Retransplantation following AHG-negative crossmatches

  • Ronald H. Kerman
  • Brian M. Susskind
  • Joel Slaton
  • Richard M. Lewis
  • Abbas Heydari
  • Jim Ruth
  • Jackie Williams
  • Charles T. Van Buren
  • Stephen M. Katz
  • Barry D. Kahan
Part of the Transplantation and Clinical Immunology book series (TRAC, volume 29)


Retransplant patients are an immunologically unique group since they have already experienced graft loss and have been exposed to a bolus of alloantigen. Having previously lost a transplant, these patients are often sensitized and have poorer early graft function resulting in patient management problems [1, 2]. Survival rates for cadaveric retransplantations have been consistently lower than those for primary grafts [3, 4, 5, 6]. Some of the risk factors associated. with poor retransplantation outcome include patient high PRA, recipient-donor HLA mismatches, positive flow cytometry crossmatches and, perhaps the most important, previous graft survival time less than 3–6 months [3, 4, [7, 8, 9]. Since the introduction of cyclosporine based immunosuppressive protocols in 1983, the one year regraft survival rate of second cadaver donor renal allografts has remained relatively constant, whereas that of first transplants has significantly improved [9]. However, since 1988 survival rates for retransplant cadaver-donor grafts have improved each year with the difference between first and second transplant one year survival rates decreasing from 8% in 1988 to 2% in 1991 [10]. These recent improvements may reflect the impact of more efficacious immunosuppression and more sensitive and informative crossmatching [6, 11]. However, data from the UNOS Registry suggests that a decreasing number of high-risk patients, especially reTx patients with short previous graft survival times, have been retransplanted in recent years and that selection of more low-risk reTx candidates may be an important contributing factor in explaining improved regraft survivals [8].


Graft Survival Improve Graft Survival Inverted Phase Microscope Patient Management Problem Negative Crossmatch 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Cecka JM, Cho L. Sensitization. In: Terasaki PI (ed.), Clinical Transplants 1988. Los Angeles, UCLA Tissue Typing Laboratory, 1989; 365–373.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Braun WE. Laboratory and clinical management of the highly sensitized organ transplant recipient. Hum. Immunol. 1989; 26: 245–260.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Perdue ST. Risk factors for second transplants. In: Terasaki PI (ed.), Clinical Transplants 1985. Los Angeles, UCLA Tissue Typing Laboratory, 1985; 191–203.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Almond PS, Matas AJ, Gillingham K et al. Risk factors for second renal allografts. Transplantation 1991; 52: 253–258.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kerman RH, Van Buren CT, Lewis RM et al. Improved graft survival for flow cytometry and anti-human globulin crossmatch negative retransplant recipients. Transplantation 1990; 49: 52–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kerman RH, Kimball PM, Van Buren CT et al. AHG and DTE/AHG procedure identification of crossmatch-appropriate donor-recipient pairings that result in improved graft survival. Transplantation 1991; 51: 316–320.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cabacungan C. Regrafts. In: Terasaki PI, Cecka JM (eds.), Clinical Transplants 1992, Los Angeles, UCLA Tissue Typing Laboratory, 1993, 347–356.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cho YW, Cecka JM. Cadaver-donor renal retransplants. In: Terasaki PI, Cecka JM (eds.), Clinical Transplants 1993, Los Angeles, UCLA Tissue Typing Laboratory, 1994, 469–484.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ogura K, Cecka JM. Cadaver retransplants. In: Terasaki PI (ed.), Clinical Transplants 1990. Los Angeles, UCLA Tissue typing Laboratory, 1991, 471–483.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mitsuishi Y, Cecka JM. Cadaver retransplants. In: Terasaki PI, Cecka JM. (eds.), Clinical Transplants 1991. Los Angeles, UCLA Tissue Typing Laboratory, 1992, 281–291.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cook DJ, Terasaki PI, Terashita GY et al. An approach to reducing early transplant failure by flow cytometry crossmatching. Clin. Transplant. 1987; 1: 253–256.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kahan BD, Van Buren CT, Lin SN et al. Immunopharmacological monitoring of CsA-treated kidney recipients. Transplantation 1982; 34: 36–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kahan BD, Grevel J. Overview-optimization of cyclosporine therapy in renal transplantation by a pharmacokinetic strategy. Transplantation 1988; 46: 631–644.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kahan BD, Welsh M, Rutzky L et al. The ability of pretransplant test dose pharmacokinetics to reduce early adverse events after renal transplantation. Transplantation 1992; 53: 345–351.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Terasaki PI, Bernoco D, Park MS et al. Microdroplet testing for HLA A, B, C and D antigens. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 1978; 69: 103–120.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Johnson AH, Rossen RD, Butler WT. Detection of alloantibodies using a sensitive antiglobulin microcytotoxicity test: identification of low levels of preformed antibodies in accelerated allo-graft rejection. Tissue Antigens 1972; 2: 215–226.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Barger BO, Shroyer SL, Hudson MH et al. Successful renal allografts in recipients with a positive standard, DTE negative crossmatch. Transplant. Proc. 1989; 21: 746–747.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Garovoy MR, Rheinschmidt MA, Bigos M et al. Flow cytometry analysis: a high technology crossmatch technique facilitating transplantation. Transplant. Proc. 1983; 15: 1939–1944.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Garovoy MR. Flow cytometry crossmatch testing in renal transplantation. Transplant. Immunol. Lett. 1985; 5: 1–4.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Merrele N, Schulman LE. Determination or prognosis in chronic disease. J. Chronic Dis. 1955; 1: 12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mann H, Whitney D. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann. Math. Statis. 1947; 18: 50–59.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scornik JC, Brunson ME, Schaub B et al. The crossmatch in renal transplantation: Evaluation of flow cytometry as a replacement for standard cytotoxicity. Transplantation 1994; 57: 621–625.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ogura K, Terasaki PI, Johnson C et al. The significance of a positive flow cytometry crossmatch test in primary kidney transplantation. Transplantation 1993; 56: 294–298.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald H. Kerman
  • Brian M. Susskind
  • Joel Slaton
  • Richard M. Lewis
  • Abbas Heydari
  • Jim Ruth
  • Jackie Williams
  • Charles T. Van Buren
  • Stephen M. Katz
  • Barry D. Kahan

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations