The Heart transplant rejection pathology
English
Abstract
Background/Aim. Heart transplantation is the most effective way to treat patients in the terminal stage of heart failure. Endomyocardial biopsy has proven to be a safe and appropriate technique, with little sampling error, and remains, to this day, one of the most commonly used methods for diagnosing acute rejection. In 1990, the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation defined a standardized system for grading the severity of acute transplant rejection regarding endomyocardial sampling histopathological analysis. The aim of the study was to assess the morphological, immunohistochemical, and immunofluorescent markers of cell- and antibody-mediated rejection of heart transplants in patients monitored during 2020. Methods. From 31 patients transplanted at the Clinic for Cardiac Surgery of the University Clinical Center of Serbia, endomyocardial biopsy material was obtained, then processed and analyzed at the Institute of Pathology of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade. Results. The average Transplant Rejection Score (TRS) value was 0.42. The Spearman's correlation test did not show a statistically significant relationship between the TRS value and the difference between the ejection fraction values three and twelve months after transplantation. Conclusion. The mean TRS value obtained in this study suggests dominant cell-mediated graft rejection.
References
1. Iyer A, Kumarasinghe G, Hicks M, Watson A, Gao L, Doyle A, et al. Primary graft failure after heart transplantation. J Transplant 2011; 2011: 175768.
2. Vartdal F, Thorsby E, Berry CL. Transplantation Pathology: A Guide for Practicing Pathologist. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag Berlin; 2011.
3. Ludhwani D, Abraham J, Kanmanthareddy A. Heart Transplantation Rejection. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2021. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537057/4. [Updated 2021 Mar 12].
4. Labarrere A C, Jaeger RB. Biomarkers of heart transplant rejection: the good, the bad and the ugly! Trans Res 2012; 159(4): 238‒51.
5. Dooley AE, Tong L, Deshpande SR, Wang MD. Prediction of Heart Transplant Rejection Using Histopathological Whole-Slide Imaging. IEEE EMBS Int Conf Biomed Health Inform 2018; 2018: 10.1109/bhi.2018.8333416.
6. Leone O, Angelini A, Bruneval P, Potena L. The Pathology of Cardiac Transplantation. Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2016.
7. Pomerance A, Stovin PG. Heart transplant pathology: the British experience. J Clin Pathol 1985; 38(2): 146‒59.
8. Hammond MEH, Revelo MP, Miller DV, Snow GL, Budge D, Stehlik J, et al. ISHLT pathology antibody mediated rejection score correlates with increased risk of cardiovascular mortality: A retrospective validation analysis. J Heart Lung Transplant 2016; 35(3): 320‒5.
9. Hammond EH, Hansen JK, Spencer LS, Jensen A, Riddell D, Craven CM, et al. Vascular rejection in cardiac transplantation: Histologic, immunopathologic, and ultrastructural features. Cardiovasc Pathol 1993; 2(1): 21‒34.
10. Hammond EH, Yowell RL, Price GD, Menlove RL, Olsen SL, O'Connell JB, et al. Vascular rejection and its relationship to allograft coronary artery disease. J Heart Lung Transplant 1992; 11(3 Pt 2): S111‒9.
11. Holweg CT, Potena L, Luikart H, Yu T, Berry GJ, Cooke JP, et al. Identification and classification of acute cardiac rejection by intragraft transcriptional profiling. Circulation 2011; 123(20): 2236‒43.
12. Deng MC. Cardiac transplantation. Heart 2002; 87(2): 177‒84.
13. Alraies MC, Eckman P. Adult heart transplant: indications and outcomes. J Thorac Dis 2014; 6(8): 1120‒8.
14. Holman WL, Pae WE, Teutenberg JJ, Acker MA, Naftel DC, Sun BC, Milano CA, Kirklin JK. INTERMACS: interval analysis of registry data. J Am Coll Surg 2009; 208(5): 755‒61; discussion 761‒2.
15. Stevenson LW, Pagani FD, Young JB, Jessup M, Miller L, Kormos RL, et al. INTERMACS profiles of advanced heart failure: the current picture. J Heart Lung Transplant 2009; 28(6): 535‒41.