This revealed acute AMR (C4d-positive) with associated vascular rejection. Despite increasing to daily plasma exchange and IVIg his renal function continued to deteriorate and Rituximab (500 mg) was administered. A follow-up biopsy demonstrated ongoing aggressive AMR and splenectomy was performed as rescue therapy. Renal function eventually stabilized with a serum creatinine of 160 µmol/L at 6 months Selleckchem Paclitaxel post-transplant following

further treatment with three doses of intravenous immunoglobulin (1 mg/kg) at monthly intervals. One of the major issues highlighted by this case is the complexity in interpretation of the available antibody detection techniques and the lack of full HLA antigen typing availability at the time of a deceased donor offer. While there is an expanding array of recognized HLA antigens, clinicians are not prospectively aware of all donor loci at the time

of receipt of a transplant offer (e.g. DQA and DP). In this case the probability that the DQA1*05 antibody was likely to be donor-specific was not noted at the time of the transplant offer acceptance but was identified later by an experienced scientist on further review. In many cases this association may well have been missed and in our case was not detected until the patient had arrived for the transplant. Some HLA antigens, such as DQA, can be predicted based on linkage disequilibrium with other HLA antigens; others such as DP antigens cannot. This was of particular relevance to our patient whose known DP20

antibody (MFI 8000) was determined to be donor-specific when the donor HLA typing PLX4032 datasheet was completed post-transplant. Therefore despite major advances in the sensitivity of antibody detection, Idoxuridine deficiencies in the typing standards required for deceased donor allocation remain and clinicians are dependent on the experience and expertise of tissue typing staff. These deficiencies may be associated with clinically relevant sequelae. In the presented case, at the time of transplantation, we were aware of a low-level DSAb to DR17 along with a high level likely but unconfirmed DSAb to DQA1*05 with a positive B-cell crossmatch using historic serum. While many would consider this sufficient information to support cancelling the transplant, the combination of the patient’s medical conditions and advancing age along with the likelihood of an extended wait for a better immunological match leads to the decision to proceed. If a decision on whether or not to proceed with a given donor recipient pairing was to be made from a purely immunological perspective, a determination of the significance of each result needs to be considered. Firstly, we had a positive B-cell crossmatch which was unusual as B-cell CDC crossmatches are not routinely performed prospectively for deceased donor transplants in Victoria.