Heart transplant Recipients’ perspectives on invasive versus Non-invasive graft failure surveillance Methods

Abstract

Background: Heart transplant recipients must regularly be assessed for graft rejection; however, endomyocardial biopsy (EMB), can be stressful, painful, and inconvenient. AlloMap® is the only commercially available non-invasive test for graft rejection. Current guidelines include AlloMap® testing in low-risk patients Objectives: To examine the patients’ perspective, this study compared patients’ experiences of AlloMap® and EMB surveillance at our center. Methods: We enrolled consecutive heart transplant recipients who were to undergo routine EMB and AlloMap® testing (on different visits) to quantify their anxiety on the GAD-7 scale and their pain level on the Polyclinic Pain Scale. We assessed paired differences of anxiety and pain within patients according to surveillance method. Results: We studied 43 participants (median age 60.5[54, 66] years; 35(81%) men; 27(63%) Caucasian). The median GAD-7 scores were 1[0, 4] and 2[0, 5] prior to EMB and AlloMap®, respectively (paired difference: 0[-1, 1],P = 0.323). The median pain scores were 1[0, 1] and 0[0, 0] for EMB and AlloMap®, respectively. Patients experienced less pain with AlloMap® testing compared to EMB (EMB–AlloMap;1[0, 1],P = 0.006). Seven (16%) participants experienced a total of 9 adverse events (pain, bruising, bleeding, swelling) from EMB vs 2(5%) participants who experienced a total of 3 adverse events (pain, bruising) from AlloMap®(P = 0.059). Conclusion: Heart transplant recipients had less pain and fewer adverse events while undergoing graft rejection surveillance with AlloMap® testing compared to EMB. An additional benefit of AlloMap® testing is that it may be performed at home and reduce these high-risk patients’ infectious exposures.