Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
    • Reprint Information
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
    • Feedback
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
    • Reprint Information
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
    • Feedback
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow CJASN on Twitter
  • CJASN RSS
  • Community Forum
In-Depth Reviews
You have accessRestricted Access

Effect of Red Cell Transfusions on Future Kidney Transplantation

Gregorio T. Obrador and Iain C. Macdougall
CJASN May 2013, 8 (5) 852-860; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.00020112
Gregorio T. Obrador
*Universidad Panamericana School of Medicine, Mexico City, Mexico, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Iain C. Macdougall
†Department of Renal Medicine, King’s College Hospital, London, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading

Summary

Red cell transfusions, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), and intravenous iron therapy all have a place in the treatment of anemia associated with CKD. Their relative merits and uses are subject to many clinical and nonclinical factors. New concerns associated with the use of ESA therapy make it likely that the use of blood transfusions will increase, refueling previous debates about their associated risks. Data on whether red cell transfusions increase sensitization to HLA antigens, rendering subsequent transplantation more problematic, are mainly derived from older literature. Older data suggested that women were more at risk of HLA sensitization than men, particularly those with previous multiple pregnancies, although recent U.S. Renal Data System data have challenged this. HLA sensitization prolongs the waiting time for transplantation and reduces graft survival. Leukocyte depletion of red cells does not appear to reduce the risk of HLA sensitization. This review summarizes much of the data on these issues, as well as highlighting the need for further research on the potential risks for blood transfusion in patients with CKD.

Introduction

Before the advent of erythropoietin therapy, patients with CKD had to cope with basal hemoglobin concentrations of 5 or 6 g/dl, with periodic red cell transfusions to abrogate severe symptoms of lethargy and poor physical capacity. Many of the patients became iron-overloaded, with organ dysfunction due to tissue iron deposition. Concerns about transmission of infectious agents also arose, along with many other complications associated with blood transfusion. In many younger dialysis patients who were ultimately hoping to receive a kidney transplant, there was a concern that blood transfusions could increase sensitization to HLA antigens, potentially make transplantation more problematic, and reduce graft survival.

This latter issue has been the subject of much controversy in recent years and was extensively reviewed by the current Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes Anemia Guidelines Work Group. It became apparent that some of the assumptions of the effect of red cell transfusions on HLA sensitization are indeed scientifically based; others are myths. The purpose of this review is to critically examine the literature concerning this issue over the past 30–40 years, and in particular to ascertain whether some of the assumptions in the 1970s are still valid in 2012.

Overview of Blood Transfusion Use in Patients with CKD

In the pre-erythropoietin era, high-volume blood transfusions were common practice for treating anemia of CKD. However, the realization in the 1970s that blood transfusions were immunogenic, leading to production of anti-HLA antibodies (which at the time of cross-match precluded transplantation), as well as the serious consequences of transfusion-induced hepatitis in the immunosuppressed graft recipient, prompted a policy of avoiding blood exposure. Within a few years, however, some reports indicated that nontransfused patients receiving cadaveric donor grafts had a 20%–30% lower 1-year graft survival (1). Subsequent registry data involving thousands of patients confirmed that in the precyclosporine era, lack of pretransplant blood transfusions was the single most powerful predictor of poor outcome (2). Opelz et al. reported that patients receiving pretransplant blood transfusions had a 20% improvement in graft survival under steroids and azathioprine than those who did not (3).

In view of these observations, efforts were made to define the optimal dose and timing for pretransplant blood transfusions. Opelz et al. reported that there was a dose effect, with some improvement after a single blood transfusion and the highest survival rates after receipt of 10–20 pretransplant blood units (1). Other investigators suggested not exceeding 2–6 transfusions (4–6). The type of blood (frozen, fresh, or washed packed red blood cells) made no difference; the leukocyte component was the only one that mattered (7). Administration of blood in the preoperative period had no beneficial effect (8). Preservation of blood with the agglomeration method resulted in a less immunogenic product, but one that was still capable of improving graft survival (9). Duration of the so-called transfusion effect was difficult to evaluate, but blood transfused within a year or two before transplantation appeared to have a beneficial effect. As a consequence of these data, many transplant centers started to deliberately transfuse two to five units to potential recipients before transplantation.

In the 1980s, the beneficial effect of blood transfusions in kidney transplantation became less clear. Registry data showed significant improvements in graft and patient survival, mainly as a result of the additive effect of better HLA matching (10) and more powerful immunosuppression. The change in the transfusion effect during the early 1980s, before the introduction of cyclosporine, was signaled by a disappearance of the graded response to increasing numbers of blood units. Registry data indicated that the transfusion effect diminished to a 10% improvement by the 1980s (2,11) and had almost disappeared in the 1990s (12,13). Given the lack of efficacy and the risk of sensitization, routine pretransplant blood transfusions were no longer used in most clinical transplant centers (14). In an effort to overcome the difficulties associated with pretransplant blood transfusions, some transplant centers used alternative strategies to random transfusions, such as donor-specific transfusions (15), HLA-DR–matched transfusions (16), partially or totally HLA-matched donor transfusions (17), and the use of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 immunoglobulin to inhibit alloantibody responses to blood transfusions (18). To re-examine the transfusion effect, Opelz et al. performed the first randomized clinical trial of pretransplant blood transfusions on graft outcomes. A total of 423 prospective cadaveric kidney transplant recipients from 14 European centers were randomly assigned to receive three pretransplant packed cell transfusions (n=205) or transplants without transfusions (n=218) (19). The graft survival rate was significantly higher in the transfusion recipients than in patients who did not receive transfusions (at 1 year: 90%±2% versus 82%±3%, P=0.02; at 5 years: 79%±3% versus 70%±4%, P=0.03). The beneficial transfusion effect was independent of age, sex, cause of CKD, prophylaxis with antilymphocyte antibodies, and preformed lymphocytotoxins. The authors concluded that even with the use of more potent immunosuppressive regimens, pretransplant transfusions are associated with improved graft outcomes of cadaveric kidney transplant recipients. The mechanism for the beneficial effect of blood transfusions still remains unclear. Consequently, despite the somewhat favorable results of this randomized trial, no consensus favored transfusion benefit over sensitization and infection risk.

The concern regarding transmission of viruses, including HIV, and the introduction in 1989 of recombinant human erythropoietin (r-HuEpo) therapy to maintain an adequate red cell mass were additional incentives to avoid blood transfusions in patients with CKD. In a retrospective analysis of hemodialysis patients awaiting transplantation before (group A) and 4 years after (group B) the introduction of rHuEpo, the total number of transfusions decreased by 34% during the study period, and the ratio of transfusions to hemodialysis treatments was reduced from 0.095 to 0.06 (P=0.001). Moreover, the number of patients sensitized as a consequence of blood transfusion decreased from 63% in group A to 28% in group B (P=0.0004). The overall incidence of sensitization decreased from 50% in group A to 36.5% in group B (P=0.008), which resulted in a significant reduction in the mean waiting time for transplantation (42.1±1.1 versus 15.4±2.4 months; P<0.001) (20). Other studies have also reported a lower risk of sensitization with the use of r-HuEpo instead of blood transfusions (21–23). More current data from the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) indicate that the proportion of hemodialysis patients undergoing transfusion in an outpatient center was just 0.37% in 2008 and 7% overall (24). Among transplant recipients, use of pretransplant blood transfusions has declined from 49% in 1991 to 15% in 2008. Transfusions are slightly more common among women than men (17.1% versus 13.4%) (24). Among wait-listed patients, blood transfusion use has remained rather stable since 1995. Approximately 30% of transplant candidates in 2007 had received at least one blood transfusion within 3 years of being added to the list. Moreover, blood transfusion use is greater among patients highly sensitized at the time of transplant (panel-reactive antibody [PRA] ≥ 80%) (24).

Several clinical trials published between 2006 and 2010, including CHOIR (Correction of Hemogloblin and Outcomes in Renal Insufficiency), CREATE (Cardiovascular Risk Reduction by Early Anemia Treatment with Epoetin Beta), and TREAT (Trial to Reduce Cardiovascular Events with Aranesp Therapy) have raised significant concerns regarding the safety of treating anemia of CKD with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) (25–28). Specifically, normalization of hemoglobin in patients with CKD has been associated with no benefit in terms of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, as well as an increased risk of stroke and cancer in patients with a history of or current malignancy. Furthermore, recent post hoc analyses of two of these ESA trials have suggested, although not proved, that high doses of ESA may cause toxicity, particularly in conjunction with achievement of high hemoglobin levels (28–31). These concerns have led to renewed interest in blood transfusions for treating anemia in patients with CKD.

Evidence for Blood Transfusions Causing Increased HLA Sensitization

The risk of HLA sensitization after blood transfusion has changed over time, at least in part because of changes in blood transfusion practices and use of more precise methods to measure allosensitization. In the early 1980s, Opelz et al. examined the risk of sensitization in 737 hemodialysis patients (Figure 1, A and B), of whom 331 were followed prospectively (Figure 1C) (32). Approximately 90% of all transfusions were given as packed cells and the remainder as whole blood or frozen blood. About 10% of the packed cell units were washed packed cells. Because sensitization rates did not differ with the various types of blood (whole/frozen/washed packed cells), the data were combined. Antibodies were detected by the lymphocyte cytotoxicity test.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Lymphocytotoxic antibody reactivity against random donor test panel in relation to the number of blood transfusions. Fractions of patients reacting against <10%, 10%–50%, 51%–90%, and >90% of the panel donors are plotted. All 737 patients were undergoing long-term hemodialysis and were waiting for a first kidney transplant. Numbers of patients after 2, 5, 10, 15, and 20 transfusions are indicated at top of graphs. (A) Male and female patients. (B) Female patients categorized by the number of previous pregnancies. (C) Lymphocytotoxic antibodies in patients who were studied prospectively throughout the course of treatment (32).

Overall, approximately 28% of transfused patients followed prospectively developed HLA antibodies; of these, 18% developed reactivity to 10%–50% of the panel, 7% to 50%–90%, and <3% to >90% with up to 20 transfusions (Figure 1C). Ninety percent of the men remained essentially unresponsive (<10% antibody reactivity against the panel) and 10% developed reactivity to 10%–50% of the panel (Figure 1C). In contrast, after 10 transfusions, 6% of the women demonstrated >90% reactivity, 23% showed 51%–90% reactivity, 11% showed 10%–50% reactivity, and only 60% were “unresponsive” (Figure 1C). These and other data suggested that the main drivers of HLA sensitization after red cell transfusion are previous pregnancies and previous transplantation. Men seemed to have a much lower risk of HLA sensitization after transfusion than women, and women with multiple pregnancies seemed to have a much greater risk of HLA sensitization than nulliparous women.

Studies performed in the last two decades showed that the risk of sensitization with blood transfusion was apparently lower than previously reported, with an overall response rate ranging from 2% to 21% (19,33,34). A possible explanation for this lower sensitization rate is that red blood cell transfusions in recent years are less immunogenic because they contain fewer leukocytes as a result of more widespread use of blood filters (see below).

Other conclusions that can be drawn from previous studies include the following: (1) washed red blood cells do not appear to be less immunogenic than nonwashed red blood cells (32); (2) no consistent reduction in sensitization has been demonstrated with donor-specific (33) and DR-matched (35) transfusions; and (3) higher numbers of blood transfusions have been associated with an increased risk of sensitization in some studies (11,36) but not in others (32,37).

Further data relevant to this issue are found in the 2010 USRDS annual report (24). This report suggests that the risk of sensitization with blood transfusions is substantial. For example, compared with patients who have never received a blood transfusion, patients who received transfusions have a 2.38 odds of a PRA > 80%. Interestingly, in this analysis the risk of being highly sensitized at the time of transplantation was higher for men than for women (Figure 2) (24). The 3-year cumulative incidence of transfusion in wait-listed patients was highest among patients who were highly sensitized at the time of transplant (PRA ≥ 80%) (38).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Effect of pretransplant transfusion on the risk of elevated panel-reactive antibody in transplant patients, by sex, 2004–2008 (24). PRA, panel-reactive antibody. Error bars are 95% confidence intervals. Reproduced from reference 24.

Effect of Leukocyte Depletion on Risk of HLA Sensitization after Blood Transfusion

Leukocytes often contaminate cellular blood components and have been implicated with several adverse effects of blood transfusions. The most common adverse effects are mediated by immune mechanisms and include graft-versus-host disease, reactivation of viral or bacterial diseases, immunosuppression, and allosensitization to HLA antigens. The latter may result in red blood cell alloimmunization, transplant rejection, febrile reactions, and refractoriness to platelet transfusions (39). Despite mounting evidence regarding the adverse consequences of leukocyte contamination of blood products, it continues to be a matter of debate whether the evidence is compelling enough to justify the cost of universal prestorage leukoreduction of blood products (40–47). Despite the debate, many European countries have already adopted universal leukoreduction of blood products. In the United States, approximately 75% of blood is leukoreduced.

Previous studies have also reported that leukoreduction of blood products is ineffective in decreasing sensitization in previously transplanted patients and in potential kidney transplant candidates (48–50). A possible reason for this finding is that the number of HLA molecules contributed by the red blood cells is similar to that of the leukocytes (51).

Effect of Increased HLA Sensitization on Waiting Time for Transplantation

Increased PRA titers due to blood transfusions and other factors are associated with longer waiting times for finding compatible donors and may completely preclude transplantation. For example, the median wait time for patients with a 0% PRA was 2.5 years in 2005, whereas for patients with a PRA of 1%–19% and 20%–79% the median wait times were 2.9 and 4.3 years, respectively. Not unexpectedly, wait times for highly sensitized patients (those with a PRA ≥ 80%) listed in 2005 were still to be observed in 2010 (24). Consequently, the distribution of PRA values among wait-listed patients tends toward higher levels of sensitization with longer periods from the date of listing, reflecting the difficulty of finding suitable donors for highly sensitized candidates. As an example, the percentage of patients with PRA ≥ 80% increased from 7.5% at listing to 13.3% at 5 years after listing (24).

It is important to note that waiting times in the United States have a large regional variation. Compared with a national average of 2.1 years, median waiting times for adults who underwent transplantation in 2008 exceeded 3 years in Alabama, Hawaii, New Jersey, California, and Illinois. Likewise, projected median wait times for listed adults in California and Alabama were 7.2 and 9.3 years, respectively (24). Thus, in these venues the sensitized patient will probably die on dialysis, making transfusions even more problematic.

Effect of HLA Sensitization on Outcomes after Renal Transplantation

Not being transplanted or having to wait longer for transplantation is associated with lower survival (52,53). Indeed, receiving a transfusion while on the transplant wait list in the first 5 years is associated with a nearly five-fold higher risk of dying and an 11% reduction in the likelihood of ever receiving a transplant (24). The risk of sensitization is therefore not trivial (54). Furthermore, even after transplantation, the presence of preformed HLA antibodies is associated with an increased risk of early and late graft loss (55–58). Recent data also suggest that pre-existing donor-specific HLA antibodies identified by Luminex single-antigen assay at the time of transplantation are associated with a higher incidence of antibody-mediated rejection and inferior graft survival (59).

It is important to note, however, that the strength and specificities of anti-HLA antibodies of sensitized patients allow for estimation of the percentage of donors who will be crossmatch-incompatible for a candidate. For that reason, the United Network for Organ Sharing recently introduced a new measure of sensitization for transplant candidates, the so-called calculated PRA (60). Under this scheme, kidney transplant candidates who are sensitized to >20% of potential deceased donors have access to HLA-matched kidneys from anywhere in the United States. Those with calculated PRA of ≥80% are assigned additional priority points when a compatible kidney is the best option (61).

On the other hand, novel immunosuppressive protocols incorporating intravenous immunoglobulin and plasmapheresis enable successful transplantation for sensitized patients (62–65). Although encouraging, these protocols are available to only a small proportion of sensitized potential recipients and will probably do little to address the disparity in access to transplantation.

As an alternative to desensitization protocols, paired kidney exchanges enable kidney recipients who have willing living donors to swap incompatible kidneys for compatible ones (66). However, for most broadly sensitized patients, neither of these two options is feasible (61). Clearly, transplanting compatible kidneys is the best approach, and, thus, strategies to prevent allosensitization are likely to have a greater impact for patients with ESRD.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The older data suggested that the risk of allosensitization with blood transfusions is low when they are given to transplant-naive male patients or nulliparous female patients who have not received repeated transfusions in the past. Patients who have lost a previous kidney graft and multiparous women, on the other hand, were thought to be at high risk of developing broadly reactive antibodies, especially after blood transfusions. More recent data from the USRDS, however, have challenged this and have suggested that men may be at higher risk than was previously believed. Despite some uncertainties, the available data support the premise that blood transfusions are sensitizing events that can cause an increase in HLA antibodies, and thus, should be minimized or avoided if possible in all potentially transplantable patients with CKD.

Although the evidence is conflicting, the majority view is that leukoreduction of blood products is ineffective in decreasing sensitization in previously transplanted patients and potential kidney transplant candidates. Increased PRA titers due to blood transfusions are associated with longer waiting times for finding compatible donors and may completely preclude transplantation. Not being transplanted or having to wait longer for transplantation is associated with lower survival. Furthermore, even after transplantation, the presence of preformed HLA antibodies is associated with an increased risk of early and late graft loss.

Despite the risks associated with HLA allosensitization, the introduction of calculated PRA and the emphasis on strengths and specificities of donor-specific antibodies as opposed to non–donor-specific antibodies have resulted in a paradigm shift regarding the management of sensitized patients for transplantation. Furthermore, desensitization protocols and paired kidney exchanges offer additional options, although they are limited to only a small proportion of sensitized potential recipients.

The decision to transfuse patients with CKD should be based on a careful analysis of benefits and risks (Figure 3). Individualization of anemia management has appeared as a consistent theme throughout several recent guideline and recommendation documents, and this is highly pertinent to the use of red cell transfusions in patients with CKD. Thus, in certain acute situations (e.g., acute severe hemorrhage), the use of blood transfusions is mandatory and may be life-saving (Table 1). In other clinical scenarios (such as when major surgery is planned and the preoperative hemoglobin level is < 7 g/dl), the balance of benefit versus risk may also favor transfusion. In the critical care setting, in which anemia is common, data from a randomized, controlled trial showed that a restrictive transfusion strategy (transfusing red cells at a hemoglobin < 7 g/dl) is at least as effective as and possibly superior to a liberal transfusion strategy (transfusing red cells at a hemoglobin level < 10 g/dl) in critically ill patients, with the possible exception of patients with acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina (67). Recommendations following a recent systematic review on the management of anemia in heart disease, however, suggested that in acute coronary syndromes, the use of blood transfusions to correct anemia when the hemoglobin level is 8–9 g/dl is questionable (68). In chronic anemia, when ESA therapy is likely, or has been demonstrated, to be ineffective (e.g., sickle cell disease, myeloma), the appropriate use of blood transfusions is less clear.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Clinical algorithm to guide the use of red cell transfusions in patients with CKD. ESA, erythropoiesis-stimulating agent.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Indications for Blood Transfusions

A relevant factor in this situation is the likelihood of the patient being listed for kidney transplantation. In an older patient in whom kidney transplantation is contraindicated because of severe cardiovascular disease, for example, the threshold for using blood transfusions might be lower. However, in a 29-year-old, otherwise fit mother of two who is contemplating kidney transplantation, greater efforts should probably be made to avoid the use of transfusions, given the risk of allosensitization and subsequent outcomes. Conversely, in patients at high risk of serious complications with ESAs (those with previous or current malignancy, or previous stroke), and in those who require high doses of ESA to achieve a certain hemoglobin level, the balance of benefits and risks may favor transfusion.

Clearly, further research is needed to confirm the older data on the risk of allosensitization after blood transfusion and to continue searching for alternative ways to reduce sensitization with blood products. In the short term, this is likely to take the form of prospective observational studies monitoring the use of transfused blood in patients with CKD and collecting data on HLA sensitization and subsequent transplant outcomes. In the longer term, there is also a pressing need for randomized, controlled trials, although the design, funding, and implementation of such trials will not be straightforward.

Disclosures

None.

Footnotes

  • Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.cjasn.org.

  • Copyright © 2013 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    1. Opelz G,
    2. Terasaki PI
    : Improvement of kidney-graft survival with increased numbers of blood transfusions. N Engl J Med 299: 799–803, 1978pmid:357971
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Cecka JM
    : The transfusion effect. Clin Transpl 287–301, 1987pmid:3154420
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Opelz G,
    2. Terasaki PI
    : Poor kidney-transplant survival in recipients with frozen-blood transfusions or no transfusions. Lancet 2: 696–698, 1974pmid:4142966
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Feduska NJ,
    2. Vincenti F,
    3. Amend WJ Jr.,
    4. Duca R,
    5. Cochrum K,
    6. Salvatierra O Jr.
    : Do blood transfusions enhance the possibility of a compatible transplant? Transplantation 27: 35–38, 1979pmid:375493
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Corry RJ,
    2. West JC,
    3. Hunsicker LG,
    4. Schanbacher BA,
    5. Lachenbruch PA
    : Effect of timing of administration and quantity of blood transfusion on cadaver renal transplant survival. Transplantation 30: 425–428, 1980pmid:7008290
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Frisk B,
    2. Brynger H,
    3. Wedel N,
    4. Sandberg L
    : Blood transfusion in cadaveric renal transplantation—a prospective study. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl 64: 100–105, 1981pmid:6755666
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Chapman JR,
    2. Ting A,
    3. Fisher M,
    4. Carter NP,
    5. Morris PJ
    : Failure of platelet transfusion to improve human renal allograft survival. Transplantation 41: 468–473, 1986pmid:3515647
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Opelz G,
    2. Terasaki PI
    : Importance of preoperative (not peroperative) transfusions for cadaver kidney transplants. Transplantation 31: 106–108, 1981pmid:7020169
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Fuller TC,
    2. Delmonico FL,
    3. Cosimi B,
    4. Huggins CE,
    5. King M,
    6. Russell PS
    : Impact of blood transfusion on renal transplantation. Ann Surg 187: 211–218, 1978pmid:343736
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Opelz G
    : Correlation of HLA matching with kidney graft survival in patients with or without cyclosporine treatment. Transplantation 40: 240–243, 1985pmid:3898488
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Cecka JM,
    2. Cicciarelli J,
    3. Mickey MR,
    4. Terasaki PI
    : Blood transfusions and HLA matching—an either/or situation in cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplantation 45: 81–86, 1988pmid:3276068
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Ahmed Z,
    2. Terasaki PI
    : Effect of transfusions. Clin Transpl 305–312, 1991pmid:1820125
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Terasaki PI,
    2. McClelland JD,
    3. Yuge J,
    4. Cecka JM,
    5. Gjertson DW,
    6. Takemoto S,
    7. Cho YW
    : Advances in kidney transplantation: 1985-1995. Clin Transpl 485: 487–501, 1995pmid:8794286
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Carpenter CB
    : Blood transfusion effects in kidney transplantation. Yale J Biol Med 63: 435–443, 1990pmid:2149898
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Salvatierra O Jr.,
    2. Melzer J,
    3. Potter D,
    4. Garovoy M,
    5. Vincenti F,
    6. Amend WJ,
    7. Husing R,
    8. Hopper S,
    9. Feduska NJ
    : A seven-year experience with donor-specific blood transfusions. Results and considerations for maximum efficacy. Transplantation 40: 654–659, 1985pmid:3907038
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Middleton D,
    2. Martin J,
    3. Douglas J,
    4. McClelland M
    : Transfusion of one HLA-DR antigen-matched blood to potential recipients of a renal allograft. Transplantation 58: 845–848, 1994pmid:7940720
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Scornik JC,
    2. Salomon DR,
    3. Howard RJ,
    4. Pfaff WW
    : Prevention of transfusion-induced broad sensitization in renal transplant candidates. Transplantation 47: 617–620, 1989pmid:2650044
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Ibrahim S,
    2. Jakobs F,
    3. Kittur D,
    4. Hess A,
    5. Linsley PS,
    6. Sanfilippo F,
    7. Baldwin WM 3rd.
    : CTLA4Ig inhibits alloantibody responses to repeated blood transfusions. Blood 88: 4594–4600, 1996pmid:8977251
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Opelz G,
    2. Vanrenterghem Y,
    3. Kirste G,
    4. Gray DW,
    5. Horsburgh T,
    6. Lachance JG,
    7. Largiader F,
    8. Lange H,
    9. Vujaklija-Stipanovic K,
    10. Alvarez-Grande J,
    11. Schott W,
    12. Hoyer J,
    13. Schnuelle P,
    14. Descoeudres C,
    15. Ruder H,
    16. Wujciak T,
    17. Schwarz V
    : Prospective evaluation of pretransplant blood transfusions in cadaver kidney recipients. Transplantation 63: 964–967, 1997pmid:9112348
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Vella JP,
    2. O’Neill D,
    3. Atkins N,
    4. Donohoe JF,
    5. Walshe JJ
    : Sensitization to human leukocyte antigen before and after the introduction of erythropoietin. Nephrol Dial Transplant 13: 2027–2032, 1998pmid:9719159
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Grimm PC,
    2. Sinai-Trieman L,
    3. Sekiya NM,
    4. Robertson LS,
    5. Robinson BJ,
    6. Fine RN,
    7. Ettenger RB
    : Effects of recombinant human erythropoietin on HLA sensitization and cell mediated immunity. Kidney Int 38: 12–18, 1990pmid:2385080
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Deierhoi MH,
    2. Barger BO,
    3. Hudson SL,
    4. Shroyer TW,
    5. Diethelm AG
    : The effect of erythropoietin and blood transfusions on highly sensitized patients on a single cadaver renal allograft waiting list. Transplantation 53: 363–368, 1992pmid:1738931
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Fehrman-Ekholm I,
    2. Sumitran-Karuppan S
    : Antibodies in alloimmunized uraemic patients treated with recombinant erythropoietin. Transpl Int 7[Suppl 1]: S290–S293, 1994pmid:11271228
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. U.S. Renal Data System
    : USRDS 2010 Annual Data Report: Atlas of Chronic Kidney Disease and End-Stage Renal Disease in the United States, Bethesda, MD, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 2010
  23. ↵
    1. Singh AK,
    2. Szczech L,
    3. Tang KL,
    4. Barnhart H,
    5. Sapp S,
    6. Wolfson M,
    7. Reddan D,
    8. CHOIR Investigators
    : Correction of anemia with epoetin alfa in chronic kidney disease. N Engl J Med 355: 2085–2098, 2006pmid:17108343
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Drüeke TB,
    2. Locatelli F,
    3. Clyne N,
    4. Eckardt KU,
    5. Macdougall IC,
    6. Tsakiris D,
    7. Burger HU,
    8. Scherhag A,
    9. CREATE Investigators
    : Normalization of hemoglobin level in patients with chronic kidney disease and anemia. N Engl J Med 355: 2071–2084, 2006pmid:17108342
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Pfeffer MA,
    2. Burdmann EA,
    3. Chen C-Y,
    4. Cooper ME,
    5. de Zeeuw D,
    6. Eckardt KU,
    7. Feyzi JM,
    8. Ivanovich P,
    9. Kewalramani R,
    10. Levey AS,
    11. Lewis EF,
    12. McGill JB,
    13. McMurray JJ,
    14. Parfrey P,
    15. Parving HH,
    16. Remuzzi G,
    17. Singh AK,
    18. Solomon SD,
    19. Toto R,
    20. TREAT Investigators
    : A trial of darbepoetin alfa in type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. N Engl J Med 361: 2019–2032, 2009pmid:19880844
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Solomon SD,
    2. Uno H,
    3. Lewis EF,
    4. Eckardt KU,
    5. Lin J,
    6. Burdmann EA,
    7. de Zeeuw D,
    8. Ivanovich P,
    9. Levey AS,
    10. Parfrey P,
    11. Remuzzi G,
    12. Singh AK,
    13. Toto R,
    14. Huang F,
    15. Rossert J,
    16. McMurray JJ,
    17. Pfeffer MA,
    18. Trial to Reduce Cardiovascular Events with Aranesp Therapy (TREAT) Investigators
    : Erythropoietic response and outcomes in kidney disease and type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 363: 1146–1155, 2010pmid:20843249
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Szczech LA,
    2. Barnhart HX,
    3. Inrig JK,
    4. Reddan DN,
    5. Sapp S,
    6. Califf RM,
    7. Patel UD,
    8. Singh AK
    : Secondary analysis of the CHOIR trial epoetin-alpha dose and achieved hemoglobin outcomes. Kidney Int 74: 791–798, 2008pmid:18596733
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Rosner MH,
    2. Bolton WK
    : The mortality risk associated with higher hemoglobin: Is the therapy to blame? Kidney Int 74: 695–697, 2008pmid:18756292
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Regidor DL,
    2. Kopple JD,
    3. Kovesdy CP,
    4. Kilpatrick RD,
    5. McAllister CJ,
    6. Aronovitz J,
    7. Greenland S,
    8. Kalantar-Zadeh K
    : Associations between changes in hemoglobin and administered erythropoiesis-stimulating agent and survival in hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 17: 1181–1191, 2006pmid:16565261
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Opelz G,
    2. Graver B,
    3. Mickey MR,
    4. Terasaki PI
    : Lymphocytotoxic antibody responses to transfusions in potential kidney transplant recipients. Transplantation 32: 177–183, 1981pmid:7025368
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Reed A,
    2. Pirsch J,
    3. Armbrust MJ,
    4. Burlingham WJ,
    5. Knechtle SJ,
    6. D’Alessandro AM,
    7. Sollinger HW,
    8. Lorentzen D,
    9. Kalayoglu M,
    10. Belzer FO
    : Multivariate analysis of donor-specific versus random transfusion protocols in haploidentical living-related transplants. Transplantation 51: 382–384, 1991pmid:1994532
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Vanrenterghem Y,
    2. Waer M,
    3. Roels L,
    4. Coosemans W,
    5. Christaens MR,
    6. Opelz G,
    7. Leuven Collaborative Group for Transplantation
    : A prospective, randomized trial of pretransplant blood transfusions in cadaver kidney transplant candidates. Transpl Int 7[Suppl 1]: S243–S246, 1994pmid:11271215
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Christiaans MH,
    2. van Hooff JP,
    3. Nieman F,
    4. van den Berg-Loonen EM
    : HLA-DR matched transfusions: development of donor-specific T- and B-cell antibodies and renal allograft outcome. Transplantation 67: 1029–1035, 1999pmid:10221489
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Pfaff WW,
    2. Howard RJ,
    3. Scornik JC,
    4. Day C,
    5. Renderer J,
    6. Scott J,
    7. Fennel RS,
    8. Peterson JC,
    9. Salomon DR,
    10. Patton PR
    : Incidental and purposeful random donor blood transfusion. Sensitization and transplantation. Transplantation 47: 130–133, 1989pmid:2643223
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Sanfilippo F,
    2. Vaughn WK,
    3. Bollinger RR,
    4. Spees EK
    : Comparative effects of pregnancy, transfusion, and prior graft rejection on sensitization and renal transplant results. Transplantation 34: 360–366, 1982pmid:6760495
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. U.S. Renal Data System
    : USRDS 2011 Annual Data Report: Atlas of Chronic Kidney Disease and End-Stage Renal Disease in the United States, Bethesda, MD, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 2011
  33. ↵
    1. Williamson LM
    : Leucocyte depletion of the blood supply—how will patients benefit? Br J Haematol 110: 256–272, 2000pmid:10971381
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Vamvakas EC
    : WBC-containing allogeneic blood transfusion and mortality: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Transfusion 43: 963–973, 2003pmid:12823758
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Goodnough LT
    : The case against universal WBC reduction (and for the practice of evidence-based medicine). Transfusion 40: 1522–1527, 2000pmid:11134574
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Vamvakas EC,
    2. Blajchman MA
    : Universal WBC reduction: The case for and against. Transfusion 41: 691–712, 2001pmid:11346708
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Uhlmann EJ,
    2. Isgriggs E,
    3. Wallhermfechtel M,
    4. Goodnough LT
    : Prestorage universal WBC reduction of RBC units does not affect the incidence of transfusion reactions. Transfusion 41: 997–1000, 2001pmid:11493730
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Dzik WH,
    2. Anderson JK,
    3. O’Neill EM,
    4. Assmann SF,
    5. Kalish LA,
    6. Stowell CP
    : A prospective, randomized clinical trial of universal WBC reduction. Transfusion 42: 1114–1122, 2002pmid:12430666
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Ratko TA,
    2. Cummings JP,
    3. Oberman HA,
    4. Crookston KP,
    5. DeChristopher PJ,
    6. Eastlund DT,
    7. Godwin JE,
    8. Sacher RA,
    9. Yawn DH,
    10. Matuszewski KA,
    11. University Health System Consortium
    : Evidence-based recommendations for the use of WBC-reduced cellular blood components. Transfusion 41: 1310–1319, 2001pmid:11606834
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Cleemput I,
    2. Leys M,
    3. Ramaekers D,
    4. Bonneux L
    : Balancing evidence and public opinion in health technology assessments: The case of leukoreduction. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 22: 403–407, 2006pmid:16984672
    OpenUrlPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Bassuni WY,
    2. Blajchman MA,
    3. Al-Moshary MA
    : Why implement universal leukoreduction? Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Ther 1: 106–123, 2008pmid:20063539
    OpenUrlPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Scornik JC,
    2. Ireland JE,
    3. Howard RJ,
    4. Fennell RS 3rd.,
    5. Pfaff WW
    : Role of regular and leukocyte-free blood transfusions in the generation of broad sensitization. Transplantation 38: 594–598, 1984pmid:6390819
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Sanfilippo FP,
    2. Bollinger RR,
    3. MacQueen JM,
    4. Brooks BJ,
    5. Koepke JA
    : A randomized study comparing leukocyte-depleted versus packed red cell transfusions in prospective cadaver renal allograft recipients. Transfusion 25: 116–119, 1985pmid:3885483
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Karpinski M,
    2. Pochinco D,
    3. Dembinski I,
    4. Laidlaw W,
    5. Zacharias J,
    6. Nickerson P
    : Leukocyte reduction of red blood cell transfusions does not decrease allosensitization rates in potential kidney transplant candidates. J Am Soc Nephrol 15: 818–824, 2004pmid:14978185
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    1. Everett ET,
    2. Kao KJ,
    3. Scornik JC
    : Class I HLA molecules on human erythrocytes. Quantitation and transfusion effects. Transplantation 44: 123–129, 1987pmid:3603672
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Port FK,
    2. Wolfe RA,
    3. Mauger EA,
    4. Berling DP,
    5. Jiang K
    : Comparison of survival probabilities for dialysis patients vs cadaveric renal transplant recipients. JAMA 270: 1339–1343, 1993pmid:8360969
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Oniscu GC,
    2. Brown H,
    3. Forsythe JL
    : Impact of cadaveric renal transplantation on survival in patients listed for transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol 16: 1859–1865, 2005pmid:15857921
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    1. Agarwal R
    : Individualizing decision-making—resurrecting the doctor-patient relationship in the anemia debate. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 5: 1340–1346, 2010pmid:20448071
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. ↵
    1. Terasaki PI,
    2. Ozawa M
    : Predicting kidney graft failure by HLA antibodies: A prospective trial. Am J Transplant 4: 438–443, 2004pmid:14961999
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. Cecka JM, Cho L: Sensitization. Clin Transpl 365–373, 1988
    1. Opelz G,
    2. Collaborative Transplant Study
    : Non-HLA transplantation immunity revealed by lymphocytotoxic antibodies. Lancet 365: 1570–1576, 2005pmid:15866311
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Terasaki PI,
    2. Ozawa M
    : Predictive value of HLA antibodies and serum creatinine in chronic rejection: Results of a 2-year prospective trial. Transplantation 80: 1194–1197, 2005pmid:16314785
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Lefaucheur C,
    2. Loupy A,
    3. Hill GS,
    4. Andrade J,
    5. Nochy D,
    6. Antoine C,
    7. Gautreau C,
    8. Charron D,
    9. Glotz D,
    10. Suberbielle-Boissel C
    : Preexisting donor-specific HLA antibodies predict outcome in kidney transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol 21: 1398–1406, 2010pmid:20634297
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. ↵
    1. Cecka JM
    : Calculated PRA (CPRA): The new measure of sensitization for transplant candidates. Am J Transplant 10: 26–29, 2010pmid:19958328
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Cecka JM
    : Transplantation: Desensitization and transplantation for sensitized patients? Nat Rev Nephrol 7: 682–683, 2011pmid:21971189
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Glotz D,
    2. Antoine C,
    3. Julia P,
    4. Suberbielle-Boissel C,
    5. Boudjeltia S,
    6. Fraoui R,
    7. Hacen C,
    8. Duboust A,
    9. Bariety J
    : Desensitization and subsequent kidney transplantation of patients using intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg). Am J Transplant 2: 758–760, 2002pmid:12243496
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Jordan SC,
    2. Tyan D,
    3. Stablein D,
    4. McIntosh M,
    5. Rose S,
    6. Vo A,
    7. Toyoda M,
    8. Davis C,
    9. Shapiro R,
    10. Adey D,
    11. Milliner D,
    12. Graff R,
    13. Steiner R,
    14. Ciancio G,
    15. Sahney S,
    16. Light J
    : Evaluation of intravenous immunoglobulin as an agent to lower allosensitization and improve transplantation in highly sensitized adult patients with end-stage renal disease: Report of the NIH IG02 trial. J Am Soc Nephrol 15: 3256–3262, 2004pmid:15579530
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Marfo K,
    2. Lu A,
    3. Ling M,
    4. Akalin E
    : Desensitization protocols and their outcome. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 6: 922–936, 2011pmid:21441131
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. ↵
    1. Montgomery RA,
    2. Lonze BE,
    3. King KE,
    4. Kraus ES,
    5. Kucirka LM,
    6. Locke JE,
    7. Warren DS,
    8. Simpkins CE,
    9. Dagher NN,
    10. Singer AL,
    11. Zachary AA,
    12. Segev DL
    : Desensitization in HLA-incompatible kidney recipients and survival. N Engl J Med 365: 318–326, 2011pmid:21793744
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Blumberg JM,
    2. Gritsch H,
    3. Veale JL
    : Kidney paired donation: Advancements and future directions. Curr Opin Organ Transplant 16: 380–384, 2011pmid:21709555
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Hébert PC,
    2. Wells G,
    3. Blajchman MA,
    4. Marshall J,
    5. Martin C,
    6. Pagliarello G,
    7. Tweeddale M,
    8. Schweitzer I,
    9. Yetisir E
    : A multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial of transfusion requirements in critical care. Transfusion Requirements in Critical Care Investigators, Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. N Engl J Med 340: 409–417, 1999pmid:9971864
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    Kansagara D, Dyer EAW, Englander H, Freeman M, Kagen D: Treatment of anemia in patients with heart disease: a systematic review. VA-ESP Project #05-225, Washington, DC, Department of Veterans Affairs, 2011
    1. Murphy MF,
    2. Wallington TB,
    3. Kelsey P,
    4. Boulton F,
    5. Bruce M,
    6. Cohen H,
    7. Duguid J,
    8. Knowles SM,
    9. Poole G,
    10. Williamson LM,
    11. British Committee for Standards in Haematology, Blood Transfusion Task Force
    : Guidelines for the clinical use of red cell transfusions. Br J Haematol 113: 24–31, 2001pmid:11328275
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Anderson JL,
    2. Adams CD,
    3. Antman EM,
    4. Bridges CR,
    5. Califf RM,
    6. Casey DE Jr.,
    7. Chavey WE 2nd.,
    8. Fesmire FM,
    9. Hochman JS,
    10. Levin TN,
    11. Lincoff AM,
    12. Peterson ED,
    13. Theroux P,
    14. Wenger NK,
    15. Wright RS,
    16. Smith SC Jr.,
    17. Jacobs AK,
    18. Adams CD,
    19. Anderson JL,
    20. Antman EM,
    21. Halperin JL,
    22. Hunt SA,
    23. Krumholz HM,
    24. Kushner FG,
    25. Lytle BW,
    26. Nishimura R,
    27. Ornato JP,
    28. Page RL,
    29. Riegel B,
    30. American College of Cardiology,
    31. American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction),
    32. American College of Emergency Physicians,
    33. Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions,
    34. Society of Thoracic Surgeons,
    35. American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation,
    36. Society for Academic Emergency Medicine
    : ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-Elevation myocardial infarction: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. J Am Coll Cardiol 50: e1–e157, 2007pmid:17692738
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Harrington RA,
    2. Becker RC,
    3. Cannon CP
    , Gutterman D, Lincoff AM, Popma JJ, Steg G, Guyatt GH, Goodman SG; American College of Chest Physicians: Antithrombotic therapy for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Chest 133: 670S–707S, 2008
    1. Hunt SA,
    2. Abraham WT,
    3. Chin MH,
    4. Feldman AM,
    5. Francis GS,
    6. Ganiats TG,
    7. Jessup M,
    8. Konstam MA,
    9. Mancini DM,
    10. Michl K,
    11. Oates JA,
    12. Rahko PS,
    13. Silver MA,
    14. Stevenson LW,
    15. Yancy CW,
    16. Antman EM,
    17. Smith SC Jr.,
    18. Adams CD,
    19. Anderson JL,
    20. Faxon DP,
    21. Fuster V,
    22. Halperin JL,
    23. Hiratzka LF,
    24. Jacobs AK,
    25. Nishimura R,
    26. Ornato JP,
    27. Page RL,
    28. Riegel B,
    29. American College of Cardiology,
    30. American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines,
    31. American College of Chest Physicians,
    32. International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation,
    33. Heart Rhythm Society
    : ACC/AHA 2005 Guideline Update for the Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Heart Failure in the Adult: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Heart Failure): Developed in collaboration with the American College of Chest Physicians and the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation 112: e154–e235, 2005pmid:16160202
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    1. Heart Failure Society of America
    : Nonpharmacologic management and health care maintenance in patients with chronic heart failure. J Card Fail 12: e29–e37, 2006pmid:16500569
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Dickstein K,
    2. Cohen-Solal A,
    3. Filippatos G,
    4. McMurray JJ,
    5. Ponikowski P,
    6. Poole-Wilson PA,
    7. Strömberg A,
    8. van Veldhuisen DJ,
    9. Atar D,
    10. Hoes AW,
    11. Keren A,
    12. Mebazaa A,
    13. Nieminen M,
    14. Priori SG,
    15. Swedberg K,
    16. ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG)
    : ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2008: The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure 2008 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association of the ESC (HFA) and endorsed by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). Eur Heart J 29: 2388–2442, 2008pmid:18799522
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 8 (5)
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 8, Issue 5
May 07, 2013
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Sign up for Alerts
Email Article
Thank you for your help in sharing the high-quality science in CJASN.
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Effect of Red Cell Transfusions on Future Kidney Transplantation
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Effect of Red Cell Transfusions on Future Kidney Transplantation
Gregorio T. Obrador, Iain C. Macdougall
CJASN May 2013, 8 (5) 852-860; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.00020112

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Effect of Red Cell Transfusions on Future Kidney Transplantation
Gregorio T. Obrador, Iain C. Macdougall
CJASN May 2013, 8 (5) 852-860; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.00020112
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Summary
    • Introduction
    • Overview of Blood Transfusion Use in Patients with CKD
    • Evidence for Blood Transfusions Causing Increased HLA Sensitization
    • Effect of Leukocyte Depletion on Risk of HLA Sensitization after Blood Transfusion
    • Effect of Increased HLA Sensitization on Waiting Time for Transplantation
    • Effect of HLA Sensitization on Outcomes after Renal Transplantation
    • Conclusions and Recommendations
    • Disclosures
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Assessing Physical Function and Physical Activity in Patients with CKD
  • Management of Crush Victims in Mass Disasters: Highlights from Recently Published Recommendations
Show more In-Depth Reviews

Cited By...

  • Oral Hypoxia-Inducible Factor Prolyl Hydroxylase Inhibitor Roxadustat (FG-4592) for the Treatment of Anemia in Patients with CKD
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Access
  • Subject Collections
  • Article Archive
  • ASN Meeting Abstracts

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Trainee of the Year
  • Author Resources
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • CJASN
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About CJASN
  • CJASN Email Alerts
  • CJASN Key Impact Information
  • CJASN Podcasts
  • CJASN RSS Feeds
  • Editorial Board

More Information

  • Advertise
  • ASN Podcasts
  • ASN Publications
  • Become an ASN Member
  • Feedback
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Password/Email Address Changes
  • Subscribe

© 2021 American Society of Nephrology

Print ISSN - 1555-9041 Online ISSN - 1555-905X

Powered by HighWire