Value of the First Post-Transplant Biopsy for Predicting Long-Term Cardiac Allograft Vasculopathy (CAV) and Graft Failure in Heart Transplant Patients

BACKGROUND: Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is the principal cause of long-term graft failure following heart transplantation. Early identification of patients at risk of CAV is essential to target invasive follow-up procedures more effectively and to establish appropriate therapies. We evaluated the prognostic value of the first heart biopsy (median: 9 days post-transplant) versus all biopsies obtained within the first three months for the prediction of CAV and graft failure due to CAV. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In a prospective cohort study, we developed multivariate regression models evaluating markers of atherothrombosis (fibrin, antithrombin and tissue plasminogen activator [tPA]) and endothelial activation (intercellular adhesion molecule-1) in serial biopsies obtained during the first three months post-transplantation from 172 patients (median follow-up = 6.3 years; min = 0.37 years, max = 16.3 years). Presence of fibrin was the dominant predictor in first-biopsy models (Odds Ratio [OR] for one- and 10-year graft failure due to CAV = 38.70, p = 0.002, 95% CI = 4.00-374.77; and 3.99, p = 0.005, 95% CI = 1.53-10.40) and loss of tPA was predominant in three-month models (OR for one- and 10-year graft failure due to CAV = 1.81, p = 0.025, 95% CI = 1.08-3.03; and 1.31, p = 0.001, 95% CI = 1.12-1.55). First-biopsy and three-month models had similar predictive and discriminative accuracy and were comparable in their capacities to correctly classify patient outcomes, with the exception of 10-year graft failure due to CAV in which the three-month model was more predictive. Both models had particularly high negative predictive values (e.g., First-biopsy vs. three-month models: 99% vs. 100% at 1-year and 96% vs. 95% at 10-years). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with absence of fibrin in the first biopsy and persistence of normal tPA in subsequent biopsies rarely develop CAV or graft failure during the next 10 years and potentially could be monitored less invasively. Presence of early risk markers in the transplanted heart may be secondary to ischemia/reperfusion injury, a potentially modifiable factor

Report from a consensus conference on antibody-mediated rejection in heart transplantation.

Background: The problem of AMR remains unsolved because standardized schemes for diagnosis and treatment remains contentious. Therefore, a consensus conference was organized to discuss the current status of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) in heart transplantation. Methods: The conference included 83 participants (transplant cardiologists, surgeons, immunologists and pathologists) representing 67 heart transplant centers from North America, Europe, and Asia who all participated in smaller break-out sessions to discuss the various topics of AMR and attempt to achieve consensus. Results: A tentative pathology diagnosis of AMR was established, however, the pathologist felt that further discussion was needed prior to a formal recommendation for AMR diagnosis. One of the most important outcomes of this conference was that a clinical definition for AMR (cardiac dysfunction and/or circulating donor-specific antibody) was no longer believed to be required due to recent publications demonstrating that asymptomatic (no cardiac dysfunction) biopsy-proven AMR is associated with subsequent greater mortality and greater development of cardiac allograft vasculopathy. It was also noted that donor-specific antibody is not always detected during AMR episodes as the antibody may be adhered to the donor heart. Finally, recommendations were made for the timing for specific staining of endomyocardial biopsy specimens and the frequency by which circulating antibodies should be assessed. Recommendations for management and future clinical trials were also provided. Conclusions: The AMR Consensus Conference brought together clinicians, pathologists and immunologists to further the understanding of AMR. Progress was made toward a pathology AMR grading scale and consensus was accomplished regarding several clinical issues