FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2022155220> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2022155220 endingPage "357" @default.
• W2022155220 startingPage "356" @default.
• W2022155220 abstract "Clinical experiences with ABO blood group-incompatible hepatic grafts have shown that, unlike kidney and heart grafts, the liver is more resistant to antibody-mediated hyperacute rejection although cases of hyperacute rejections have been reported. Nevertheless, liver transplantation across the ABO blood barrier has been associated with a significantly higher rate of graft failure and patient mortality.1 Especially in large series, the decreased survival figures in ABO-incompatible liver transplantation became evident. This survival disadvantage was not only due to emergency conditions, but also due to immunological damage such as hyperacute rejections, vascular complications, and biliary injury. To improve graft survival among ABO-incompatible grafts, several approaches including quadruple immunosuppression, pre- and posttransplantation plasmapheresis, and splenectomy were tested.2 However, the long-term risk of postsplenectomy sepsis, especially in immunosuppressed patients, makes the routine splenectomy undesirable. Furthermore, the efficacy of plasmapheresis in preventing humoral-mediated rejection remains questionable, since it has been reported that a decline of up to 44% in isoagglutinin titers might lead to infectious disorders, bleeding diathesis, and viral transmission. After the clinical introduction of monoclonal anti-CD 20 antibody, the optimal management of ABO-incompatible transplantation does however still require further investigation. Another major problem of ABO-incompatible liver transplantation is the lack of markers and predictors for occurrence of humoral rejection. The published literature confirmed inferior survival figures and increased biliary complications after crossing the blood group in liver transplantation, but the exact mechanism for these detrimental effects remained unclear.1 C4d, the activated component of C4, a central factor of the classical complement pathway, has been established as an indispensable marker tool for acute humoral as well as chronic rejection in kidney transplant patients.3, 4 Since C4d was first described by Feucht et al.,5, 6 it has proven to be a reliable indicator of rejection mechanisms present in the transplanted kidney tissue. After activation of the complement component C4, its degradation product C4d covalently binds to protein and carbon structures directly at the point where it is expressed, enabling us to detect it in tissue biopsies. In kidney transplantation with de novo donor specific antibodies, C4d is expressed in 95% and humoral rejection accounts for as much as 25% of all rejection episodes. The study of Haga et al. in this issue of Liver Transplantation focuses on the predictive value of C4d expression on outcome in ABO-incompatible living related liver transplantation. Altogether, 82 patients received a liver graft across the blood group barrier and 34 of these patients, who were included in this retrospective analysis, received a liver biopsy within 3 weeks after transplantation. The treatment protocol of the 34 enrolled patients included intraarterial prostaglandin E1 infusion, splenectomy or rituximab treatment and perioperative plasmapheresis. Strong portal stroma C4d expression during the postoperative course was defined as a C4d-positive case, which was associated with increased anti-donor antibody titer, number of postoperative plasmaphereses and impaired outcome. This suggests strong humoral acute rejection during the setting of ABO-incompatible transplants and stands in contrast to other publications, showing that the liver is resistant to antibody-mediated damage.7 The data were underlined by a significantly increased number of patients developing hepatic necrosis, demonstrated by computed tomography (4/17 vs. 0/17 patients). Recent studies on this issue showed increasing numbers of bile duct lesions after blood group incompatible liver transplantations, which were not shown in this analysis and cannot be explained by portal stroma C4d expression, especially since another 8 of 17 patients with intermediate endothelial expression of C4d had an uneventful postoperative course. Despite these open questions, the presence of portal stroma C4d expression may be an excellent marker for postoperative humoral rejection and the need of plasmapheresis in ABO-incompatible transplants. However, repeated liver biopsies in patients with initially strong C4d expression remained positive without clinical signs of ongoing rejection for more than 1 yr after transplantation. This data limits positive C4d staining as a control marker for effective treatment, and indicates that C4d is not unique for humoral rejection and may also be present in other complications such as cholangitis and even without altered liver function. Interestingly C4d staining was also observed in patients with acute rejection in blood group-identical liver transplants, which underlines antibody involvement in acute liver allograft rejection.8 In conclusion, we agree with the authors that positive C4d staining may serve as an additional marker in adjusting treatment strategies in liver transplantations across the blood group barrier. However, the specificity of C4d must be further evaluated and additional studies are needed to clarify the influence of C4d positivity in blood group matched grafts." @default.
• W2022155220 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2022155220 creator A5015485728 @default.
• W2022155220 creator A5069151214 @default.
• W2022155220 date "2006-01-01" @default.
• W2022155220 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2022155220 title "C4d immunostaining in acute humoral rejection after ABO blood group-incompatible liver transplantation" @default.
• W2022155220 cites W1985526975 @default.
• W2022155220 cites W2016662882 @default.
• W2022155220 cites W2040532261 @default.
• W2022155220 cites W2053465471 @default.
• W2022155220 cites W2083270544 @default.
• W2022155220 cites W2090404552 @default.
• W2022155220 cites W2125297646 @default.
• W2022155220 cites W4252540563 @default.
• W2022155220 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.20658" @default.
• W2022155220 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16498659" @default.
• W2022155220 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W2022155220 type Work @default.
• W2022155220 sameAs 2022155220 @default.
• W2022155220 citedByCount "11" @default.
• W2022155220 countsByYear W20221552202012 @default.
• W2022155220 countsByYear W20221552202013 @default.
• W2022155220 countsByYear W20221552202020 @default.
• W2022155220 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2022155220 hasAuthorship W2022155220A5015485728 @default.
• W2022155220 hasAuthorship W2022155220A5069151214 @default.
• W2022155220 hasBestOaLocation W20221552201 @default.
• W2022155220 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2022155220 hasConcept C159654299 @default.
• W2022155220 hasConcept C176080213 @default.
• W2022155220 hasConcept C203014093 @default.
• W2022155220 hasConcept C2776309230 @default.
• W2022155220 hasConcept C2778842783 @default.
• W2022155220 hasConcept C2779609443 @default.
• W2022155220 hasConcept C2780252810 @default.
• W2022155220 hasConcept C2780931953 @default.
• W2022155220 hasConcept C2911091166 @default.
• W2022155220 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2022155220 hasConcept C90924648 @default.
• W2022155220 hasConceptScore W2022155220C126322002 @default.
• W2022155220 hasConceptScore W2022155220C159654299 @default.
• W2022155220 hasConceptScore W2022155220C176080213 @default.
• W2022155220 hasConceptScore W2022155220C203014093 @default.
• W2022155220 hasConceptScore W2022155220C2776309230 @default.
• W2022155220 hasConceptScore W2022155220C2778842783 @default.
• W2022155220 hasConceptScore W2022155220C2779609443 @default.
• W2022155220 hasConceptScore W2022155220C2780252810 @default.
• W2022155220 hasConceptScore W2022155220C2780931953 @default.
• W2022155220 hasConceptScore W2022155220C2911091166 @default.
• W2022155220 hasConceptScore W2022155220C71924100 @default.
• W2022155220 hasConceptScore W2022155220C90924648 @default.
• W2022155220 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2022155220 hasLocation W20221552201 @default.
• W2022155220 hasLocation W20221552202 @default.
• W2022155220 hasOpenAccess W2022155220 @default.
• W2022155220 hasPrimaryLocation W20221552201 @default.
• W2022155220 hasRelatedWork W2012677482 @default.
• W2022155220 hasRelatedWork W2022112797 @default.
• W2022155220 hasRelatedWork W2040006709 @default.
• W2022155220 hasRelatedWork W2047803078 @default.
• W2022155220 hasRelatedWork W2061867682 @default.
• W2022155220 hasRelatedWork W2083270544 @default.
• W2022155220 hasRelatedWork W2271721100 @default.
• W2022155220 hasRelatedWork W2406068682 @default.
• W2022155220 hasRelatedWork W2803911466 @default.
• W2022155220 hasRelatedWork W4255393459 @default.
• W2022155220 hasVolume "12" @default.
• W2022155220 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2022155220 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2022155220 magId "2022155220" @default.
• W2022155220 workType "article" @default.