ライフサイエンスコーパス: crossmatch

1 or specificity for antibody identified by FC crossmatch.

2 had a positive donor-specific retrospective crossmatch.

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

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

5 ients were transplanted with a positive flow crossmatch.

6 ositive virtual crossmatch and negative 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 itive reactions in the B-cell flow cytometry crossmatch.

13 or retrospective rather than a pretransplant crossmatch.

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

15 (1990 to 1997) using only the AHG T-cell IgG crossmatch.

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

17 tained same results when performing the same crossmatch.

18 nfidence interval, 0.61-0.77) for a positive crossmatch.

19 All patients had a negative crossmatch.

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

21 fficient to cause a positive flow cytometric crossmatch.

22 ceeded to transplantation with an acceptable crossmatch.

23 had negative complement-dependent cytotoxic crossmatch.

24 donor when using allocation based on virtual crossmatch.

25 a negative complement-dependent cytotoxicity crossmatch.

26 irtual crossmatch had negative retrospective crossmatches.

27 ed to patients with positive flow cytometric crossmatches.

28 e predominantly providing negative sensitive crossmatches.

29 ecipient's sensitization, and postallocation crossmatches.

30 le, and offers some advantages over platelet crossmatching.

31 ody specificity and 10 underwent prospective crossmatching.

32 by leukoagglutination or lymphocytotoxicity crossmatching.

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

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

35 0 B,DR MM with > or = 40% PRA; negative ROP crossmatch; (3) 0 B,DR MM with PRA < 40%.

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

37 was more common in patients with a positive crossmatch (89% versus 11%, P<0.0001) and OKT3 sensitiza

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

46 There were 1390 negative crossmatch and 130 positive crossmatch cases.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 rly failure rates are higher in the positive crossmatch cases, a difference that disappears by the se

79 re 1390 negative crossmatch and 130 positive crossmatch cases.

80 ossmatch FCXM+, and positive lymphocytotoxic crossmatch CDC+.

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

82 nsplanted against a positive lymphocytotoxic crossmatch (CDC+) are susceptible to an increased freque

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

92 to determine what impact a pretransplant IgG crossmatch due to CDC+ or FCXM+ had upon the clinical ou

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

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

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

96 e crossmatch (NXM), positive flow cytometric crossmatch FCXM+, and positive lymphocytotoxic crossmatc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

111 Elimination of prospective crossmatching for sensitized patients was associated wit

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

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

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

115 ly survival rates were lower in the positive crossmatch group, with the maximum difference at 6 month

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

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

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

119 Virtual crossmatch helps minimize CIT without increasing rejecti

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

135 The flow cytometric crossmatch is a technique that is increasingly being use

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

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

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

139 The cytotoxic crossmatch is not statistically associated with overall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

156 All patients were ABO identical, crossmatch negative.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

164 fts were divided into three groups: negative crossmatch (NXM), positive flow cytometric crossmatch FC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

173 curately detected resulting in prediction of crossmatch outcome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

183 Crossmatch positive results were found only in recipient

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

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

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

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

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

189 era of transplant candidates is critical for crossmatch prediction.

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

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

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

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

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

195 006 to 2008, after initiation of the virtual crossmatch protocol, we performed 122 deceased donor kid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

210 dvanced solid phase immunoassays can predict crossmatch results.

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

212 been found to correlate with flow cytometric crossmatch results.

213 nt-dependent cytotoxicity and flow cytometry crossmatch results.

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

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

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

217 Final crossmatch sera from 56 patients with primary nonfunctio

218 0 (1024 channel log scale) for pretransplant crossmatch serum above negative control serum.

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

220 Preoperative crossmatch status was determined prospectively in 110 co

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

222 A virtual crossmatch strategy using flow cytometry, which enables

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

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

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

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

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

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

229 antibody specificities determined by virtual crossmatch techniques.

230 of identifying unacceptable HLA antigens and crossmatch techniques.

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

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

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

234 ty is then confirmed by a pretransplantation crossmatch test.

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

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

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

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

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

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

241 Crossmatch tests performed using donor-derived ECPs allo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 nfidence interval, 0.74-0.78) for a negative crossmatch versus 0.68 (95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.

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 nogenetics Flow Cytometry Group, a series of crossmatches were carried out to determine whether diffe

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

270 T cell and B cell cytotoxicity crossmatches were negative.

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

296 ing a negative IgG anti-human globulin (AHG) 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