Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
2007 JASN IMPACT FACTOR 7.111 HOME   AUTHOR INFO   EDITORIAL BOARD   SUBSCRIBE   FEEDBACK   ALERTS   HELP 
    advanced
CURRENT ISSUE ARCHIVES JASN Express ONLINE SUBMISSION


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nast, C. C.
Right arrow Articles by Danovitch, G. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nast, C. C.
Right arrow Articles by Danovitch, G. M.

Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, Vol 1, Issue 11 1204-1211, Copyright © 1991 by American Society of Nephrology


REGULAR ARTICLES

Differentiation of cytomegalovirus infection from acute rejection using renal allograft fine needle aspirates

CC Nast, A Wilkinson, JT Rosenthal, L Barba, PN Bretan, P Beaumont and GM Danovitch
Department of Pathology, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance 90509.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is an important cause of renal allograft dysfunction and may be difficult to distinguish from acute transplant rejection both clinically and histologically. To establish the early diagnosis of CMV infection, we used immunohistochemical staining with antibodies against CMV early nuclear protein (CMV-A) and histocompatibility leukocyte class II antigen (DR) in renal transplant fine needle aspirates. Fifty-eight aspirates from 27 patients were assessed, 53 for CMV-A and 53 for DR. Positive staining was defined as greater than or equal to 35% stained tubular cells for CMV-A and greater than or equal to 30% stained tubular cells for DR. Clinical diagnoses were made retrospectively without using the information obtained from aspirate diagnoses. CMV-A staining was negative in 44 aspirates, none at the time of CMV infection. CMV-A was positive in nine aspirates, seven during CMV infection (78%, P less than 0.00001 versus CMV-A negative). DR staining was never present in the absence of acute rejection. All aspirates performed during acute rejection had positive DR staining (P less than 0.00001 versus DR negative). Aspirates with acute rejection comprised 80% of all DR-positive aspirates, whereas those with CMV infection included only 13%. The percent CMV-A staining increased with CMV disease progression; DR staining decreased after successful treatment of acute rejection. These data demonstrate that CMV-A staining is associated with CMV infection whereas DR staining is not. DR staining is specifically related to acute rejection. CMV-A and DR staining of fine needle aspirates is a potentially valuable diagnostic tool to distinguish rapidly between CMV infection and acute transplant rejection as the etiology of renal allograft dysfunction.





HOME CURRENT ISSUE ARCHIVES JASN Express ONLINE SUBMISSION AUTHOR INFO
EDITORIAL BOARD SUBSCRIBE FEEDBACK ALERTS HELP