Key result
Gene-expression testing, such as AlloMap, and emerging 'omic' approaches offer noninvasive methods for the detection and surveillance of cardiac allograft rejection.
Why the study?
Do genetic and genomic approaches accurately detect heart transplant rejection compared to endomyocardial biopsy?
Do genetic and genomic approaches accurately detect heart transplant rejection compared to endomyocardial biopsy?
This review highlights the transition from invasive endomyocardial biopsy to noninvasive genetic and genomic testing for monitoring heart transplant rejection.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support noninvasive rejection surveillance after transplant; leaves open prospective validation against biopsy before practice change.
Since Christiaan Barnard performed the first heart transplant in 1967, over 100,000 heart transplants have been performed worldwide. As was true then, rejection remains the major threat to the function and survival of the allograft. The development of the endomyocardial biopsy as a means to monitor for rejection has allowed heart transplantation to thrive as a therapy for patients with end-stage heart disease. The need for a noninvasive method of rejection surveillance led to the development of the first genetic test for allograft rejection, the AlloMap®. In this article, after presenting the pathological and clinical features of cardiac allograft rejection, the authors discuss the development and application of gene-expression testing for the detection of cardiac allograft rejection. We then explore emerging ‘omic’ approaches that will be the rejection detection methods of the future.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kransdorf et al. (2012) conducted a review in Heart transplant rejection. Genetic and genomic testing (e.g., AlloMap) was evaluated. Gene-expression testing, such as AlloMap, and emerging 'omic' approaches offer noninvasive methods for the detection and surveillance of cardiac allograft rejection.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: