Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Annals of Surgery logoLink to Annals of Surgery
. 1979 Mar;189(3):290–293. doi: 10.1097/00000658-197903000-00005

Antigenicity of venous allografts.

S C Axthelm, J M Porter, S Strickland, G M Baur
PMCID: PMC1397103  PMID: 106782

Abstract

With isolated exceptions, the clinical use of venous allografts has been disappointing. Considerable evidence indicates that allograft antigenicity plays a major role in the failure of venous allografts when used as arterial replacements. Recent reports suggest that DMSO-cryopreservation of venous allografts may reduce allograft antigenicity while preserving allograft viability. The present study examines the effect of modifications of vein allografts on subsequent allograft antigenicity. Skin grafts were transplanted from ACI to Lewis inbred strains of male rats. Primary skin graft rejection occurred in 9.0 +/- 1.0 days. Subcutaneous implantation of fresh inferior vena cava from ACI rate into Lewis rats resulted in subsequent skin graft rejection in 5.0 +/- 1.0 days, confirming the antigenicity of venous tissue. Cryopreservation of ACI inferior vena cava for seven days prior to implantation, with or without 15% DMSO, resulted in subsequent skin graft rejection in 5.0 +/- 1.0 days. Treatment of ACI inferior vena cava with 0.30% gluteraldehyde for 20 minutes prior to implantation in Lewis rats resulted in skin graft rejection in 9.0 +/- 1.0 days, the same time as a first set rejection. This study indicates that unmodified veins are normally antigenic and that this antigenicity is not eliminated by cryopreservation with or without DMSO. Gluteraldehyde treatment appears to reduce allograft antigenicity, but results in a nonviable graft. At the present time, there is no known way to reduce the antigenicity of viable venous allografts.

Full text

PDF
290

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Calhoun A. D., Baur G. M., Porter J. M., Houghton D. H., Templeton J. W. Fresh and cryopreserved venous allografts in genetically characterized dogs. J Surg Res. 1977 Jun;22(6):687–696. doi: 10.1016/0022-4804(77)90111-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Dale W. A., Lewis M. R. Further experiences with bovine arterial grafts. Surgery. 1976 Dec;80(6):711–721. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. De Falco R. J. Immunologic studies of untreated and chemically modified bovine carotid arteries. J Surg Res. 1970 Feb;10(2):95–100. doi: 10.1016/0022-4804(70)90016-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Dent T. L., Weber T. R., Lindenauer S. M., Ascher N., Weatherbee L., Allen E., Spencer H. H. Cryopreservation of vein grafts. Surg Forum. 1974;25(0):241–243. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Gonzalez J., Dufek J. H., Kahn D. R. Preservation and long-term patency of venous grafts. Surg Forum. 1977;28:217–219. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Jackson D. R., Abel D. W. The homologous saphenous vein in arterial reconstruction. Vasc Surg. 1972 Mar-Apr;6(2):85–92. doi: 10.1177/153857447200600206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Ochsner J. L., DeCamp P. T., Leonard G. L. Experience with fresh venous allografts as an arterial substitute. Ann Surg. 1971 Jun;173(6):933–939. doi: 10.1097/00000658-197106010-00011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Perloff L. J., Reckard C. R., Rowlands D. T., Jr, Barker C. F. The venous homograft: an immunological question. Surgery. 1972 Dec;72(6):961–970. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Piccone V. A., Jr, Lee H., Ramos S., Ahmed N., DiScala V., Hammanci M., Piccone V. A., Nielsen E., LeVeen H. H., Berger E. Preserved allografts of dilated saphenous vein for vascular access in hemodialysis: an initial experience. Ann Surg. 1975 Dec;182(6):727–732. doi: 10.1097/00000658-197512000-00013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Schwartz S. I., Kutner F. R., Neistadt A., Barner H., Resnicoff S., Vaughan J. Antigenicity of homografted veins. Surgery. 1967 Mar;61(3):471–477. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Sheil A. G., Stephen M. S., Boulas J., Johnson D. S., Loewenthal J. Small arterial reconstruction using modified cadaveric saphenous veins. Am J Surg. 1977 Nov;134(5):591–595. doi: 10.1016/0002-9610(77)90441-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Stephen M., Sheil A. G., Wong J. Allograft vein arterial bypass. Arch Surg. 1978 May;113(5):591–593. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.1978.01370170053009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Tice D. A., Santoni E. Use of saphenous vein homografts for arterial reconstruction: a preliminary report. Surgery. 1970 Mar;67(3):493–498. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Tice D. A., Zerbino V. R., Isom O. W., Cunningham J. N., Engelman R. M. Coronary artery bypass with freeze-preserved saphenous vein allografts. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1976 Mar;71(3):378–382. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Weber T. R., Dent T. L., Lindenauer S. M., Allen E., Weatherbee L., Spencer H. H., Gleich P. Viable vein graft preservation. J Surg Res. 1975 Mar;18(3):247–255. doi: 10.1016/0022-4804(75)90148-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Weber T. R., Lindenauer S. M., Dent T. L., Allen E., Salles C. A., Weatherbee L. Long-term patency of vein grafts preserved in liquid nitrogen in dimethyl sulfoxide. Ann Surg. 1976 Dec;184(6):709–712. doi: 10.1097/00000658-197612000-00008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Williams G. M., ter Haar A., Krajewski C., Parks L. C., Roth J. Rejection and repair of endothelium in major vessel transplants. Surgery. 1975 Dec;78(6):694–706. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Williams G. M., ter Haar A., Krajewski C., Parks L. C., Roth J. Rejection and repair of endothelium in major vessel transplants. Surgery. 1975 Dec;78(6):694–706. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Annals of Surgery are provided here courtesy of Lippincott, Williams, and Wilkins

RESOURCES