ArticleJournal of nephrology & therapeutics2012
The Role of the Crossmatch in Kidney Transplantation: Past, Present and Future.
Article in Journal of nephrology & therapeutics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Immunogenetic characterization of the transplant recipient with crossmatch is used to minimize graft loss by detecting preformed antibodies. Use of increasingly sensitive tests including flow cytometry crossmatch (FCXM) has been accompanied by near elimination of hyperacute rejection. We reviewed associations of crossmatch results with kidney graft outcomes in contemporary practice, and provided updates of our past publications with more recent data in several instances. Recent United States registry data for transplants performed with a reported positive crossmatch demonstrate immediate graft loss rates of ≤1.3% or less in FCXM+ recipients, and ≤3.6% in complement-dependent cytotoxicity crossmatch positive (CDCXM+) recipients. One-year graft survival was reduced by ≤6.4% in FCXM+ versus FCXM- recipients, and by ≤11.5% in CDCXM+ versus CDCXM- recipients. Five-year graft survival was reduced by ≤10.2 % in FCXM+ versus FCXM- recipients, and by ≤8.7% in CDCXM+ versus CDCXM- recipients. A possible explanation for the markedly lower graft loss risk with crossmatch positive transplants in modern practice may be selection of recipients with low anti-HLA titers. Although a good correlation between virtual crossmatch and actual crossmatch has been demonstrated, the outcome significance of positive virtual/negative actual and negative virtual/positive actual crossmatches is not clearly established. Post-transplant demonstration of the persistence or appearance of donor-specific antibody is of value in prognostication, but utility for adjustment of therapy is uncertain. In summary, contemporary data suggest that, among selected transplants performed, the impact of a positive crossmatch may be relatively small compared to other accepted clinical factors. Further study is warranted work to determine, prospectively, under what circumstances crossmatch positive transplants can precede with safety.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.