Добавил:
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
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
31 Мб
Скачать
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 [2830].

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)

Denition
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)

Denition
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 [2224], and the sensi­tivity and specificity of the immunohistologic features and C4d staining were questioned [2530]. 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, 3032]. 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, 3438]. There is no established therapeutic treatment regimen