P750Role of circulating endothelial cells post-heart transplantation

• Published in: European heart journal 2019-10, Vol.40 (Supplement_1)
• Main Authors: Rywik, T, Braniewska, A, Kowalik, I, Firczuk, M, Kozar-Kaminska, K, Wojciechowska, A, Kasprzyk-Pawelec, A, Sobieszczanska-Malek, M, Leszek, P, Rozentryt, P, Zielinski, T
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 0195-668X; 1522-9645
• DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz747.0352

Abstract Background The role of endothelial progenitor cells (EPC) in heart transplantation (HT) is not well defined. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate prospectively the dynamic changes of circulating EPC levels in relation to post-HT rejection risk. Methods There were 27 HT recipients who had EPC from peripheral blood quantified during 6 months follow-up after HT. Patients were monitored regularly, by right ventricular endomyocardial biopsy assessment, for cellular rejection (ACR) defined as grade ≥2 or an antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) characterized by histopathological changes recorded as AMR1H. The primary end-point was acute rejection, either AMR or ACR. Results ACR and AMR were observed in 7 (25.9%) and 6 (22.2%) subjects respectively. EPC levels, after logarithmic transformation, immediately post-HT were alike regardless of ACR status, however patients with lower EPC were at risk of AMR at 1 month (Table 1). On the other hand patients with a significant reduction of EPC at 1 month post-HT compared with HT were less likely to have either ACR or AMR (p=0.0003). During longer post-HT observation (12 months) patients had similar EPC levels regardless of the rejection events. Dynamic changes in EPC levels are presented in figure. Nonetheless, greater changes in EPC expressed by coefficient of variation were associated with the risk of either AMR or ACR compared to the participants without rejection (mean [lower–upper quartile]) 15 [13–18] vs 8 [5–13]; p=0.02) and (22 [14–26] vs 8 [5–13]; p=0.01) respectively. EPC by rejection – 1st month following HT ACR (+) AMR (+) ACR (−) and AMR (−) p^ p p N=3 (mean± SD) N=4 (mean± SD) N=20 (mean± SD) ACR (+) vs ACR (−) and AMR (−) AMR (+) vs ACR (−) and AMR (−) EPC log HT 5.14±1.55 3.81±1.01 5.30±0.88 0.0325 0.97 0.025 EPC log M1 4.97±0.59 3.69±1.33 4.15±1.29 0.4160 0.55 0.78 Delta EPC log M1-HT -0.17±1.98* −0.12±1.30* −1.15±1.18# 0.2195 0.44 0.32 ACR – acute cellular rejection; AMR or – acute antibody-mediated rejection; EPC log – endothelial progenitor cells after logarithmic transformation; HT – within 24 hours post-transplantation; M1 – at 1-month post-transplantation; Delta EPC log M1-HT – difference in EPC log between M1 and HT. #p=0.0003 for the difference between M1 vs HT; *p=ns for the difference between M1 vs HT; ^pP – for the difference among the groups. Changes in EPC level post-HT Conclusions Early reduction of EPC levels was predictive of a lower risk of ACR or AMR. Greater dynamic changes