Why the study?
Heart transplant rejection surveillance and diagnosis continue to rely on endomyocardial biopsy despite developments in non-invasive circulating biomarkers and imaging techniques.
Do non-invasive monitoring technologies accurately detect heart transplant rejection compared to endomyocardial biopsy in heart transplant recipients?
Do non-invasive monitoring technologies accurately detect heart transplant rejection compared to endomyocardial biopsy in heart transplant recipients?
Emerging non-invasive technologies such as dd-cfDNA and advanced imaging may allow for the safe reduction or elimination of routine endomyocardial biopsies for heart transplant rejection surveillance and diagnosis.
Biopsy remains standard for rejection surveillance; leaves open prospective validation of dd-cfDNA and CMR before clinical adoption.
Despite developments in circulating biomarker and imaging technology in the assessment of cardiovascular disease, the surveillance and diagnosis of heart transplant rejection has continued to rely on histopathologic interpretation of the endomyocardial biopsy. Increasing evidence shows the utility of molecular evaluations, such as donor-specific antibodies and donor-derived cell-free DNA, as well as advanced imaging techniques, such as cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, in the assessment of rejection, resulting in the elimination of many surveillance endomyocardial biopsies. As non-invasive technologies in heart transplant rejection continue to evolve and are incorporated into practice, they may supplant endomyocardial biopsy even when rejection is suspected, allowing for more precise and expeditious rejection therapy. This review describes the current and near-future states for the evaluation of heart transplant rejection, both in the settings of rejection surveillance and rejection diagnosis. As biomarkers of rejection continue to evolve, rejection risk prediction may allow for a more personalized approach to immunosuppression.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Goldberg et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: