ライフサイエンスコーパス: crossmatch

1 a negative complement-dependent cytotoxicity crossmatch.

2 or specificity for antibody identified by FC crossmatch.

3 had a positive donor-specific retrospective crossmatch.

4 ength assignment, and the use of pronase for crossmatch.

5 m 598 kidney recipients with negative T-cell crossmatch.

6 ients were transplanted with a positive flow crossmatch.

7 donor organs without actually performing the crossmatch.

8 nsplant kidney donor specific flow cytometry crossmatch.

9 n and increase the likelihood for a negative crossmatch.

10 nts were performed with a negative "current" crossmatch.

11 ssmatch and six because of a positive B cell crossmatch.

12 fficient to cause a positive flow cytometric crossmatch.

13 itive reactions in the B-cell flow cytometry crossmatch.

14 or retrospective rather than a pretransplant crossmatch.

15 egative anti-human globulin (AHG) T-cell IgG crossmatch.

16 (1990 to 1997) using only the AHG T-cell IgG crossmatch.

17 donor when using allocation based on virtual crossmatch.

18 P<0.02) but no increased risk of a positive crossmatch.

19 ositive virtual crossmatch and negative flow crossmatch.

20 All patients had a negative crossmatch.

21 inal/MV transplants, 27 (21%) had a positive crossmatch.

22 ceeded to transplantation with an acceptable crossmatch.

23 had negative complement-dependent cytotoxic crossmatch.

24 irtual crossmatch had negative retrospective crossmatches.

25 ed to patients with positive flow cytometric crossmatches.

26 e predominantly providing negative sensitive crossmatches.

27 ecipient's sensitization, and postallocation crossmatches.

28 le, and offers some advantages over platelet crossmatching.

29 ody specificity and 10 underwent prospective crossmatching.

30 by leukoagglutination or lymphocytotoxicity crossmatching.

31 tive antibody (PRA) > or = 40%; negative ROP crossmatch; (2) 0 B,DR MM with > or = 40% PRA; negative

32 Five had positive flow crossmatches (222-266 MCS) with mean DSA of 118,063 SFI.

33 0 B,DR MM with > or = 40% PRA; negative ROP crossmatch; (3) 0 B,DR MM with PRA < 40%.

34 Five had positive flow crossmatches (78-192 MCS) with mean DSA of 55,869 SFI.

35 of positive T cell (86.1%-93.5%) and B-cell crossmatches (91%-97.8%).

36 desensitization of recipients with positive crossmatch against a potential living donor.

37 Before IA, 12 patients had a positive crossmatch against donor cells either by cytotoxic or fl

38 litating transplantation with a negative CDC crossmatch against historically strong, C1q binding anti

39 T-cell or positive B-cell lymphocytotoxicity crossmatch against their donors.

40 No patient developed a negative crossmatch against their original intended donor, and th

41 complement dependent cytotoxicity (AHG-CDC) crossmatches against their donors.

42 ) against T-cell targets and flow cytometric crossmatching against donor T lymphocytes.

43 ndent cytotoxicity (CDC) crossmatch with CDC crossmatch alone, and determined the optimal threshold t

44 a negative or weakly positive flow-cytometry crossmatch and 86.7% (13/15) with zero or only low-titer

45 Sensitized patients with positive FC crossmatch and donor-specific antibody identified by sol

46 of AMR in sensitized patients with positive crossmatch and elevated DSA.

47 protocol was predictive of a negative-final crossmatch and eliminated the use of preliminary cross-m

48 transplant recipients with positive virtual crossmatch and negative flow crossmatch.

49 d renal transplant recipients (negative flow crossmatch and positive donor-specific antibodies) treat

50 ly two occurred because of a positive T cell crossmatch and six because of a positive B cell crossmat

51 ivity was assessed by direct flow cytometric crossmatch and studied following elution from pig cells.

52 be likely to give a positive flow cytometry crossmatch and therefore according to local procedures r

53 y increase the availability and selection of crossmatched and HLA-matched platelets.

54 lants were done with negative flow cytometry crossmatches and five were done with desensitization com

55 would be expected to display negative donor crossmatches and who could be transplanted with a concur

56 Tissue typing, crossmatching and transportation of living donors or the

57 proven AMR, hemodynamic compromise, positive crossmatch, and high titer class I DSA.

58 xicity crossmatches, positive flow cytometry crossmatches, and/or the presence of high levels of dono

59 ual crossmatch, those undergoing prospective crossmatching, and those without HLA-specific antibodies

60 r-recipient pair) on the basis of a positive crossmatch; and (3) an indirect exchange on the basis of

61 ) that predicts the likelihood of a positive crossmatch as a function of a transplant candidate's una

62 s of variability in both the solid phase and crossmatch assay are discussed as are recent data regard

63 The crossmatch assay identified a common IgG response that w

64 We developed a crossmatch assay to assess serum reactivity to human mic

65 T2 genes were examined using flow cytometric crossmatch assay.

66 complexity of the data from solid phase and crossmatch assays has led to potential confusion about h

67 A > or = 11% despite negative donor-specific crossmatch at the time of transplant appear to have earl

68 and continued to have a weakly positive flow crossmatch at the time of transplantation.

69 Prediction of negative crossmatches based on different combination of panel rea

70 nt-mediated cytotoxicity anti-human globulin crossmatch became negative.

71 i.e. those with a baseline B flow cytometric crossmatch (BFXM) >450 against a potential living donor.

72 cytometry is a powerful technique for T-cell crossmatching but is prone to false-positive reactions w

73 lantation, no patient had a positive AHG-CDC crossmatch, but again the majority had persistent low le

74 , predictive values for the CDC T and B cell crossmatches by Luminex serum analysis were only 77% and

75 Virtual crossmatch can be used to screen for donor-directed anti

76 Using this virtual crossmatch strategy, crossmatching can be safely omitted prior to lung transp

77 ty negative and flow cytometry (FC) positive crossmatch carry increased risk of antibody-mediated rej

78 a positive complement-dependent cytotoxicity crossmatch (CDC XM) before desensitization.

79 with negative complement-dependent cytotoxic crossmatch (CDC-XM) and donor cell-based flow cytometric

80 derwent complement-dependent lymphocytotoxic crossmatch (CDC-XM) with pre- and posttransplant solid p

81 Positive crossmatch (CM) in liver transplantation (LT) is associa

82 All patients had a positive CDC crossmatch (CMX) with their donors.

83 eactive antibodies, donor specific antibody, crossmatches (CMXs), patient and graft survival, acute r

84 serum had 0% panel reactive antibody and was crossmatch compatible with the first allograft.

85 reduced to the goal of a negative lymphocyte crossmatch, corresponding to a 1:16 titer, despite a sig

86 t that the timing of the pretransplant serum crossmatch could be altered for a highly selected group

87 before transplantation because of a positive crossmatch (cytotoxic and flow cytometric) and continued

88 uld allow a more "immunologic" evaluation of crossmatch data, facilitate the use of virtual crossmatc

89 in, we describe a unique donor-specific flow crossmatch (DSA-FXM) that distinguishes HLA class I or I

90 tive analysis performed using a dedicated EC crossmatch (ECXM) assay that we developed for the experi

91 AECA was evaluated using an endothelial cell crossmatch (ECXM) in patients whose HLA antibody level w

92 A retrospective endothelial cell crossmatch (ECXM) was positive with serum drawn 3 days p

93 Flow cytomeric crossmatch (FCXM) has grown in popularity and has become

94 e concordance between SAB and flow cytometry crossmatch (FCXM) results, thus enabling improved organ

95 In this study the flow cytometry crossmatch (FCXM) was performed in 319 cases, using the

96 who were DSA-SPA-positive and flow cytometry crossmatch (FCXM)-positive had a higher incidence of bot

97 human antibody binding using flow cytometric crossmatch (FCXM).

98 he implication of a positive flow cytometric crossmatch (FCXM+) in liver transplantation remains cont

99 Flow cytometry crossmatching (FCXM) is a more sensitive XM procedure th

100 Three-color flow cytometry crossmatching (FCXM) was used to assess donor-specific h

101 HLA antibody, donor-specific flow cytometry crossmatching (FCXM), T-cell subset, and suppressor cell

102 CDC-XM) and donor cell-based flow cytometric crossmatch (flow-XM) but low level DSA (i.e., by Luminex

103 nt dependent cytotoxicity (CDC) and 200 flow crossmatches (FLXM) were performed using sera from these

104 F units required for a positive T and B flow crossmatches (FLXM).

105 for Organ Sharing have mandated prospective crossmatching for selected solid organ transplants.

106 Elimination of prospective crossmatching for sensitized patients was associated wit

107 cytomegalovirus) and immunologic variables (crossmatch, frequent early acute rejection) did not corr

108 e on the day of transplantation by both flow crossmatch (FXM 8/12) and SAFBs (10/11).

109 autoreactive and alloreactive flow cytometry crossmatches (FXM) using traditional FXM and our DSA-FXM

110 Flow cytometric crossmatching (FXM) is a standard method to assess recip

111 All 16 patients undergoing a virtual crossmatch had negative retrospective crossmatches.

112 nally, a positive B-cell IgG flow cytometric crossmatch had no influence on long-term regraft outcome

113 clinical significance of the flow cytometry crossmatch has been addressed in several retrospective s

114 Virtual crossmatch helps minimize CIT without increasing rejecti

115 and time required to perform HLA typing and crossmatching, however, have led us to re-examine the Un

116 om 129 patients transplanted with a positive crossmatch human leukocyte antigen-incompatible kidney b

117 e absence of autoantibodies, an incompatible crossmatch in a sensitized patient is attributed to mism

118 donor-specific antibodies (DSA) and positive crossmatch in cardiac transplant recipients is associate

119 A pretransplant positive crossmatch in combined liver kidney transplants (CLK) is

120 eads should be useful in predicting negative crossmatch in highly sensitized organ recipients and hig

121 procurement (ROP) trays can predict negative crossmatch in highly sensitized patients when the HLA ma

122 A positive flow cytometry crossmatch in the Cw/DP DSA group was more frequent than

123 ody specificity, was compared to prospective crossmatching in sensitized lung transplant candidates.

124 However, in some patients, crossmatch-incompatible RBCs lose the incompatible antig

125 toimmune hemolytic anemia and transfusion of crossmatch-incompatible RBCs, mechanistic understanding

126 Transfusion of crossmatch-incompatible red blood cells (RBCs) can resul

127 ctive tests for intravascular hemolysis with crossmatch-incompatible sera indicated complement-mediat

128 nto patients with anti-donor RBC antibodies (crossmatch-incompatible transfusion) can result in letha

129 tation in the face of a positive lymphocytic crossmatch, increased incidence of acute cellular reject

130 KPD using virtual crossmatch is a valid and effective solution for patient

131 sitized patients without a prospective final crossmatch is appealing and, if bona fide, clearly makes

132 antigens (RMM) in the setting of a negative crossmatch is associated with increased immunological ri

133 ed months or years earlier) when the current crossmatch is negative.

134 The cytotoxic crossmatch is not statistically associated with overall

135 Worldwide, a final crossmatch is the gold standard for determining compatib

136 In the Australian KPD program, virtual crossmatch is used for the allocation of suitable donors

137 In the Australian KPD program, virtual crossmatch is used to allocate suitable donors to recipi

138 , complement-dependent cytotoxicity-negative crossmatch kidney transplantation in Paris (2000-2010).

139 have better long-term outcomes than positive crossmatch kidney transplantations (+XMKTxs).

140 hort-term outcomes are possible in "positive crossmatch kidney transplants (+XMKTx)", but long-term o

141 and after TG; (2) +XM/NoTG; and (3) negative crossmatch kidney transplants (control).

142 The requirement for a prospective crossmatch limits some organ allocation to local areas.

143 However, the need to perform a prospective crossmatch limits the donor pool and is associated with

144 ipients who have an ABO-compatible, positive-crossmatch living donor.

145 Positive crossmatch may be associated with an increased risk of a

146 Usage of a virtual crossmatch may facilitate greater sharing of kidneys to

147 However, current physical crossmatch methods cannot distinguish reactivity to HLA

148 Delays in the crossmatch might alter operating room availability and t

149 ose with TXM information, 12% had a positive crossmatch (n=234).

150 ty-eight of 29 patients were rendered T-cell crossmatch negative and B-cell crossmatch negative/low p

151 All patients were crossmatch negative and preformed DSA were detected by s

152 ive baseline AHG-CDC crossmatch were AHG-CDC crossmatch negative at the time of transplant (after des

153 Pretransplant, 36% of these crossmatch negative recipients had a-HLA measured by sol

154 ndered T-cell crossmatch negative and B-cell crossmatch negative/low positive and transplanted.

155 xception, their sera (n= 156) tested IgG-AHG crossmatch-negative against potential cadaveric donors (

156 may improve the probability of identifying a crossmatch-negative compatible donor and increase access

157 analyzed in this group and compared with 100 crossmatch-negative patients matched for age, sex, race,

158 t-dependent cytotoxicity anti-human globulin crossmatch-negative patients, including group 1: 58 prim

159 ransplants and PRA more than 20% who were FC crossmatch-negative, and group 3: 20 retransplants and P

160 tion can be accomplished successfully with a crossmatch-negative, histoincompatible organ.

161 eports the impact of positive flow cytometry crossmatch on clinical outcomes after intestinal/MV tran

162 etermined the impact of a positive cytotoxic crossmatch on the outcome of liver transplantation.

163 le to receive a live donor transplant due to crossmatch or blood type incompatibility.

164 ven after excluding patients with a positive crossmatch or OKT3 sensitization.

165 t, which we defined as those with a positive crossmatch or preformed DSAbs detected by single-antigen

166 O incompatible, and 327 (41.1%) had positive crossmatch or unsuitable human leukocyte antigens.

167 sitized patients without a prospective final crossmatch, our data demonstrate that a large number of

168 era, and applied this information to predict crossmatch outcome with greater than 90% accuracy.

169 curately detected resulting in prediction of crossmatch outcome.

170 With the expansion of virtual crossmatching, particularly in the context of a national

171 ls indicate that desensitization of positive crossmatch patients is a reasonable alternative for a se

172 In T-cell negative crossmatch patients, higher anti-HLA-II antibody levels

173 e pancreas graft and the type of prospective crossmatch performed: (1) imported VXM-only, n = 39; (2)

174 Retrospective flow cytometric crossmatches performed for 30 recipients of cardiac allo

175 as positive, but only in one patient was the crossmatch positive for antibodies formed while on VAD.

176 kidney transplant waiting list, we selected crossmatch positive living donor HLAi kidney transplant

177 candidates for kidney transplantation, with crossmatch positive potential living donors, were treate

178 n were at an increased risk of a potentially crossmatch positive response (odds ratio=9.6, 95% confid

179 Crossmatch positive results were found only in recipient

180 tion, defined based on positive cytotoxicity crossmatches, positive flow cytometry crossmatches, and/

181 treatment in B-cell CDC, and T- or B-cell FC crossmatch-positive kidney transplant recipients (seven

182 recipients were blood group-incompatible or crossmatch-positive or had C4d-positive biopsy samples.

183 plantation in B-cell CDC and T- or B-cell FC crossmatch-positive patients.

184 t of HLA antibody-negative, endothelial cell crossmatch-positive sera obtained from 12 cardiac allogr

185 ransplants and PRA more than 20% who were FC crossmatch-positive.

186 era of transplant candidates is critical for crossmatch prediction.

187 than 40% of patients with a positive virtual crossmatch presented with BK infection/CMV disease, high

188 Initiation of a virtual crossmatch protocol using solid-phase histocompatibility

189 A virtual crossmatch protocol using solid-phase technology to dete

190 A virtual crossmatch protocol was implemented on October 1, 2006 w

191 The virtual crossmatch protocol was predictive of a negative-final c

192 006 to 2008, after initiation of the virtual crossmatch protocol, we performed 122 deceased donor kid

193 ents, most commonly due to positive physical crossmatch (PXM).

194 stical factors relating to donor, transport, crossmatching, recipient, and theater that impact signif

195 y sensitized (positive DSA and negative flow crossmatch) recipients who received deceased donor renal

196 ory comparisons of the T-cell flow cytometry crossmatch remain largely unknown.

197 for T CDC and T/B FXM, while the B-cell CDC crossmatch remained negative.

198 Performance of the pretransplant crossmatch requires 4 or more hours .

199 The delay necessitated by the crossmatch restricts the distance across which offers ca

200 f DSA-SPA, despite a negative flow cytometry crossmatch result, nearly doubles the risk for antibody-

201 in the presence of a negative flow cytometry crossmatch result.

202 solid phase immunoassays and flow cytometry crossmatches resulted in a higher prediction rates of po

203 e the discrepancy between virtual and actual crossmatch results and transplant outcomes.

204 odies and donor IgG-antihuman globulin (AHG) crossmatch results of 1165 sera from 220 potential allog

205 onstrated nearly the same ability to predict crossmatch results than the acid treatment assay.

206 T-cell flow crossmatch results were expressed as mean channel shifts

207 hodologies enable the prediction of negative crossmatch results with up to 100% accuracy, enabling th

208 nt-dependent cytotoxicity and flow cytometry crossmatch results.

209 dvanced solid phase immunoassays can predict crossmatch results.

210 th positive T- or B-cell flow cytometry (FC) crossmatch results.

211 been found to correlate with flow cytometric crossmatch results.

212 al cadaveric donors (a 0.6% IgG-AHG positive crossmatch risk).

213 Recipients with a positive remote crossmatch (RXM) demonstrated a higher incidence of dela

214 ng-term (7 year) graft survival rate of flow crossmatch-selected regraft recipients (68%; n= 106) was

215 Final crossmatch sera from 56 patients with primary nonfunctio

216 0 (1024 channel log scale) for pretransplant crossmatch serum above negative control serum.

217 ocyte globulin-rituximab induction, positive crossmatch status is not associated with worse outcomes

218 Preoperative crossmatch status was determined prospectively in 110 co

219 cytometry was used to evaluate T- and B-cell crossmatch status.

220 A virtual crossmatch strategy using flow cytometry, which enables

221 Using this virtual crossmatch strategy, crossmatching can be safely omitted

222 nce calls regarding transfer of information, crossmatches, surgery date, coordination of simultaneous

223 selected for transplantation by only the AHG crossmatch technique (45%; n=174; log-rank=0.001; censor

224 Using a variety of crossmatch techniques and single-antigen flowbeads (SAFB

225 combination of panel reactive antibodies and crossmatch techniques varied from 14.3% to 57.1%.

226 In one survey in which different crossmatch techniques were compared, flow cytometry was

227 antibody specificities determined by virtual crossmatch techniques.

228 of identifying unacceptable HLA antigens and crossmatch techniques.

229 We believe that newer typing and crossmatching techniques make it possible to add HLA cri

230 metry cross-matching but not by conventional crossmatching techniques.

231 plants performed across a positive cytotoxic crossmatch tend to follow a different clinical course, w

232 ty is then confirmed by a pretransplantation crossmatch test.

233 tch" testing as a surrogate for conventional crossmatch testing in the CBT setting.

234 llograft dysfunction or death if prospective crossmatch testing was negative.

235 ecificity to allow consideration of "virtual crossmatch" testing as a surrogate for conventional cros

236 CAs and HLA-antibodies using flow cytometric crossmatch tests and solid-phase bead immunoassays.

237 vitro in patients with negative conventional crossmatch tests is predictive for AMR.

238 vitro in patients with negative conventional crossmatch tests is predictive for AMR.

239 Crossmatch tests performed using donor-derived ECPs allo

240 y provided much less positive flow cytometry crossmatches than anti-native HLA antibodies (16% vs. 83

241 center chooses to forego a prospective final crossmatch, the decision to do so should be based on met

242 e of the high likelihood of a positive final crossmatch, these patients are often excluded from a pro

243 rs was similar in those undergoing a virtual crossmatch, those undergoing prospective crossmatching,

244 Even patients with high baseline crossmatch titers can be successfully desensitized and t

245 he seven patients converted a donor-specific crossmatch to negative and underwent a successful living

246 rgone desensitization for initially positive crossmatch to their prospective donors.

247 fic antibodies generally undergo prospective crossmatching to exclude donors with unacceptable HLA an

248 ive ABMR C4d staining negative in a positive crossmatch transplant recipient (33.8% [23/68]).

249 pite desensitization, a majority of positive crossmatch transplant recipients demonstrate low levels

250 ody (PRA) more than 10% or a positive T-cell crossmatch (TXM).

251 llocation based on the type of pretransplant crossmatch used for the intended recipient.

252 All cases had a cytotoxic crossmatch using serum pretreated with dithiothreitol.

253 Retrospective crossmatches using "remote" sera were performed for all

254 Preoperative crossmatches using lymphocytotoxicity and flow cytometry

255 ligibility and likely resulted from frequent crossmatching using a cytotoxic strength threshold, impr

256 We describe the application of a virtual crossmatch (VXM) that has resulted in a very low rate of

257 We evaluated virtual crossmatching (VXM) for organ allocation and immunologic

258 ediction of compatibility through a "virtual crossmatch" (VXM).

259 absence of donor-specific antibody, negative crossmatch, warm ischemia time less than 60 min, absence

260 nosuppression in group 3, if lymphocyte/flow crossmatch was negative; and if donor-specific antibodie

261 Positive crossmatch was not associated with an increased incidenc

262 A positive virtual crossmatch was observed in 28% (4 of 14) of the sensitiz

263 The flow cytometry crossmatch was performed prospectively in 1130 renal tra

264 In two patients, the retrospective crossmatch was positive, but only in one patient was the

265 and 1997, in whom a negative flow T-cell IgG crossmatch was required for transplantation, was compare

266 12 patients with a positive baseline AHG-CDC crossmatch were AHG-CDC crossmatch negative at the time

267 ria used by each center to define a positive crossmatch were responsible for some discordant results.

268 Three negative CDC crossmatches were achieved against 3, 6, and 8 donor-spe

269 t negative complement-dependent cytotoxicity crossmatches were enrolled.

270 d among patients whose final flow cytometric crossmatches were negative compared to patients with pos

271 In some cases, baseline crossmatches were of high titer (e.g., 11 had baseline t

272 d by conventional or solid phase assays, and crossmatches were performed by cytotoxicity or flow cyto

273 T-lymphocyte flow cytometry crossmatches were performed to characterize the ability

274 hose AHG-CDC PRA were 0% revealed that 11/30 crossmatches were positive.

275 onor (because of ABO blood group or positive crossmatch) were submitted for computer analysis and mat

276 a complement-dependent cytotoxicity-negative crossmatch, who received a posttransplant desensitizatio

277 ed concerning the significance of a positive crossmatch with "remote" sera (obtained months or years

278 A positive crossmatch with a "current" recipient serum (drawn short

279 t to complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC) crossmatch with CDC crossmatch alone, and determined the

280 patients) are more likely to have a positive crossmatch with possible donors and have a lower likelih

281 7 (70%) patients, of whom 92% had a negative crossmatch with their matched donor.

282 Six had negative pretransplant flow crossmatches with a mean DSA of 8,805 SFI.

283 ly desensitizing recipients who had positive crossmatches with a potential live donor.

284 ive, the frequency of corresponding negative crossmatches would have increased up to 93%.

285 transport time (P = 0.0002), use of virtual crossmatch (XM) (P < 0.0001), and use of donor blood for

286 eta combination should not preclude negative crossmatch (XM) against another combination.

287 ft recipients as measured by lymphocytotoxic crossmatch (XM) and/or Luminex.

288 ositive complement-dependent cytotoxic (CDC) crossmatch (XM) pretransplant plasmapheresis, nine had p

289 ABO-incompatible (ABOi) and positive crossmatch (XM) renal transplants pose special immunolog

290 In virtual crossmatch (XM) strategies, a correct anticipation of XM

291 A pretransplant lymphocyte crossmatch (XM) test is usually considered mandatory but

292 a negative complement-dependent cytotoxicity crossmatch (XM) was performed.

293 ositive complement-dependent cytotoxic (CDC) crossmatch (XM), 44 had negative CDC XM and positive flo

294 ossmatch data, facilitate the use of virtual crossmatch (XM), and lead to more transplantability of t

295 ing a negative IgG anti-human globulin (AHG) crossmatch (XM).

296 y single antigen beads and B flow cytometric crossmatch (XM).

297 nd to establish the likelihood of a positive crossmatch (XM).

298 ragraft gene expression profiles of positive crossmatch (+XM) kidney transplant recipients who develo

299 d a negative or low-positive flow cytometric crossmatch (+XM).

300 e positive complement-dependent cytotoxicity crossmatches (XMs; >200,000 standard fluorescence intens