HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Suvarna, S K
Right arrow Articles by Locke, T J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Suvarna, S K
Right arrow Articles by Locke, T J

Heart 1998;79:432-436 ( May )

Revision of the 1990 working formulation for cardiac allograft rejection: the Sheffield experience

S K Suvarna,a A Kennedy,a F Ciulli,b T J Lockeb

a Department of Histopathology, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield S5 7AU, UK, b Department of Cardiac and Lung Transplantation, Northern General Hospital

Correspondence to: Dr Suvarna.

Accepted for publication 28 January 1998

Objective---To audit the 1990 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation cardiac rejection criteria and to evaluate the impact on classification and clinical outcomes of a modification in which grade 2 is abolished and grades 1A and 1B are amalgamated into a single "grade 1."
Methods---1652 heart biopsies were reviewed over a four year period. The initial 1348 biopsies (group 1), using the original 1990 criteria, were analysed in terms of diagnostic grade and compared with the 304 biopsies analysed with the modified scheme (group 2). Differences in grading with the 1990 scheme were compared between two groups (1.1 and 1.2) reflecting early and late experience with grading. Subsequently all the grade 2 and grade 1B biopsies were rescored in terms of the modified scheme. Clinical results in terms of actuarial patient survival at one year and freedom from 3A rejection were similarly audited.
Results---The relative ratios of potentially significant rejection (grade 3A, 3B, 4) remained constant over the entire study in groups 1.1, 1.2, and 2. A 50% reduction in grade 2 biopsy reporting was noted comparing early and late parts of group 1. At subsequent review of the group 1 grade 2 biopsies, 97% could be reassigned to grades 0 or 1 in the modified scheme, with the majority of these diagnoses reflecting Quilty effect/biopsy site reactions. Two cases (3%) of the 77 grade 2 biopsies were regraded as grade 3A rejection, with both occurring within three months of transplantation. None of the grade 1B biopsies had high grade cardiac rejection on review, most of these biopsies similarly showing pronounced Quilty effect and biopsy site reactions. Actuarial survival at one year rose from 86% to 90% during the study, with freedom from 3A rejection remaining unchanged at 80%.
Conclusions---The original working formulation produces consistent grading except at grade 2, which is judged to be a misnomer resulting from Quilty effect and other non-rejection phenomena. While acceptable standardisation can be achieved with the 1990 scheme, the modified scheme has advantages in that it appears to encourage clear discrimination between significant and non-significant cardiac rejection. Overall, elimination of grade 2 did not produce an increase in higher grades of cardiac rejection, and thus the value of this diagnostic grade is questioned.

Keywords: myocardium;  transplant rejection;  transplantation


© 1998 by Heart



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
HeartHome page
N R B CARY
Grading of cardiac transplant rejection
Heart, May 1, 1998; 79(5): 423 - 424.
[Full Text]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 1998 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & British Cardiovascular Society