Key result
Biopsy-defined microvasculopathy is linked to lower coronary flow reserve without significant differences in IMR.
Why the study?
Microvascular involvement in cardiac allograft vasculopathy is assessed structurally by endomyocardial biopsy and physiologically by invasive indices such as CFR and IMR, but same-session data linking biopsy-defined microvasculopathy with invasive coronary physiology were limited.
Does biopsy-defined microvasculopathy associate with impaired coronary flow reserve (CFR) and index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) in heart transplant recipients without haemodynamically significant epicardial disease?
Observational (n=16)
Does biopsy-defined microvasculopathy associate with impaired coronary flow reserve (CFR) and index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) in heart transplant recipients without haemodynamically significant epicardial disease?
In heart transplant recipients without significant epicardial disease, biopsy-defined microvasculopathy is significantly associated with impaired coronary flow reserve (driven by shorter resting transit time) rather than changes in the index of microcirculatory resistance, supporting CFR as a functional correlate for transplant microvasculopathy surveillance.
Background Microvascular involvement in cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) can occur even without angiographic epicardial lesions and is associated with adverse outcomes. Structural abnormalities are assessed by endomyocardial biopsy, whereas physiological evaluation is performed using invasive indices such as coronary flow reserve (CFR) and the index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR). However, same-session links between biopsy-defined microvasculopathy and invasive physiology remain limited. Purpose To examine the association between biopsy-defined microvasculopathy and invasive coronary physiological indices in heart transplant recipients without haemodynamically significant epicardial disease. Methods We retrospectively analysed consecutive recipients undergoing routine surveillance catheterisation with same-session endomyocardial biopsy and invasive physiology (CoroFlow; LAD in all patients). Microvessels (10–20 μm) were graded using a semi-quantitative histological rubric (A–D); grades C/D were defined as pathology-positive microvasculopathy (pMVS+). Percent area stenosis was quantified morphometrically. Group comparisons used Mann–Whitney U tests; associations were assessed using Spearman’s rank correlation. Results Sixteen recipients were included. CFR was significantly lower in pMVS+ than pMVS− (1.7 [1.35–2.2] vs 2.5 [2.2–4.5]; P=0.0126), whereas IMR did not differ (20 [12–27] vs 15 [14–16]; P=0.337). As an exploratory component analysis, resting transit time was shorter in pMVS+ (Tmn_rest 0.38 [0.25–0.71] vs 0.86 [0.59–1.91]; P=0.026), while Tmn_hyper was similar (P=0.425), suggesting a resting-flow contribution to reduced CFR. Pathological grade correlated inversely with CFR (Spearman ρ=−0.51; P=0.045), whereas percent area stenosis showed no significant association with CFR or IMR. Conclusion In a same-session biopsy–physiology pilot study, biopsy-defined microvasculopathy was associated with impaired flow reserve (CFR) without a parallel change in IMR. An integrated histological grade aligned with CFR better than geometric stenosis, supporting CFR as a potential functional correlate of transplant microvasculopathy. These findings may support risk stratification and surveillance strategies and could, in the future, reduce reliance on repeated endomyocardial biopsy.Figure1Figure2
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hoya et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Microvascular cardiac allograft vasculopathy in heart transplant recipients (n=16). Pathology-positive microvasculopathy (pMVS+; histological grades C/D) vs. Pathology-negative microvasculopathy (pMVS-; histological grades A/B) was evaluated on Coronary flow reserve (CFR) (Spearman ρ -0.51, p=0.0126). Biopsy-defined microvasculopathy (pMVS+) was associated with lower coronary flow reserve vs pMVS- (1.7 vs 2.5; P=0.0126), without a significant difference in IMR (20 vs 15; P=0.337).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: