Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Edward S. Kraus is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Edward S. Kraus.


American Journal of Transplantation | 2008

Banff 07 Classification of Renal Allograft Pathology: Updates and Future Directions

Kim Solez; Robert B. Colvin; Lorraine C. Racusen; Mark Haas; B. Sis; Michael Mengel; Philip F. Halloran; William M. Baldwin; Giovanni Banfi; A. B. Collins; F. Cosio; Daisa Silva Ribeiro David; Cinthia B. Drachenberg; G. Einecke; Agnes B. Fogo; Ian W. Gibson; Samy S. Iskandar; Edward S. Kraus; Evelyne Lerut; Roslyn B. Mannon; Michael J. Mihatsch; Brian J. Nankivell; Volker Nickeleit; John C. Papadimitriou; Parmjeet Randhawa; Heinz Regele; Karine Renaudin; Ian S.D. Roberts; Daniel Serón; R. N. Smith

The 9th Banff Conference on Allograft Pathology was held in La Coruna, Spain on June 23–29, 2007. A total of 235 pathologists, clinicians and scientists met to address unsolved issues in transplantation and adapt the Banff schema for renal allograft rejection in response to emerging data and technologies. The outcome of the consensus discussions on renal pathology is provided in this article. Major updates from the 2007 Banff Conference were: inclusion of peritubular capillaritis grading, C4d scoring, interpretation of C4d deposition without morphological evidence of active rejection, application of the Banff criteria to zero‐time and protocol biopsies and introduction of a new scoring for total interstitial inflammation (ti‐score). In addition, emerging research data led to the establishment of collaborative working groups addressing issues like isolated ‘v’ lesion and incorporation of omics‐technologies, paving the way for future combination of graft biopsy and molecular parameters within the Banff process.


American Journal of Transplantation | 2014

Banff 2013 Meeting Report: Inclusion of C4d‐Negative Antibody‐Mediated Rejection and Antibody‐Associated Arterial Lesions

Mark Haas; B. Sis; Lorraine C. Racusen; Kim Solez; Robert B. Colvin; M. C R Castro; Daisa Silva Ribeiro David; Elias David-Neto; Serena M. Bagnasco; Linda C. Cendales; Lynn D. Cornell; A. J. Demetris; Cinthia B. Drachenberg; C. F. Farver; Alton B. Farris; Ian W. Gibson; Edward S. Kraus; Helen Liapis; Alexandre Loupy; Volker Nickeleit; Parmjeet Randhawa; E. R. Rodriguez; David Rush; R. N. Smith; Carmela D. Tan; William D. Wallace; Michael Mengel

The 12th Banff Conference on Allograft Pathology was held in Comandatuba, Brazil, from August 19–23, 2013, and was preceded by a 2‐day Latin American Symposium on Transplant Immunobiology and Immunopathology. The meeting was highlighted by the presentation of the findings of several working groups formed at the 2009 and 2011 Banff meetings to: (1) establish consensus criteria for diagnosing antibody‐mediated rejection (ABMR) in the presence and absence of detectable C4d deposition; (2) develop consensus definitions and thresholds for glomerulitis (g score) and chronic glomerulopathy (cg score), associated with improved inter‐observer agreement and correlation with clinical, molecular and serological data; (3) determine whether isolated lesions of intimal arteritis (“isolated v”) represent acute rejection similar to intimal arteritis in the presence of tubulointerstitial inflammation; (4) compare different methodologies for evaluating interstitial fibrosis and for performing/evaluating implantation biopsies of renal allografts with regard to reproducibility and prediction of subsequent graft function; and (5) define clinically and prognostically significant morphologic criteria for subclassifying polyoma virus nephropathy. The key outcome of the 2013 conference is defining criteria for diagnosis of C4d‐negative ABMR and respective modification of the Banff classification. In addition, three new Banff Working Groups were initiated.


American Journal of Transplantation | 2014

Banff 2013 meeting report

Mark Haas; B. Sis; Lorraine C. Racusen; Kim Solez; Robert B. Colvin; Maria Castro; Daisa Silva Ribeiro David; Elias David-Neto; Serena M. Bagnasco; Linda C. Cendales; Lynn D. Cornell; A. J. Demetris; Cinthia B. Drachenberg; C. F. Farver; Alton B. Farris; Ian W. Gibson; Edward S. Kraus; Helen Liapis; Alexandre Loupy; Nickeleit; Parmjeet Randhawa; E. R. Rodriguez; David N. Rush; R. N. Smith; Carmela D. Tan; William D. Wallace; Michael Mengel; Christopher Bellamy

The 12th Banff Conference on Allograft Pathology was held in Comandatuba, Brazil, from August 19–23, 2013, and was preceded by a 2‐day Latin American Symposium on Transplant Immunobiology and Immunopathology. The meeting was highlighted by the presentation of the findings of several working groups formed at the 2009 and 2011 Banff meetings to: (1) establish consensus criteria for diagnosing antibody‐mediated rejection (ABMR) in the presence and absence of detectable C4d deposition; (2) develop consensus definitions and thresholds for glomerulitis (g score) and chronic glomerulopathy (cg score), associated with improved inter‐observer agreement and correlation with clinical, molecular and serological data; (3) determine whether isolated lesions of intimal arteritis (“isolated v”) represent acute rejection similar to intimal arteritis in the presence of tubulointerstitial inflammation; (4) compare different methodologies for evaluating interstitial fibrosis and for performing/evaluating implantation biopsies of renal allografts with regard to reproducibility and prediction of subsequent graft function; and (5) define clinically and prognostically significant morphologic criteria for subclassifying polyoma virus nephropathy. The key outcome of the 2013 conference is defining criteria for diagnosis of C4d‐negative ABMR and respective modification of the Banff classification. In addition, three new Banff Working Groups were initiated.


American Journal of Transplantation | 2010

Banff ’09 Meeting Report: Antibody Mediated Graft Deterioration and Implementation of Banff Working Groups

B. Sis; Michael Mengel; Mark Haas; Robert B. Colvin; Philip F. Halloran; Lorraine C. Racusen; Kim Solez; William M. Baldwin; Erika R. Bracamonte; Verena Broecker; F. Cosio; Anthony J. Demetris; Cinthia B. Drachenberg; G. Einecke; James M. Gloor; Edward S. Kraus; C. Legendre; Helen Liapis; Roslyn B. Mannon; Brian J. Nankivell; Volker Nickeleit; John C. Papadimitriou; Parmjeet Randhawa; Heinz Regele; Karine Renaudin; E. R. Rodriguez; Daniel Serón; Surya V. Seshan; Manikkam Suthanthiran; Barbara A. Wasowska

The 10th Banff Conference on Allograft Pathology was held in Banff, Canada from August 9 to 14, 2009. A total of 263 transplant clinicians, pathologists, surgeons, immunologists and researchers discussed several aspects of solid organ transplants with a special focus on antibody mediated graft injury. The willingness of the Banff process to adapt continuously in response to new research and improve potential weaknesses, led to the implementation of six working groups on the following areas: isolated v‐lesion, fibrosis scoring, glomerular lesions, molecular pathology, polyomavirus nephropathy and quality assurance. Banff working groups will conduct multicenter trials to evaluate the clinical relevance, practical feasibility and reproducibility of potential changes to the Banff classification. There were also sessions on quality improvement in biopsy reading and utilization of virtual microscopy for maintaining competence in transplant biopsy interpretation. In addition, compelling molecular research data led to the discussion of incorporation of omics‐technologies and discovery of new tissue markers with the goal of combining histopathology and molecular parameters within the Banff working classification in the near future.


The New England Journal of Medicine | 2011

Desensitization in HLA-Incompatible Kidney Recipients and Survival

Robert A. Montgomery; Bonnie E. Lonze; Karen E. King; Edward S. Kraus; Lauren M. Kucirka; Jayme E. Locke; Daniel S. Warren; Christopher E. Simpkins; Nabil N. Dagher; Andrew L. Singer; Andrea A. Zachary; Dorry L. Segev

BACKGROUND More than 20,000 candidates for kidney transplantation in the United States are sensitized to HLA and may have a prolonged wait for a transplant, with a reduced transplantation rate and an increased rate of death. One solution is to perform live-donor renal transplantation after the depletion of donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies. Whether such antibody depletion results in a survival benefit as compared with waiting for an HLA-compatible kidney is unknown. METHODS We used a protocol that included plasmapheresis and the administration of low-dose intravenous immune globulin to desensitize 211 HLA-sensitized patients who subsequently underwent renal transplantation (treatment group). We compared rates of death between the group undergoing desensitization treatment and two carefully matched control groups of patients on a waiting list for kidney transplantation who continued to undergo dialysis (dialysis-only group) or who underwent either dialysis or HLA-compatible transplantation (dialysis-or-transplantation group). RESULTS In the treatment group, Kaplan-Meier estimates of patient survival were 90.6% at 1 year, 85.7% at 3 years, 80.6% at 5 years, and 80.6% at 8 years, as compared with rates of 91.1%, 67.2%, 51.5%, and 30.5%, respectively, for patients in the dialysis-only group and rates of 93.1%, 77.0%, 65.6%, and 49.1%, respectively, for patients in the dialysis-or-transplantation group (P<0.001 for both comparisons). CONCLUSIONS Live-donor transplantation after desensitization provided a significant survival benefit for patients with HLA sensitization, as compared with waiting for a compatible organ. By 8 years, this survival advantage more than doubled. These data provide evidence that desensitization protocols may help overcome incompatibility barriers in live-donor renal transplantation. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the Charles T. Bauer Foundation.).


American Journal of Transplantation | 2008

The Use of Antibody to Complement Protein C5 for Salvage Treatment of Severe Antibody‐Mediated Rejection

Jayme E. Locke; Cynthia M. Magro; Andrew L. Singer; Dorry L. Segev; Mark Haas; A. T. Hillel; Karen E. King; Edward S. Kraus; L. M. Lees; J. K. Melancon; Z. A. Stewart; Daniel S. Warren; Andrea A. Zachary; Robert A. Montgomery

Desensitized patients are at high risk of developing acute antibody‐mediated rejection (AMR). In most cases, the rejection episodes are mild and respond to a short course of plasmapheresis (PP) / low‐dose IVIg treatment. However, a subset of patients experience severe AMR associated with sudden onset oliguria. We previously described the utility of emergent splenectomy in rescuing allografts in patients with this type of severe AMR. However, not all patients are good candidates for splenectomy. Here we present a single case in which eculizumab, a complement protein C5 antibody that inhibits the formation of the membrane attack complex (MAC), was used combined with PP/IVIg to salvage a kidney undergoing severe AMR. We show a marked decrease in C5b‐C9 (MAC) complex deposition in the kidney after the administration of eculizumab.


American Journal of Transplantation | 2006

C4d and C3d staining in biopsies of ABO- and HLA-incompatible renal allografts: correlation with histologic findings.

Mark Haas; M. H. Rahman; Lorraine C. Racusen; Edward S. Kraus; Serena M. Bagnasco; Dorry L. Segev; Christopher E. Simpkins; Daniel S. Warren; K King; Andrea A. Zachary; Robert A. Montgomery

Biopsies of ABO‐incompatible and positive crossmatch (HLA‐incompatible) renal allografts were retrospectively examined to compare results of C4d and C3d staining, and the correlation between such staining and histologic findings suggestive of antibody‐mediated rejection (AMR). A total of 75 biopsies (55 protocol, 17 for graft dysfunction, 3 for other indications) of 24 ABO‐incompatible grafts and 244 biopsies (103 protocol, 129 for graft dysfunction, 12 for other indications) of 66 HLA‐incompatible grafts were examined; all were stained for C4d and ∼40% for C3d.


Transplantation | 2009

ABO incompatible renal transplantation: A paradigm ready for broad implementation

Robert A. Montgomery; Jayme E. Locke; Karen E. King; Dorry L. Segev; Daniel S. Warren; Edward S. Kraus; Matthew Cooper; Christopher E. Simpkins; Andrew L. Singer; Z. A. Stewart; J. Keith Melancon; Lloyd E. Ratner; Andrea A. Zachary; Mark Haas

The requirements for potent immunosuppression coupled with the formidable risk of irreversible antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) have thus far limited the expansion of ABO incompatible (ABOi) kidney transplantation. We present a retrospective review of our single-center experience with 60 consecutive ABOi kidney transplants and describe the evolution of our treatment protocol to one that consists only of a brief escalation in immunosuppression without long-term B-cell suppression from splenectomy or anti-CD20. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year graft survival rates for the cohort were 98.3%, 92.9%, and 88.7%, respectively, which is comparable with United Network for Organ Sharing data for compatible live donor transplants. No instances of hyperacute rejection were observed, and no grafts were lost secondary to AMR. In fact, fewer than 15% of the patients experienced a clinical episode of AMR, and rejections were mild. Elimination of B-cell ablative therapies did not result in an increased incidence of AMR. Excellent graft function persists with a current median creatinine clearance of 60 mL/min. The findings of this study and the relatively simple therapeutic regimen used should facilitate widespread application of ABOi kidney transplantation resulting in one of the most rapid escalations in access to organs in the modern era of kidney transplantation.


American Journal of Transplantation | 2007

Subclinical Acute Antibody‐Mediated Rejection in Positive Crossmatch Renal Allografts

Mark Haas; Robert A. Montgomery; Dorry L. Segev; M. H. Rahman; Lorraine C. Racusen; Serena M. Bagnasco; Christopher E. Simpkins; Daniel S. Warren; Diane Lepley; Andrea A. Zachary; Edward S. Kraus

Subclinical antibody‐mediated rejection (AMR) has been described in renal allograft recipients with stable serum creatinine (SCr), however whether this leads to development of chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN) remains unknown.


Transplantation | 1998

Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: the recipient

Lloyd E. Ratner; Robert A. Montgomery; Warren R. Maley; Cynthia Cohen; James F. Burdick; Kenneth D. Chavin; Dilip S. Kittur; Paul M. Colombani; Andrew S. Klein; Edward S. Kraus; Louis R. Kavoussi

BACKGROUND Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy offers advantages to the donor in terms of decreased pain and shorter recuperation. Heretofore no detailed analysis of the recipient of laparoscopically procured kidneys has been performed. The purpose of this study was to determine whether laparoscopic donor nephrectomy had any deleterious effect on the recipient. METHODS A retrospective review was conducted of all live donor renal transplantations performed from January 1995 through April 1998. The control group received kidneys procured via a standard flank approach (Open). Rejection was diagnosed histologically. Creatinine clearance was calculated using the Cockroft-Gault formula. RESULTS A total of 110 patients received kidneys from laparoscopic (Lap) and 48 from open donors. One-year recipient (100% vs. 97.0%) and graft (93.5% vs. 91.1%) survival rates were similar for the Open and Lap groups, respectively. A similar incidence of vascular thrombosis (3.4% vs. 2.1%, P=NS) and ureteral complications (9.1% vs. 6.3%, P=NS) were seen in the Lap and Open groups, respectively. The incidence of acute rejection for the first month was 30.1% for the Lap group and 31.9% for the Open group (P=NS). The rate of decline of serum creatinine level in the early posttransplantation period was initially greater in the Open group, but by postoperative day 4 no significant difference existed. No difference was observed in allograft function long-term. The median length of hospital stay was 7.0 days for both groups. CONCLUSIONS Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy does not adversely effect recipient outcome. The previously demonstrated benefits to the donor, and the increased willingness of individuals to undergo live kidney donation, coupled with the acceptable outcomes experienced by recipients of laparoscopically procured kidneys justifies the continued development and adoption of this operation.

Collaboration


Dive into the Edward S. Kraus's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Nada Alachkar

Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Serena M. Bagnasco

Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Dorry L. Segev

Johns Hopkins University

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Mark Haas

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Hamid Rabb

Johns Hopkins University

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Bonnie E. Lonze

Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge