(809) - Clinical Profiles and Outcomes of Cardiac Transplant Recipients Using Allomap and Cylex Immuknow Assays

Abstract

PurposeThis study aimed to examine how clinical profiles based on Allomap scores and Cylex can predict 1-year clinical outcomes (allograft rejection and infection) in patients with heart transplantation.MethodsAllomap scores and Cylex measured at 6 months post cardiac transplantation from 80 consecutive patients from a single heart transplant center. Clinical profiles were defined based on Allomap scores and Cylex; Profile 1 (Allomap<34/Cylex:226-524); Profile 2 (Allomap<34/Cylex<225); Profile 3 (Allomap<34/Cylex>525); Profile 4 (Allomap >34/Cylex:226-524); Profile 5(Allomap>34/Cylex<225); Profile 6 (Allomap>34/Cylex>525). Clinical outcomes included composite of acute cellular or antibody mediated rejection and infection at 1 year post-transplant.ResultsIn the total cohort, mean age was 52±12 years, 61% were males. The following clinical profiles were identified: Profile 1 (46%); Profile 2 (25 %); Profile 3 (9%); Profile 4 (10%); Profile 5 (9%) and Profile 6 (1 %). Patients with profile 5 (Allomap>34/Cylex<225) were more likely to reach the clinical end point of composite of acute cellular or antibody mediated rejection and infection at 1 year post-transplant when compared to patients with profile 4 (Allomap >34/Cylex:226-524) (57.1% vs. 12.5% respectively). Allograft rejection and infection were more common in cardiac transplant recipients with Profiles 2 and 5. Interestingly, cardiac transplant recipients with Profile 4 (Allomap >34/Cylex: 226-524) had the lowest rates of rejection and infection (0% and 12.5% respectively).ConclusionThe utilization of clinical profiles defined by Allomap and Cylex scores may be useful in predicting the presence clinical outcomes of allograft rejection, infection at 1 year post-transplant. PurposeThis study aimed to examine how clinical profiles based on Allomap scores and Cylex can predict 1-year clinical outcomes (allograft rejection and infection) in patients with heart transplantation. This study aimed to examine how clinical profiles based on Allomap scores and Cylex can predict 1-year clinical outcomes (allograft rejection and infection) in patients with heart transplantation. MethodsAllomap scores and Cylex measured at 6 months post cardiac transplantation from 80 consecutive patients from a single heart transplant center. Clinical profiles were defined based on Allomap scores and Cylex; Profile 1 (Allomap<34/Cylex:226-524); Profile 2 (Allomap<34/Cylex<225); Profile 3 (Allomap<34/Cylex>525); Profile 4 (Allomap >34/Cylex:226-524); Profile 5(Allomap>34/Cylex<225); Profile 6 (Allomap>34/Cylex>525). Clinical outcomes included composite of acute cellular or antibody mediated rejection and infection at 1 year post-transplant. Allomap scores and Cylex measured at 6 months post cardiac transplantation from 80 consecutive patients from a single heart transplant center. Clinical profiles were defined based on Allomap scores and Cylex; Profile 1 (Allomap<34/Cylex:226-524); Profile 2 (Allomap<34/Cylex<225); Profile 3 (Allomap<34/Cylex>525); Profile 4 (Allomap >34/Cylex:226-524); Profile 5(Allomap>34/Cylex<225); Profile 6 (Allomap>34/Cylex>525). Clinical outcomes included composite of acute cellular or antibody mediated rejection and infection at 1 year post-transplant. ResultsIn the total cohort, mean age was 52±12 years, 61% were males. The following clinical profiles were identified: Profile 1 (46%); Profile 2 (25 %); Profile 3 (9%); Profile 4 (10%); Profile 5 (9%) and Profile 6 (1 %). Patients with profile 5 (Allomap>34/Cylex<225) were more likely to reach the clinical end point of composite of acute cellular or antibody mediated rejection and infection at 1 year post-transplant when compared to patients with profile 4 (Allomap >34/Cylex:226-524) (57.1% vs. 12.5% respectively). Allograft rejection and infection were more common in cardiac transplant recipients with Profiles 2 and 5. Interestingly, cardiac transplant recipients with Profile 4 (Allomap >34/Cylex: 226-524) had the lowest rates of rejection and infection (0% and 12.5% respectively). In the total cohort, mean age was 52±12 years, 61% were males. The following clinical profiles were identified: Profile 1 (46%); Profile 2 (25 %); Profile 3 (9%); Profile 4 (10%); Profile 5 (9%) and Profile 6 (1 %). Patients with profile 5 (Allomap>34/Cylex<225) were more likely to reach the clinical end point of composite of acute cellular or antibody mediated rejection and infection at 1 year post-transplant when compared to patients with profile 4 (Allomap >34/Cylex:226-524) (57.1% vs. 12.5% respectively). Allograft rejection and infection were more common in cardiac transplant recipients with Profiles 2 and 5. Interestingly, cardiac transplant recipients with Profile 4 (Allomap >34/Cylex: 226-524) had the lowest rates of rejection and infection (0% and 12.5% respectively). ConclusionThe utilization of clinical profiles defined by Allomap and Cylex scores may be useful in predicting the presence clinical outcomes of allograft rejection, infection at 1 year post-transplant. The utilization of clinical profiles defined by Allomap and Cylex scores may be useful in predicting the presence clinical outcomes of allograft rejection, infection at 1 year post-transplant.