AIMS: We evaluated cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) as a non-invasive test for cardiac allograft rejection. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed CMR on 50 heart-transplant recipients. Acute rejection was confirmed in 11 cases by endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) and presumed in 8 cases with a recent fall in left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) not attributable to coronary allograft vasculopathy. Control patients had both normal LVEF and no significant rejection on EMB. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging evaluated myocardial function, oedema, and early and late post-Gadolinium-DTPA contrast enhancement. Patients with confirmed rejection demonstrated elevated early relative myocardial contrast enhancement (4.1 +/- 0.3 vs. 2.8 +/- 0.2, P < 0.001) and a trend to higher oedema suggested by higher relative myocardial intensity on T(2)-weighted imaging compared to controls (2.1 +/- 0.1 vs. 1.7 +/- 0.1, P = 0.1). With rejection defined as increased early contrast enhancement or myocardial oedema, the sensitivity and specificity of CMR compared with EMB were 100 and 73%, respectively. Eight patients with presumed rejection also had elevated early myocardial contrast enhancement compared with controls, (8.7 +/- 1.9 vs. 2.8 +/- 0.2, P < 0.05), which reduced following increased immunosuppression (8.7 +/- 1.9 vs. 4.6 +/- 1.2, P < 0.05). In these patients LVEF improved following increased immunosuppression (32 +/- 5 vs. 46 +/- 5%, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging is a promising modality for non-invasive detection of cardiac allograft rejection.
AIMS: We evaluated cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) as a non-invasive test for cardiac allograft rejection. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed CMR on 50 heart-transplant recipients. Acute rejection was confirmed in 11 cases by endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) and presumed in 8 cases with a recent fall in left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) not attributable to coronary allograft vasculopathy. Control patients had both normal LVEF and no significant rejection on EMB. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging evaluated myocardial function, oedema, and early and late post-Gadolinium-DTPA contrast enhancement. Patients with confirmed rejection demonstrated elevated early relative myocardial contrast enhancement (4.1 +/- 0.3 vs. 2.8 +/- 0.2, P < 0.001) and a trend to higher oedema suggested by higher relative myocardial intensity on T(2)-weighted imaging compared to controls (2.1 +/- 0.1 vs. 1.7 +/- 0.1, P = 0.1). With rejection defined as increased early contrast enhancement or myocardial oedema, the sensitivity and specificity of CMR compared with EMB were 100 and 73%, respectively. Eight patients with presumed rejection also had elevated early myocardial contrast enhancement compared with controls, (8.7 +/- 1.9 vs. 2.8 +/- 0.2, P < 0.05), which reduced following increased immunosuppression (8.7 +/- 1.9 vs. 4.6 +/- 1.2, P < 0.05). In these patients LVEF improved following increased immunosuppression (32 +/- 5 vs. 46 +/- 5%, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging is a promising modality for non-invasive detection of cardiac allograft rejection.
Authors: P Y Marie; M Angioï; J P Carteaux; J M Escanye; S Mattei; K Tzvetanov; O Claudon; N Hassan; N Danchin; G Karcher; A Bertrand; P M Walker; J P Villemot Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2001-03-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Krishnamoorthy Vivekananthan; Thomachan Kalapura; Mandeep Mehra; Carl Lavie; Richard Milani; Robert Scott; Myung Park Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2002-09-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Susan Stewart; Gayle L Winters; Michael C Fishbein; Henry D Tazelaar; Jon Kobashigawa; Jacki Abrams; Claus B Andersen; Annalisa Angelini; Gerald J Berry; Margaret M Burke; Anthony J Demetris; Elizabeth Hammond; Silviu Itescu; Charles C Marboe; Bruce McManus; Elaine F Reed; Nancy L Reinsmoen; E Rene Rodriguez; Alan G Rose; Marlene Rose; Nicole Suciu-Focia; Adriana Zeevi; Margaret E Billingham Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2005-06-20 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: JoAnn Lindenfeld; Geraldine G Miller; Simon F Shakar; Ronald Zolty; Brian D Lowes; Eugene E Wolfel; Luisa Mestroni; Robert L Page; Jon Kobashigawa Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-12-14 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: M C Deng; H J Eisen; M R Mehra; M Billingham; C C Marboe; G Berry; J Kobashigawa; F L Johnson; R C Starling; S Murali; D F Pauly; H Baron; J G Wohlgemuth; R N Woodward; T M Klingler; D Walther; P G Lal; S Rosenberg; S Hunt Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: H T Aretz; M E Billingham; W D Edwards; S M Factor; J T Fallon; J J Fenoglio; E G Olsen; F J Schoen Journal: Am J Cardiovasc Pathol Date: 1987-01
Authors: Paul J Michaels; Maria L Espejo; Jon Kobashigawa; Juan C Alejos; Caron Burch; Steve Takemoto; Elaine F Reed; Michael C Fishbein Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Hassan Abdel-Aty; Anja Zagrosek; Jeanette Schulz-Menger; Andrew J Taylor; Daniel Messroghli; Andreas Kumar; Michael Gross; Rainer Dietz; Matthias G Friedrich Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-05-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Otavio Rizzi Coelho-Filho; Ravi Shah; Carlos Fernando Ramos Lavagnoli; Jose Carlos Barros; Tomas G Neilan; Venkatesh L Murthy; Pedro Paulo Martins de Oliveira; Jose Roberto Matos Souza; Elaine Soraya Barbosa de Oliveira Severino; Karlos Alexandre de Souza Vilarinho; Lindemberg da Mota Silveira Filho; Jose Garcia; Marc J Semigran; Otavio Rizzi Coelho; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Orlando Petrucci Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-07-20 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: M F Braggion-Santos; F Andre; D Lossnitzer; E Hofmann; J Simpfendörfer; A Dösch; H A Katus; H Steen Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: S Oebel; S Hamada; K Higashigaito; J von Spiczak; E Klotz; F Enseleit; R Hinzpeter; F Ruschitzka; R Manka; H Alkadhi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-04-30 Impact factor: 5.315