Cerebral Sinovenous Thrombosis in Children: Clinical Presentation and Extension, Localization and Recanalization of Thrombosis

Many important questions regarding pathophysiology and treatment of cerebral sinovenous thrombosis need clarification and may depend on further knowledge on the etiology, site, extension and recanalization of the thrombosis. We studied these variables in a cohort of children and adolescents from seven Portuguese Centers. We conclude from our results that the deep venous system and the superior longitudinal sinus are less frequently affected with thrombosis but have a greater potential for serious neurologic disease and for major sequelae. Non-recanalization, at least in the long term, is not an adverse prognostic factor. Extensive propagation of the thrombus from the initial site of origin seems to be common. The early identification of risk factors and their treatment coupled with an aggressive attitude towards diagnosis and treatment for thrombosis involving the deep venous system would be warranted.

C4d Presence in Kidney Allograft Biopsy: Sensitivity and Specifity of Immunoperoxidase vs Immunofluorescence

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the sensitivity/specificity of immunoperoxidase method in comparison with the standard immunofluorescence. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective review of 87 biopsies made for allograft dysfunction. Immunofluorescence (IF) was performed in frozen allograft biopsies using monoclonal antibody anti-C4d from Quidel®. The indirect immunoperoxidase (IP) technique was performed in paraffin-embebbed tissue with polyclonal antiserum from Serotec®. Biopsies were independently evaluated by two nephropathologist according Banff 2007 classification. RESULTS: By IF, peritubular C4d deposition were detected in 60 biopsies and absent in 27 biopsies. The evaluation of biopsy by IP was less precise due to the presence of background and unspecific staining. We find 13.8% (12/87) of false negative and Banff classification concordance in 79.3% (69/87) of cases (table1). The ROC curve study reveal a specificity of 100% and sensitivity of 80.0 % of IP method in relation to the gold standard (area under curve:0.900; 95% Confidence interval :0.817-0.954; p=0.0001). Banff Classification C4d Cases Immunofluorescence Immunoperoxidase n =87 Diffuse Negative 3 (3.4%) Focal Negative 9 (10.3%) Negative Negative 27 (31.0%) Diffuse Diffuse 33 (37.9%) Focal Focal 9 (10.3%) Diffuse Focal 6 (6.9%) CONCLUSION: The IP method presents a good specificity, but lesser sensitivity to C4d detection in allograft dysfunction. The evaluation is more difficult, requiring more experience of the observer than IF method. If frozen tissue is unavailable, the use of IP for C4d detection is acceptable.

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.