Failure Prevalence and Access to Advanced Therapies
- •Insurance Status and Access to Transplantation
- •Socioeconomic Stressors and Heart Transplant-Related Outcomes
- •The New Allocation System and Its Impact on Improved Access to Transplantation for Racial Minorities
- •Gender Disparities
- •Future Directions
- •References

23318 Cardiac Allograft Rejection Surveillance
Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging (CMRI)
CMRI has been investigated and shows promise for the detection of allograft rejection with
high sensitivity [23, 24]. In various single-center
studies, the separate combinations of myocardial contrast enhancement/edema and right ventricular end-diastolic volume index (RVEDVI)/
T2 relaxation time have been found to correlate with biopsy-proven rejection with good
accuracy, and high sensitivity and specificity.
One study even showed that the combination
of RVEDV/T2 relaxation time is more sensitive
than biopsy in predicting clinical rejection [25].
Another single-center study used multi-parametric mapping (without the use of gadolinium
contrast) in validation and derivation phases
that showed CMR-based surveillance starting
4 weeks after HTx was feasible and favorably compared with an EMB-based surveillance
protocol [26]. Overall, this technique has the
potential to detect early changes that accompany
allograft rejection and may be helpful in cases
where the biopsy is negative, but much larger
studies are needed for validation.
in detecting rejecting patients or identifying
those at low risk of rejection, although BNP
change over longer periods of time can predict
significant rejection [28–30].
Future Directions
There has been significant development and
progress in both invasive and non-invasive tests
for surveillance of HTx rejection. Another new
(invasive) modality under active research consideration is the NanoString nCounter technology to assess EMB tissue for ACR or AMR [31,
32]. The time is near when low-risk patients
after HTxs may have surveillance for allograft
rejection, predominantly not including EMB.
Recent trials suggest low-risk patients one
month after HTx can be followed by a number
of equivalent strategies for allograft rejection
surveillance, including dd-cfDNA, cMRI, or
a combination of non-invasive tests [33]. The
EMB will likely remain the gold standard (perhaps augmented by intragraft mRNA transcript
assessment) for patients with sufficiently abnormal non-invasive findings to prompt tissue-level
assessment for rejection.
Biomarkers
Predictably, the traditional biomarkers used in
myocardial infarction (troponin) and congestive heart failure (B-type natriuretic peptide and
NT-pro BNP) have also been investigated for
the purposes of rejection detection post-transplant. Logically, myocardial necrosis may be a
consequence of the inflammation accompanying allograft rejection, resulting in the release
of ultra-structural proteins, including creatine
phosphokinase and cardiac troponin. However,
in practice, troponin has been found to be nonspecific and only detected in episodes of severe
rejection [27]. Similarly, while natriuretic peptides are produced in response to cardiac stress,
as is reasonably expected to occur during rejection, the significant variability of BNP levels in
the early post-transplant period limits its utility
References
1. Velleca A, Shullo MA, Dhital K, Azeka E, Colvin
M, DePasquale E, et al. The International Society
for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) guidelines for the care of heart transplant recipients. J
Heart Lung Transplant. 2023;42(5):e1-141.
2. Caves PK, Stinson EB, Graham AF, Billingham
ME, Grehl TM, Shumway NE. Percutaneous
transvenous endomyocardial biopsy. JAMA.
1973;225(3):288–91.
3. Kirklin JK, Naftel DC, Bourge RC, White-Williams
C, Caulfield JB, Tarkka MR, et al. Rejection after
cardiac transplantation. A time-related risk factor
analysis. Circulation. 1992;86(5 Suppl):II236-41.
4. Kobashigawa JA, Kirklin JK, Naftel DC,
Bourge RC, Ventura HO, Mohanty PK, et al.
Pretransplantation risk factors for acute rejection after heart transplantation: a multiinstitutional
study. The transplant cardiologists research database
group. J Heart Lung Transplant. 1993;12(3):355–66.

234 D. H. Chang and Y. Manla
5. From AM, Maleszewski JJ, Rihal CS. Current status
of endomyocardial biopsy. In: Mayo clinic proceedings. Elsevier; 2011. p. 1095–102.
6. Mehra MR, Parameshwar J. Gene expression profiling and cardiac allograft rejection monitoring:
is IMAGE just a mirage? J Heart Lung Transplant
Elsevier. 2010;29:599–602.
7. Berry GJ, Burke MM, Andersen C, Bruneval
P, Fedrigo M, Fishbein MC, et al. The 2013
International Society for Heart and Lung
Transplantation Working Formulation for the
standardization of nomenclature in the pathologic
diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection in heart
transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant Elsevier.
2013;32:1147–62.
8. Pullen LC. Diagnosing cardiac rejection. Am
J Transplant [Internet]. 2017;17(11):2751–2.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1600613522251892.
9. Kobashigawa J, Hall S, Shah P, Fine B, Halloran P,
Jackson AM, et al. The evolving use of biomarkers in heart transplantation: consensus of an expert
panel. Am J Transplant. 2023;23(6):727–35.
10. Alam A, Van Zyl J, McKean S, Abdelrehim A,
Patel R, Milligan G, et al. Rejection! Or is it?
Correlation among molecular microscope diagnostic system, histopathology and clinical judgement
following heart transplantation. Transpl Immunol.
2023;81:101924.
11. Kobashigawa JA. Continuing the pursuit of heart
transplant antibody-mediated rejection. J Heart
Lung Transplant. 2015;34(9):1134–5.
12. Tambur AR, Pamboukian SV, Costanzo MR, Herrera
ND, Dunlap S, Montpetit M, et al. The presence
of HLA-directed antibodies after heart transplantation is associated with poor allograft outcome.
Transplantation. 2005;80(8):1019–25.
13. Colvin MM, Cook JL, Chang P, Francis G, Hsu DT,
Kiernan MS, et al. Antibody-mediated rejection
in cardiac transplantation: emerging knowledge in
diagnosis and management: a scientific statement
from the American Heart Association. Circulation.
2015;131(18):1608–39.
14. Deng MC, Eisen HJ, Mehra MR, Billingham M,
Marboe CC, Berry G, et al. Noninvasive discrimination of rejection in cardiac allograft recipients
using gene expression profiling. Am J Transplant.
2006;6(1):150–60.
15. Pham MX, Teuteberg JJ, Kfoury AG, Starling RC,
Deng MC, Cappola TP, et al. Gene-expression profiling for rejection surveillance after cardiac transplantation. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(20):1890–900.
16. Kobashigawa J, Patel J, Azarbal B, Kittleson M,
Chang D, Czer L, et al. Randomized pilot trial of
gene expression profiling versus heart biopsy in the
first year after heart transplant: early invasive monitoring attenuation through gene expression trial.
Circul Heart Fail. 2015;8(3):557–64.
17. Benck L, Sato T, Kobashigawa J. Molecular diagnosis of rejection in heart transplantation. Circul J.
2022;86(7):1061–7.
18. Agbor-Enoh S, Shah P, Tunc I, Hsu S, Russell
S, Feller E, et al. Cell-free DNA to detect
heart allograft acute rejection. Circulation.
2021;143(12):1184–97.
19. Teszak T, Bödör C, Hegyi L, Levay L, Nagy B,
Fintha A, et al. Local laboratory-run donor-derived
cell-free DNA assay for rejection surveillance in
heart transplantation—first six months of clinical
experience. Clin Transplant. 2023;37(9):e15078.
20. Alam A, Van Zyl J, Paul Milligan G, Michelle
McKean S, Patel R, Anne HS. Evolving the surveillance and workup of heart transplant rejection: a real-world analysis of the Molecular
Microscope Diagnostic System. Am J Transplant.
2022;22(10):2443–50.
21. Behera SK, Trang J, Feeley BT, Levi DS, Alejos
JC, Drant S. The use of Doppler tissue imaging
to predict cellular and antibody-mediated rejection in pediatric heart transplant recipients. Pediatr
Transplant. 2008;12(2):207–14.
22. Dandel M, Hummel M, Müller J, Wellnhofer
E, Meyer R, Solowjowa N, et al. Reliability of
tissue Doppler wall motion monitoring after
heart transplantation for replacement of invasive routine screenings by optimally timed cardiac biopsies and catheterizations. Circulation.
2001;104(suppl_1):1–184.
23. Butler CR, Thompson R, Haykowsky M, Toma M,
Paterson I. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in
the diagnosis of acute heart transplant rejection: a
review. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2009;11(1):7.
24. Taylor AJ, Vaddadi G, Pfluger H, Butler M, Bergin
P, Leet A, et al. Diagnostic performance of multisequential cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in
acute cardiac allograft rejection. Eur J Heart Fail.
2010;12(1):45–51.
25. Butler CR, Savu A, Bakal JA, Toma M, Thompson
R, Chow K, et al. Correlation of cardiovascular
magnetic resonance imaging findings and endomyocardial biopsy results in patients undergoing screening for heart transplant rejection. J Heart Lung
Transplant. 2015;34(5):643–50.
26. Anthony C, Imran M, Pouliopoulos J, Emmanuel S,
Iliff J, Liu Z, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance for rejection surveillance after cardiac transplantation. Circulation. 2022;145(25):1811–24.
27. Gleissner CA, Klingenberg R, Nottmeyer W, Zipfel
S, Sack F, Schnabel PA, et al. Diagnostic efficiency of rejection monitoring after heart transplantation with cardiac troponin T is improved
in specific patient subgroups. Clin Transplant.
2003;17(3):284–91.
28. Kittleson MM, Skojec DV, Wittstein IS, Champion
HC, Judge DP, Barouch LA, et al. The change in
B-type natriuretic peptide levels over time predicts

23518 Cardiac Allograft Rejection Surveillance
significant rejection in cardiac transplant recipients.
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2009;28(7):704–9.
29. Hammerer-Lercher A, Mair J, Antretter H,
Ruttmann E, Poelzl G, Laufer G, et al. B-type
natriuretic peptide as a marker of allograft rejection
after heart transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant.
2005;24(9):1444-e5.
30. Avello N, Molina BD, Llorente E, Bernardo MJ,
Prieto B, Alvarez FV. N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide as a potential non-invasive marker of
cardiac transplantation rejection. Ann Clin Biochem.
2007;44(2):182–8.
31. Shannon CP, Hollander Z, Dai DLY, Chen V,
Assadian S, Lam KK, et al. HEARTBiT: a transcriptomic signature for excluding acute cellular rejection in adult heart allograft patients. Can J Cardiol.
2020;36(8):1217–27.
32. Goldberg JF, Truby LK, Agbor-Enoh S, Jackson
AM, Defilippi CR, Khush KK, et al. Selection and
interpretation of molecular diagnostics in heart
transplantation. Circulation. 2023;148(8):679–94.
33. Fang JC, Wever-Pinzon O. Allograft rejection surveillance in heart transplantation: is there a better
way? Circul Am Heart Assoc. 2022;145:1825–8.

Cardiac Allograft Rejection Treatment
David H. Chang and Yosef Manla
19
Abstract
Although the incidence of significant
rejection post-heart transplant (HTx) has
decreased in time, over 10% of patients continue to have an episode of treated rejection
in the first year after an HTx. This chapter
provides a comprehensive overview of acute
cellular, antibody-mediated, mixed, and
biopsy-negative rejection. It also addresses
the management of hyperacute rejection and
late rejection. The treatment landscape for
HTx rejection will continue to evolve and
improve and will require further research to
reduce the risk of long-term complications
and improve clinical outcomes.
Keywords
Heart transplant · Asymptomatic
rejection · Acute cellular rejection · Recurrent
cellular rejection · Hyperacute
rejection · Acute antibody-mediated
rejection · Mixed rejection · Biopsy negative
rejection · Late acute rejection · Outcomes
D. H. Chang (*) · Y. Manla
Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles,
CA, USA
e-mail: David.chang2@cshs.org
Y. Manla
e-mail: Yosef.manla@cshs.org
Clinical Pearls
• Rejection can be asymptomatic or sympto-
matic in which the patient may present with
symptoms of dyspnea, edema, syncope, tachyarrhythmias or dizziness.
• Acute cellular rejection (ACR) is divided into
the following grades of severity based on histologic criteria: 0R (no rejection), 1R (mild
rejection), 2R (moderate rejection) and 3R
(severe rejection). Rejection treatment is usually indicated for biopsy grades 2R, 3R.
• Antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) is
divided into the following grades of severity based on immunologic and histopathologic criteria: pAMR 0 (no rejection),
pAMR 1 (Histology+, 1h) or pAMR 1
(Immunopathology+, 1i), pAMR 2, and
pAMR 3. Rejection treatment is usually indicated for biopsy grades pAMR 2, 3.
• Treatment options for asymptomatic biopsy
grade pAMR 2 or greater consist of corticosteroids and maintenance immunosuppression modification; if symptomatic, treatment
is empiric and consideration of additional
agents such as intravenous immunoglobulin
(IVIG), rituximab, bortezomib or plasmapheresis is warranted
• Empiric aggressive treatment is required in
the scenario of acute cardiogenic shock due
to clinically severe rejection, including corticosteroids, ATG, IVIG, plasmapheresis,
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2025
J. Kobashigawa (ed.), Clinical Guide to Heart Transplantation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-88290-6_19
237

238 D. H. Chang and Y. Manla
inotropes, and potential initiation of shortterm mechanical circulatory support.
• For recurrent or recalcitrant rejection, photopheresis (for ACR) and tocilizumab or belatacept (for AMR) may be considered.
• Patients with biopsy-negative rejection suggested by clinical signs and symptoms, along
with echocardiographic findings of systolic
dysfunction (defined as left ventricular ejection fraction < 40%), should be aggressively
treated for HTx rejection.
Introduction
Although the incidence of significant rejection
post-heart transplant (HTx) has decreased in
time, over 10% of patients continue to have an
episode of treated rejection in the first year after
a HTx [1]. Most rejection episodes are asymptomatic and diagnosed from the surveillance endomyocardial biopsy. In recent times, non-invasive
testing for rejection may suggest rejection which
triggers an endomyocardial biopsy to be performed. Treatment is usually administered for
ISHLT biopsy grades greater than or equal to 2R
(for acute cellular rejection) and pAMR 2 (for
antibody-mediated rejection) [2, 3]. Given the
possibility of asymptomatic rejection, surveillance remains important, particularly in the first
year after an HTx. The most critical time frame
and highest risk of rejection encompass the first
three months post-HTx. Higher-risk patients
may require a period of surveillance and testing
over one year to evaluate for rejection. Patients
who require treatment for HTx rejection require
higher levels of surveillance post-treatment as
they are at increased risk of morbidity, including
CAV and mortality.
Symptomatic HTx rejection requires more
aggressive treatment [4, 5]. When symptomatic, clinical manifestations of HTx rejection can include symptoms of congestion and a
low cardiac output state. Congestive symptoms
include shortness of breath, dyspnea on exertion, orthopnea, paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea,
nausea, bloating, lower extremity edema, and
fluid weight gain. Low cardiac output state can
present with cognitive slowing, decreased urine
output, hypotension, and pre-syncope/syncope.
Additional signs and symptoms experienced
with HTx rejection include palpitations, which
may reflect supraventricular tachycardia with
atrial fibrillation and/or atrial flutter or ventricular ectopy. Patients with clinical signs and
symptoms most consistent with HTx rejection
should have an urgent evaluation. This evaluation would include endomyocardial biopsy
(EMB) if the patient is stable for this procedure.
If necessary, empiric treatment for rejection
should not be delayed if the clinical suspicion
is high [5]. Serum biomarkers, including natriuretic peptides and troponin, may be abnormal in
the context of rejection but are not sufficient to
confirm the diagnosis. If possible, serum testing
for de novo donor specific antibodies (dnDSA)
should be sent prior to the initiation of treatment. Results of antibody testing will take time
and similarly, should not delay the start of treatment for HTx rejection. Echocardiographic
findings demonstrating ventricular systolic dysfunction can be a late finding in HTx rejection;
acute systolic dysfunction would support the
diagnosis of rejection [5]. Patients with acute
systolic dysfunction (without presumed infectious cause) should begin empiric treatment for
HTx rejection. Emerging molecular imaging
diagnostic modalities, including, but not limited
to, the molecular microscope diagnostic system
(MMDx) test and cardiac MRI (discussed in
Chap. 18), can augment the EMB in the assessment of HTx rejection.
Acute Cellular Rejection (ACR)
Denition
ACR, the most common form of rejection
post-HTx, is characterized by a predominantly
T-cell mediated response with infiltration of
macrophages and lymphocytes, which in turn
can lead to myocyte necrosis (see Table 19.1,
Fig. 19.1). Diagnosis of ACR is classically made
by EMB; the first standardized grading scale

19 Cardiac Allograft Rejection Treatment
Table 19.1 Revised 2004 International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) standardized cardiac
biopsy grading for acute cellular rejection
Rejection grade Comments
Grade 0R No rejection
Grade 1R—mild Interstitial and/or perivascular infiltrate with up to 1 focus of myocyte damage
Grade 2R—moderate
Grade 3R—severe
Reprinted from The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, 24(11) Susan Stewart, Gayle L. Winters, Michael C.
Fishbein, Henry D. Tazelaar, Jon Kobashigawa, Jacki Abrams, Claus B. Andersen, Annalisa Angelini, Gerald J. Berry,
Margaret M. Burke, Anthony J. Demetris, Elizabeth Hammond, Silviu Itescu, Charles C. Marboe et al., Revision of
the 1990 Working Formulation for the Standardization of Nomenclature in the Diagnosis of Heart Rejection, 1710–
1720, Copyright (2005), with permission from Elsevier
≥2 foci of infiltrate with associated myocyte damage
Diffuse infiltrate with multifocal myocyte damage ± edema ± hemorrhage ± vascu-
litis
239
Fig. 19.1 Panel a Grade 0R: Normal endomyocar-
dial biopsy showing no evidence of cellular infiltration
(H&E stain). Panel b Grade 1R: Low power view of
endomyocardial biopsy showing three focal, perivascular infiltrates without myocyte damage (H&E). Panel c
Grade 2R: Low power view showing three foci of damaging mononuclear cell infiltrate with normal myocardium intervening (H&E). Panel d: Grade 3R: Diffuse
damaging infiltrates with encroachment of myocytes
and disruption of normal architecture (H&E). Reprinted
from The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation,
24(11) Susan Stewart, Gayle L. Winters, Michael C.
Fishbein, Henry D. Tazelaar, Jon Kobashigawa, Jacki
Abrams, Claus B. Andersen, Annalisa Angelini, Gerald
J. Berry, Margaret M. Burke, Anthony J. Demetris,
Elizabeth Hammond, Silviu Itescu, Charles C. Marboe
et al., Revision of the 1990 Working Formulation for
the Standardization of Nomenclature in the Diagnosis of
Heart Rejection, 1710–1720, Copyright (2005), with permission from Elsevier

240 D. H. Chang and Y. Manla
was proposed by Billingham in 1990 [6], which
was later revised in 2004 to accommodate for
the reporting of antibody-mediated rejection
(AMR) [2]. The most recent ACR grading scale,
which classifies rejection into mild (1R), moderate (2R), or severe (3R) grades, has allowed
standardization of reporting, although the variability of interpretation and discordance between
pathologists remains, particularly for lower
grades of rejection [7]. The main benefit of the
new grading scale is that it allows improved
guidance for appropriate therapy in conjunction
with clinical assessment.
Risk Factors for ACR
A number of risk factors have been identified
for ACR: younger age of recipients, female gender (donor and recipients), a higher number of
HLA mismatches, black recipients, and induction therapy [9, 10]. The development of acute
rejection requiring treatment leads to a higher
incidence of CAV and mortality [11].
Treatment of ACR
Patients may be asymptomatic or symptomatic
with ACR. Generally speaking, mild grades of
rejection (ISHLT Grade 1R) do not require augmentation of immunosuppressive therapy as the
vast majority of these episodes resolve spontaneously, without increased risk of poor subsequent outcomes. Patients with grade 2R and 3R
cellular rejection on EMB require treatment for
HTx rejection. For asymptomatic grade 2R cellular rejection, an oral Prednisone bolus (50 mg
po bid × 3 days) with taper over 2 weeks is com-
monly administered. Asymptomatic patients
with grade 3R cellular rejection should receive
high dose intravenous corticosteroids (commonly given as 500 mg IV solumedrol × 3 days
with an oral Prednisone taper over 2 weeks).
Symptomatic patients with ACR should
be hospitalized for treatment. Overall, due to
the small number of HTx recipients treated
for rejection, there is no set standard treatment
for cellular rejection. Moreover, this scenario
makes clinical trial design in this area challenging. Though potentially dynamic, hemodynamics from right heart catheterization can
help determine the appropriate hospital setting
for treatment of HTx rejection. Critically ill
patients with hemodynamic compromise rejection (HCR) have elevated filling pressures and
low cardiac output/cardiac index and should
be cared for in an intensive care unit (ICU).
These patients may need inotropes to maintain
adequate cardiac output/cardiac index and may
require vasopressors to maintain adequate blood
pressure. High dose intravenous (IV) corticosteroids are the first line of treatment for symptomatic ACR. For patients with HCR, the addition
of cytolytic therapy with anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) is recommended. Maintaining or raising the target calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) trough
goal should be considered in conjunction with
treatment of ACR. Once the acute phase of
treatment with IV corticosteroids (±IV cytolytic therapy) is completed, an oral steroid taper
should follow. Consideration of the change of
anti-metabolite to proliferation signal inhibitor
(PSI) can occur in the hospital or at outpatient
discharge follow-up, depending on a number of
clinical factors. After the initiation of high dose
IV corticosteroids, appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis should be prescribed for approximately
3 months. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole
(Bactrim) can be prescribed to prevent pneumocystis jiroveci and nocardia infections.
Valganciclovir (Valcyte) can be prescribed to
prevent viral infections, including cytomegalovirus (CMV). Clotrimazole (Mycelex) can be
used to prevent fungal infections, including oral
thrush. Repeat surveillance EMB should follow
in 2–4 weeks after the diagnosis and initiation of
treatment for ACR.
Recurrent Cellular Rejection
For patients with recurrent (or steroid-resistant) cellular rejection, further immunosuppressive therapy is required. Maintenance
immunosuppression should be optimized, with

24119 Cardiac Allograft Rejection Treatment
consideration for CNI + PSI in combination
and reassessment of target immunosuppressive
goals. Assessment of ACR and AMR should
occur with follow-up EMB. If resolution or
improvement in the grade of cellular rejection
is not present on repeat EMB, cytolytic therapy
with ATG can be administered. For patients who
do not respond to cytolytic therapy, additional
modalities of immunomodulation should be considered, such as photopheresis. Photopheresis
involves the treatment of blood with a photosensitizing agent and subsequent ultraviolet
exposure with specified wavelengths of light to
alter the function of T cells. Photopheresis takes
place over a six-month period of time. Patients
can be treated twice weekly for one month and
then twice monthly for the remaining 5 months
of this six-month period. Patients treated for
recurrent or resistant cellular rejection should
have close clinical follow up with more frequent
graft assessment by echocardiography.
Hyperacute Rejection
Although now uncommon, the development of
hyperacute rejection was the most feared complication prior to the advent of effective immunosuppressive therapy. It can present in the minutes
to hours after the release of cross-clamp at the
time of orthotopic HTx. Hyperacute rejection is
mediated by preformed antibodies to predominantly HLA antigens, although the phenomenon
has also been observed in cases of ABO incompatibility [8]. It is characterized by thrombotic
occlusions and hemorrhage of the graft vasculature that begins minutes to hours after the graft
is placed. Antigen recognition activates the complement system, along with an influx of neutrophils. Endothelial cells and platelets are induced
to shed lipid particles from their membrane that
promote coagulation; the resulting inflammation
prevents vascularization of the graft, which suffers irreversible damage from ischemia. While
this is the most drastic consequence of preformed antibodies to the graft, the presence of
donor-specific antibodies (DSA) is also associated with adverse outcomes even after successful
engraftment [12]. Hyperacute rejection is likely
a rare entity at this time with use of pre-transplant immune compatibility testing including
the virtual crossmatch [13, 14]. However, there
are limitations to the virtual crossmatch and the
assessment of recipient serum, including the
prozone effect, so when appropriate, complete
assessment of recipient serum, including dilutional testing, should be considered. Though
time and resource-intensive, when needed, a
complement-dependent cytotoxic prospective crossmatch with donor cells (from spleen
or lymph nodes) and recipient serum can be
checked to assess for immunologic risk. Highly
sensitized patients, including patients who have
undertaken desensitization, are potential candidates for use of the prospective crossmatch
[15, 16]. Patients with hyperacute rejection may
need initiation of mechanical circulatory support
(MCS) and immunologic therapies that begin in
the operating room after HTx. IV inotropes and
vasopressor agents can be used to maintain cardiac contractility and left ventricular ejection
with blood flow across the aortic valve, as well
as maintain adequate mean arterial pressure.
Heparin can be used to aid in vascular flow and
prevent thrombotic complications in the heart
allograft [17, 18]. Potential immunologic therapies that can be used together include IV corticosteroids, IV calcineurin inhibitor (tacrolimus
preferred over cyclosporine) and IV antimetabolite agent (mycophenolate mofetil preferred over
azathioprine), plasmapheresis, IV cytolytic therapy, IV immunoglobulins (IVIG), Eculizumab
and Rituximab [19]. Of note, antibody therapies
should be timed after completion of a plasmapheresis session as plasmapheresis removes antibodies present in the HTx recipient’s serum.
Antibody-Mediated Rejection (AMR)
Denition
While the role of antibodies in mediating acute
myocardial injury has been appreciated since
the early days of cardiac transplantation when

242 D. H. Chang and Y. Manla
sub-optimal immunosuppressive regimens and
unidentified preformed circulating antibodies led to early post-operative graft failure from
hyperacute rejection, only in recent years has
there been an acknowledgment of the role of
humoral (antibody) responses in causing allograft rejection in the later phases post-transplantation [20].
It is now known that AMR develops when
recipient antibody is directed against donorHLA antigens on the donor heart endothelium.
The recipient antibody initiates fixation and
activation of the complement cascade, resulting in donor tissue injury. This complement
activation results in activation of the innate and
adaptive immune responses. Complement and
immunoglobulin are deposited within the allograft microvasculature, resulting in an inflammatory process characterized by endothelial cell
activation, macrophage infiltration, cytokine
upregulation, increased vascular permeability,
and microvascular thrombosis [21]. This process
ultimately manifests clinically as allograft dysfunction. In 2005, the ISHLT revised the 1990
working formulation for the standardization of
HTx rejection to officially recognize AMR as
a distinct rejection entity alongside ACR. The
new scale established immunohistologic criteria
for reporting AMR [2]. It was defined by histopathological changes consisting of capillary
endothelial changes, macrophage (in particular
CD68-expressing) and neutrophil infiltration,
interstitial edema, and linear accumulations of
immunoglobulins and complement, especially
complement component C4d (see Fig. 19.2).
Additional clinical and serological findings
of DSA support the diagnosis of AMR [5].
However, in subsequent years, the phenomenon
Fig. 19.2 Histologic findings of AMR are typified by
the presence of macrophages (CD68+) within capillaries with a relative paucity of lymphocytes (CD3+).
Additionally there is evidence of myocyte degeneration on hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stain and complement deposition (C4D+). a, b, h, e stain, c
= CD68
(macrophages), d = CD3 (T cells), e = CD34 (endothe-
lial cells), f
Surgeon, 9(3), Jignesh K. Patel, Michelle Kittleson, Jon
A. Kobashigawa, Cardiac allograft rejection, 160–167,
Copyright (2011), with permission from Elsevier
= C4d (Complement). Reprinted from The

19 Cardiac Allograft Rejection Treatment
Table 19.2 The 2013 ISHLT working formulation for pathology diagnosis of cardiac antibody-mediated rejection
Grade Definition Substrates
pAMR 0 Negative for pathologic AMR Histologic and immunopathologic studies are both
negative
pAMR 1 (H+) Histopathologic AMR alone Histologic findings are present and immunopathologic
findings are negative
pAMR 1 (I+) Immunopathologic AMR alone Histologic findings are negative and immunopathologic
findings are positive (CD68+ and/or C4d+)
pAMR 2 Pathologic AMR Histologic and immunopathologic findings are both
present
pAMR 3 Severe pathologic AMR Interstitial hemorrhage, capillary fragmentation, mixed
inflammatory infiltrates, endothelial cell pyknosis,
and/or karyorrhexis, and marked edema and immunopathologic findings are present. These cases may be
associated with profound hemodynamic dysfunction
and poor clinical outcomes
Abbreviations pAMR = pathology Antibody-Mediated Rejection, CD = Cluster of Differentiation. Reprinted from
The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, 32(12), Gerald J. Berry, Margaret M. Burke, Claus Andersen, Patrick
Bruneval, Marny Fedrigo, Michael C. Fishbein, Martin Goddard, Elizabeth H. Hammond, Ornella Leone, Charles
Marboe, Dylan Miller, Desley Neil, Doris Rassl, Monica P. Revelo, Alexandra Rice et al., The 2013 International
Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Working Formulation for the standardization of nomenclature in the
pathologic diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection in heart transplantation, 1147–1162, Copyright (2013), with permission from Elsevier
243
of asymptomatic AMR associated with worse
outcomes was raised [22–24], and the sensitivity and specificity of the immunohistologic
features and C4d staining were questioned
[25–30]. Furthermore, surveys revealed a variety of approaches to the biopsy specimen investigation and considerable discordance between
pathologists in the diagnosis of AMR, with opinion growing that AMR should be classified by
severity analogous to ACR [26, 30–32]. Thus,
in 2013, following expert discussions and consensus of expert opinion [33], further revisions
were made by the ISHLT to the diagnostic criteria for AMR in an attempt to further standardize
diagnosis and acknowledge that AMR evolves
along a worsening spectrum of pathologic
changes similar to ACR [3]. The new system
specifies that AMR is divided into 3 degrees of
severity (see Table 19.2) and is diagnosed from
a combined histologic and immunopathologic
review of the EMB. The histopathologic features of AMR include intravascular macrophage
accumulation within distended capillaries/venules, enlarged nuclei, and expanded cytoplasmic
projections within endothelial cells that may
narrow or even occlude the vessel lumen. For
more severe cases, there may be signs of hemorrhage, interstitial edema, myocyte degeneration
and necrosis, mixed inflammatory infiltrates,
and endothelial cell pyknosis/karyorrhexis. The
immunopathologic component of AMR comprises applying a panel for various antibodies
(including C4d, CD68, and anti-HLA-DR) using
immunohistochemistry from paraffin sections or
immunofluorescence from frozen graft sections.
Based on the combination of these findings, an
overall pAMR grade is assigned to the biopsy
(Table 19.2).
Risk Factors for AMR
Risk factors associated with the development of
AMR include elevated pre-transplant panel-reactive antibodies (PRAs), positive donor-specific
crossmatch, development of dnDSA post-transplant, multiparous female, CMV seropositivity,
prior implantation of ventricular assist device,
and/or retransplantation [5, 20, 34–38]. There
is no established therapeutic treatment regimen
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
