Hammond E H, Yowell R L, Nunoda S, Menlove R L, Renlund D G, Bristow M R, Gay W A, Jones K W, O'Connell J B
Department of Pathology, University of Utah College of Medicine, Salt Lake City.
J Heart Transplant. 1989 Nov-Dec;8(6):430-43.
We prospectively studied 551 sequential endomyocardial biopsies from 36 consecutive cardiac allografts. With the use of a combination of light microscopy (including careful evaluation of vascular changes) and immunofluorescence to detect the deposition of immunoglobulin and complement, we identified three patterns of allograft rejection, designated as cellular rejection, vascular (humoral) rejection, and mixed rejection. Cellular rejection was diagnosed with modified Billingham criteria. Vascular rejection was diagnosed by finding the combination of prominent endothelial cell swelling and/or vasculitis on light microscopy and the vascular deposition of immunoglobulin and complement by immunofluorescence. In such patients, cellular lymphoid infiltrates were uniformly absent at the time the vascular changes were detected. Mixed rejection consisted of findings of both cellular and vascular rejection occurring simultaneously. Twenty of 36 allografts exhibited cellular rejection; seven allografts showed vascular rejection, and nine allografts developed mixed rejection. The vascular (humoral) pattern of rejection was important to identify because the patients with this type of rejection had a significantly decreased survival compared with that of patients with cellular rejection (p less than 0.05). Survival in the mixed rejection category was intermediate. Positive donor-specific cross-match and/or panel-reactive antibody greater than or equal to 5% and systolic dysfunction were seen in three of the seven allografts with vascular (humoral) rejection but not in the other types. In the early period after transplant (up to 3 weeks after transplant), the only reliable identifying characteristics of patients with vascular (humoral) rejection were the presence of vascular immunoglobulin and complement assessed by immunofluorescence and endothelial cell swelling and interstitial edema as confirmed by histologic examination. We conclude that immunofluorescence should be routinely done on all heart biopsies for the first month after transplantation. Patients with vascular (humoral) rejection cannot be reliably identified by any other means.
我们前瞻性地研究了来自36例连续心脏移植受者的551份序贯性心内膜心肌活检标本。通过结合光学显微镜检查(包括仔细评估血管变化)和免疫荧光检测免疫球蛋白和补体的沉积,我们识别出三种移植排斥模式,分别称为细胞性排斥、血管性(体液性)排斥和混合性排斥。细胞性排斥根据改良的比林厄姆标准进行诊断。血管性排斥通过光学显微镜下发现显著的内皮细胞肿胀和/或血管炎,以及免疫荧光检测到免疫球蛋白和补体在血管中的沉积来诊断。在这类患者中,检测到血管变化时均未出现细胞性淋巴细胞浸润。混合性排斥表现为细胞性排斥和血管性排斥的发现同时出现。36例移植受者中有20例表现为细胞性排斥;7例移植受者出现血管性排斥,9例移植受者发生混合性排斥。识别血管性(体液性)排斥模式很重要,因为与细胞性排斥患者相比,这种类型排斥的患者生存率显著降低(p<0.05)。混合性排斥组的生存率处于中间水平。在7例发生血管性(体液性)排斥的移植受者中有3例出现供者特异性交叉配型阳性和/或群体反应性抗体≥5%以及收缩功能障碍,但其他类型的移植受者未出现。在移植后的早期(移植后3周内),血管性(体液性)排斥患者唯一可靠的识别特征是通过免疫荧光评估的血管免疫球蛋白和补体的存在,以及组织学检查证实的内皮细胞肿胀和间质水肿。我们得出结论,在移植后的第一个月,所有心脏活检均应常规进行免疫荧光检查。通过任何其他方法都无法可靠地识别血管性(体液性)排斥患者。