C4d Detection in Renal Allograft Biopsies: Immunohistochemistry vs. Immunofluorescence

Introduction. Peritubular capillary complement 4d staining is one of the criteria for the diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection, and research into this is essential to kidney allograft evaluation. The immunofluorescence technique applied to frozen sections is the present gold-standard method for complement 4d staining and is used routinely in our laboratory. The immunohistochemistry technique applied to paraffin-embedded tissue may be used when no frozen tissue is available. Material and Methods. The aim of this study is to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of immunohistochemistry compared with immunofluorescence. We describe the advantages and disadvantages of the immunohistochemistry vs. the immunofluorescence technique. For this purpose complement 4d staining was performed retrospectively by the two methods in indication biopsies (n=143) and graded using the Banff 07 classification. Results. There was total classification agreement between methods in 87.4% (125/143) of cases. However, immunohistochemistry staining caused more difficulties in interpretation, due to nonspecific staining in tubular cells and surrounding interstitium. All cases negative by immunofluorescence were also negative by immunohistochemistry. The biopsies were classified as positive in 44.7% (64/143) of cases performed by immunofluorescence vs. 36.4% (52/143) performed by immunohistochemistry. Fewer biopsies were classified as positive diffuse in the immunohistochemistry group(25.1% vs. 31.4%) and more as positive focal (13.2% vs. 11.1%). More cases were classified as negative by immunohistochemistry (63.6% vs. 55.2%). Study by ROC curve showed immunohistochemistry has a specificity of 100% and a sensitivity of 81.2% in relation to immunofluorescence (AUC: 0.906; 95% confidence interval: 0.846-0.949; p=0.0001). Conclusions. The immunohistochemistry method presents an excellent specificity but lower sensitivity to C4d detection in allograft dysfunction. The evaluation is more difficult, requiring a more experienced observer than the immunofluorescence method. Based on these results, we conclude that the immunohistochemistry technique can safely be used when immunofluorescence is not available.

Liver Depurative Techniques: A Single Liver Transplantation Center Experience

In a liver transplant (LT) center, treatments with Prometheus were evaluated. The main outcome considered was 1 and 6 months survival. Methods. During the study period, 74 patients underwent treatment with Prometheus; 64 were enrolled,with a mean age of 51 13 years; 47men underwent 212 treatments (mean, 3.02 per patient). The parameters evaluated were age, sex, laboratorial (liver enzymes, ammonia) and clinical (model for end-stage liver disease and Child-Turcotte-Pugh score) data. Results. Death was verified in 23 patients (35.9%) during the hospitalization period, 20 patients (31.3%) were submitted to liver transplantation, and 21 were discharged. LT was performed in 4 patients with acute liver failure (ALF, 23.7%), in 7 patients with acute on chronic liver failure (AoCLF, 43.7%), and in 6 patients with liver disease after LT (30%). Seven patients who underwent LT died (35%). In the multivariate analysis, older age (P ¼ .015), higher international normalized ratio (INR) (P ¼ .019), and acute liver failure (P ¼ .039) were independently associated with an adverse 1-month clinical outcome. On the other hand, older age (P ¼ .011) and acute kidney injury (P ¼ .031) at presentation were both related to worse 6-month outcome. For patients with ALF and AoCLF we did not observe the same differences. Conclusions. In this cohort, older age was the most important parameter defining 1- and 6-month survival, although higher INR and presence of ALF were important for 1-month survival and AKI for 6-month survival. No difference was observed between patients who underwent LT or did not have LT.