Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

B Heublein

Publications and source records attributed to B Heublein.

110 records · Page 7Linked to original sources

Some histopathologic aspects regarding onset of antirejection therapy after heart transplantation.

The histopathologic indication for starting antirejection therapy has so far been given by the diagnosis of moderate rejection in endomyocardial biopsies, that is, rejection with necroses of myocytes and predominantly lymphocytic infiltrates (corresponding to the descriptive diagnosis of moderate rejection in the Stanford classification, grade 4 and more in the Texas classification, and A-3 moderate rejection in the Hannover classification). Our present results, however, have shown that the critical limit for the onset of antirejection therapy may be fixed somewhat higher on the scale of severity of acute rejection and that it may be reasonable to define an affection of more than 20% of the total biopsy material by morphologic changes corresponding to the traditional definition of moderate acute rejection as the decisive histopathologic finding that should induce antirejection therapy. This means that the diagnosis of moderate rejection has to be divided into two groups: (1) A-3a moderate acute rejection not yet requiring therapy that, however, does necessitate bioptic control within 7 to 10 days; (2) A-3b moderate acute rejection requiring antirejection therapy. The introduction of this differentiation of histopathologic diagnoses is not just another sophisticated scientific theorem; its practical significance may be seen in a definitive restriction of the application of antirejection therapy, which means a reduction of the risks and side effects imposed on heart-transplanted patients by chemotherapy and particularly by steroid therapy.

Biopsy↗

Preventive treatment of coronary vasculopathy in heart transplantation by inhibition of smooth muscle cell proliferation with angiopeptin.

BACKGROUND: The underlying mechanism of accelerated coronary vasculopathy in cardiac allografts still remains unclear. Our hypothesis was that inhibition of smooth muscle cell proliferation with the somatostatine analogue Angiopeptin may reduce vasculopathy. METHODS: Fifty-four patients received Angiopeptin injections (1500 micrograms x three times daily subcutaneously) for 21 days after the operation and three additional injections with every rejection treatment. Angiography was performed yearly, and data were compared with a matched historic control group. RESULTS: Actuarial survival was 85% at 1 year and 80% at 2 years, comparable with our results in general (80%/77%). Forty-six long-term survivors could be followed by coronary angiography. At 1 year, vasculopathy was assessed in nine patients (17%). Of the 18 patients investigated at 2 years thus far, an additional three patients were found to have vasculopathy. In the control group vasculopathy was comparable, being 13% after 1 year and 20% after 2 years. A significantly lower incidence of rejections and lower creatinine values were found in the study group within the entire observation period (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that Angiopeptin treatment appears to be safe without significant side effects; it may reduce the number of acute rejections, at least during the first year after heart transplantation. However, the results of the 2-year follow-up in the remaining patients would have to be included in assessing the effect of Angiopeptin. Long-term follow-up will be necessary to decide whether Angiopeptin will be helpful in reducing the incidence of transplant vasculopathy.

Actuarial Analysis↗