Assessment of sub-clinical acute cellular rejection after heart transplantation: comparison of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and endomyocardial biopsy

39Citations
Citations of this article
56Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: Comparing the diagnostic value of multi-sequential cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) with endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) for sub-clinical cardiac allograft rejection. Methods: One hundred and forty-six examinations in 73 patients (mean age 53 ± 12 years, 58 men) were performed using a 1.5 Tesla system and compared to EMB. Examinations included a STIR (short tau inversion recovery) sequence for calculation of edema ratio (ER), a T1-weighted spin-echo sequence for assessment of global relative enhancement (gRE), and inversion-recovery sequences to visualize late gadolinium enhancement (LGE). Histological grade ≥1B was considered relevant rejection. Results: One hundred and twenty-seven (127/146 = 87 %) EMBs demonstrated no or mild signs of rejection (grades ≤1A) and 19/146 (13 %) a relevant rejection (grade ≥1B). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive, and negative predictive values were as follows: ER: 63 %, 78 %, 30 %, and 93 %; gRE: 63 %, 70 %, 24 %, and 93 %; LGE: 68 %, 36 %, 13 %, and 87 %; with the combination of ER and gRE with at least one out of two positive: 84 %, 57 %, 23 %, and 96 %. ROC analysis revealed an area under the curve of 0.724 for ER and 0.659 for gRE. Conclusion: CMR parameters for myocarditis are useful to detect sub-clinical acute cellular rejection after heart transplantation. Comparable results to myocarditis can be achieved with a combination of parameters.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Krieghoff, C., Barten, M. J., Hildebrand, L., Grothoff, M., Lehmkuhl, L., Lücke, C., … Gutberlet, M. (2014). Assessment of sub-clinical acute cellular rejection after heart transplantation: comparison of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and endomyocardial biopsy. European Radiology, 24(10), 2360–2371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3246-2

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free