HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Search for Related Content Related Collections Related Article

J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008;135:601-602
© 2008 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery

Invited Commentary

Discussion

Dr Yoshiya Toyoda (Pittsburgh, Pa). What do you think is the mechanism of the difference in outcome between daclizumab and AT, because previously we have shown there is no difference in AR and survival between daclizumab and AT, and alemtuzumab induction is much better in terms of AR. Are there any differences in, for example, pulmonary protection or preservation protocols for infection, prophylaxis, or ventilatory management?

Dr Ailawadi. Those are good questions. The question is basically to try to elucidate why we saw these differences between the AT group and the daclizumab group. Primarily, what we saw with our patients receiving AT was that they got very sick, and few patients were able to tolerate the full course of AT induction. Patients receiving daclizumab were all able to tolerate the full treatment courses, as long as they survived, as most of them did.

As to why AR, BOS, and survival would all have . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Related Article

Effects of induction immunosuppression regimen on acute rejection, bronchiolitis obliterans, and survival after lung transplantation

Gorav Ailawadi, Philip W. Smith, Tomomi Oka, Hongkun Wang, Benjamin D. Kozower, Thomas M. Daniel, Irving L. Kron, and David R. Jones
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2008 135: 594-602. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]