Revision of the 1990 working formulation for cardiac allograft rejection: The Sheffield experience

Heart

Volumn 79, Issue 5, 1998, Pages 432-436

  Suvarna, S K ^a   Kennedy, A ^a   Ciulli, F ^b   Locke, T J ^b  

^a NORTHERN GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b NORTH GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Myocardium; Transplant rejection; Transplantation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; GRAFT REJECTION; HEART MUSCLE; HEART MUSCLE BIOPSY; HEART TRANSPLANTATION; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SURVIVAL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 0031902449     PISSN: 13556037     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/hrt.79.5.432     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Billingham ME, Cary NRB, Hammond ME, et al. A working formulation for the standardisation of nomenclature in the diagnosis of heart and lung rejection: Heart Rejection Study Group. J Heart Transplant 1990;9:587-93.
2. Winters GL, McManus BM. Consistencies and controversies in the application of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation working formulation for heart transplant biopsies specimens. J Heart Lung Transplant 1996;15:728-35.
3. Stewart S, Cary NRB. The pathology of heart and lung transplantation. Curr Diagn Pathol 1996;3:69-79.
4. Lloveras JJ, Escourrou G, Delisle MB, et al. Evolution of untreated mild rejection in heart transplant recipients. J Heart Lung Transplant 1992;11:751-6.
5. Fishbein MC, Bell G, Lones MA, et al. Grade 2 cellular heart rejection: does it exist? J Heart Lung Transplant 1994; 13:1051-7.
6. El-Gamel A, Doran H, Rahman A, et al. Clinical importance of grade 2 cellular heart rejection. J Heart Lung Transplant 1996;15:319-21.
7. Kemnitz J. Grade 2 cellular heart rejection: does it exist?; yes! J Heart Lung Transplant 1995;14:800-1.
8. Winters GL, Loh E, Schoen FJ. Natural history of focal moderate cardiac allograft rejection. Is treatment warranted? Circulation 1995;91:1975-80.
9. Milano A, Caforio ALP, Livi U, et al. Evolution of focal moderate (International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation grade 2) rejection of the cardiac allograft. J Heart Lung Transplant 1996;15:456-60.
10. Gallo P, Grillo LR, di Gioia C, et al. Working formulation nomenclature of heart transplant pathology: a retrospective evaluation of 1037 endomyocardial biopsies. Cardiovasc Pathol 1992;1:87-92.
11. Sharples LD, Cary NRB, Large SR, et al. Error rates with which endomyocardial biopsy specimens are graded for rejection after cardiac transplantation. Am J Cardiol 1992; 70:527-30.
12. Costanzo-Nordin MR, Winters GL, Fisher SG, et al. Endocardial infiltrates in the transplanted heart: clinical significance emerging from the analysis of 5026 endomyocardial specimens. J Heart Lung Transplant 1993;12:741-7.
13. Tazelaar HD. Spectrum and diagnosis of myocardial rejection. Cardiol Clin 1990;8:119-39.
14. Suit PF, Kottke-Marchant K, Ratliff NB, et al. Comparison of whole blood cyclosporine levels and the frequency of endomyocardial lymphocytic infiltrates (the Quilty lesion) in cardiac transplantation. Transplantation 1989;48:618-21.
15. Nakleh RE, Copenhavor CM, Werdin K, et al. Lack of evidence for involvement of Epstein-Barr virus in the development of the "Quilty" lesion of transplanted lesions: an in-situ hybridisation study. J Heart Lung Transplant 1991;10:504-7.
16. Kemnitz J, Cohnert TR. Lymphoma-like lesion in human orthotopic cardiac allografts. Am J Clin Pathol 1988;89: 430.