Why the study?
What is the incidence and clinical impact of newly detected donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies in the first year after pediatric heart transplantation?
What is the incidence and clinical impact of newly detected donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies in the first year after pediatric heart transplantation?
Newly detected donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies are common early after pediatric heart transplantation and are associated with increased acute cellular rejection, though not with 1-year graft or patient survival.
ndDSAs may flag higher early rejection risk without affecting 1-year survival; leaves open longer-term graft implications in pediatric heart recipients.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dipchand et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: