FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2138698851> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2138698851 endingPage "784" @default.
• W2138698851 startingPage "775" @default.
• W2138698851 abstract "Important developments have occurred during the past 2 years in the field of heart transplantation. These include refinements in donor management, preservation, and allocation, and evaluation of immunosuppression strategies for rejection and for allograft vascular disease. Finally, long-term outcomes addressing areas of significant morbidity for patients, including renal dysfunction and cancer, have seen important advances. This contemporary review will highlight the key articles for 2012 to 2013. Important developments have occurred during the past 2 years in the field of heart transplantation. These include refinements in donor management, preservation, and allocation, and evaluation of immunosuppression strategies for rejection and for allograft vascular disease. Finally, long-term outcomes addressing areas of significant morbidity for patients, including renal dysfunction and cancer, have seen important advances. This contemporary review will highlight the key articles for 2012 to 2013. Heart transplantation (HTx) is the treatment of choice for selected patients with advanced heart failure. The field continues to evolve, including refinement of patient selection, advances in donor optimization and selection, and optimization of immunosuppression (IS) strategies and long-term outcomes. In this review, we highlight the research from 2012 to 2013 that has advanced the field of adult HTx.Organ Procurement and AllocationDonor preservationGiven the increasing gap between available organs and recipients in need, one area that may yield an immediate effect is expansion and optimization of the existing donor pool.1Shah M.R. Starling R.C. Schwartz Longacre L. Mehra M.R. Working Group P. Heart transplantation research in the next decade—a goal to achieving evidence-based outcomes: National Heart, Lung, And Blood Institute Working Group.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 59: 1263-1269Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (34) Google Scholar Ex vivo lung transplantation has increased use of extended-criteria lung donors while maintaining excellent outcomes. White et al2White C.W. Ali A. Hasanally D. et al.A cardioprotective preservation strategy employing ex vivo heart perfusion facilitates successful transplant of donor hearts after cardiocirculatory death.J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013; 32: 734-743Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (63) Google Scholar report an ex vivo model of cardiac perfusion that may hold promise at increasing cardiac donation after cardiocirculatory death. In a porcine model, they used a tepid adenosine-lidocaine cardioplegia, normothermic ex vivo heart perfusion and transplantation with continuous myocardial perfusion (cardioprotective ex vivo heart perfusion strategy) to try to minimize ischemia/reperfusion injury. This approach enabled White et al2White C.W. Ali A. Hasanally D. et al.A cardioprotective preservation strategy employing ex vivo heart perfusion facilitates successful transplant of donor hearts after cardiocirculatory death.J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013; 32: 734-743Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (63) Google Scholar to minimize myocardial injury (less edema and lower troponin I levels), reduce oxidative stress, and improve short-term post-transplant hemodynamic outcomes compared with traditional ex vivo cardiac preservation.Preventing and minimizing ischemia/reperfusion injury is critical to optimize donor outcomes. Atkinson et al3Atkinson C. Floerchinger B. Qiao F. et al.Donor brain death exacerbates complement-dependent ischemia/reperfusion injury in transplanted hearts.Circulation. 2013; 127: 1290-1299Crossref PubMed Scopus (59) Google Scholar studied the effect of a targeted complement inhibitor, complement receptor 2-Crry, vs vehicle on ischemia/reperfusion injury using a mouse model. Cardiac biopsy specimens were evaluated for inflammation and complement deposition. They found that donor brain death exacerbated ischemia/reperfusion injury and decreased graft survival, effects that were abrogated by treating recipient mice with the complement receptor 2-Crry molecule. Importantly, by giving treatment to the recipient and not the donor, any potential deleterious effects of the compound on the donor or organ recovery were minimized, which is appealing in the clinical arena.3Atkinson C. Floerchinger B. Qiao F. et al.Donor brain death exacerbates complement-dependent ischemia/reperfusion injury in transplanted hearts.Circulation. 2013; 127: 1290-1299Crossref PubMed Scopus (59) Google Scholar Moreover it appears that a one-time dose may suffice, suggesting that adverse effects in the recipient would be minimized. Further research is needed for this promising compound.Primary graft dysfunction is a common occurrence after transplant underscoring the importance of organ preservation. Yang et al4Yang Y. Lin H. Wen Z. et al.Keeping donor hearts in completely beating status with normothermic blood perfusion for transplants.Ann Thorac Surg. 2013; 95: 2028-2034Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar assessed the effect of warm beating vs cold static storage (8 hours) on outcomes after transplant in a swine model. Ultrastructural changes and hemodynamics were improved in the animals that underwent transplant with warm beating donor hearts. Noda et al,5Noda K. Shigemura N. Tanaka Y. et al.A novel method of preserving cardiac grafts using a hydrogen-rich water bath.J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013; 32: 241-250Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (34) Google Scholar using a rat model, found that cardiac grafts preserved using a novel cold-storage hydrogen–supplemented water bath had less myocardial injury. Finally, Watson et al6Watson A.J. Gao L. Sun L. et al.Enhanced preservation of the rat heart after prolonged hypothermic ischemia with erythropoietin-supplemented Celsior solution.J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013; 32: 633-640Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (31) Google Scholar found that Celsior cardioplegia supplemented with erythropoietin resulted in less ischemia/reperfusion injury and better myocardial function in a rodent model.Donor utilizationKhush et al7Khush K.K. Menza R. Nguyen J. Zaroff J.G. Goldstein B.A. Donor predictors of allograft use and recipient outcomes after heart transplantation.Circ Heart Fail. 2013; 6: 300-309Crossref PubMed Scopus (108) Google Scholar addressed reasons for non-use of 1,872 potential donors within the California Transplant Donor Network (2001–2008). The overall heart donor utilization rate was 43%. Predictors of non-use included age >50 years, female sex, death due to cerebrovascular accident, a donor history of hypertension or diabetes, a positive troponin assay (defined as >1.0 μg/liter), left ventricular (LV) dysfunction, defined as LV ejection fraction (LVEF) <50%, and regional wall motion abnormalities, and LV hypertrophy (LVH; wall thicknesses of 1.1 cm).7Khush K.K. Menza R. Nguyen J. Zaroff J.G. Goldstein B.A. Donor predictors of allograft use and recipient outcomes after heart transplantation.Circ Heart Fail. 2013; 6: 300-309Crossref PubMed Scopus (108) Google Scholar The 4 donor factors most likely to predict non-use were donor age, cause of death, LVEF, and history of hypertension. Of the donor hearts that were declined, 46% had not had an echocardiogram. Of great concern was the drop in organ utilization rates over the time period of the study, from 56% in 2002 to 37% in 2007. This change occurred independently of donor risk factors, suggesting a more conservative risk-averse approach to donor use. Although donor LVH and diabetes were predictive of poorer recipient outcomes, only diabetes remained predictive of increased recipient death after adjusting for recipient characteristics.Southerland et al8Southerland K.W. Castleberry A.W. Williams J.B. Daneshmand M.A. Ali A.A. Milano C.A. Impact of donor cardiac arrest on heart transplantation.Surgery. 2013; 154: 312-319Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (24) Google Scholar used the United Network Organ Sharing (UNOS) database to assess the effect of donor cardiac arrest on outcomes. In otherwise suitable donor hearts and acceptable recipients, donor cardiac arrest history had no significant effects on outcomes after transplant.8Southerland K.W. Castleberry A.W. Williams J.B. Daneshmand M.A. Ali A.A. Milano C.A. Impact of donor cardiac arrest on heart transplantation.Surgery. 2013; 154: 312-319Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (24) Google Scholar However, increasing duration of arrest time (>8 minutes) was associated with decreased recipient survival.Using the UNOS database, Quader et al9Quader M.A. Wolfe L.G. Kasirajan V. Heart transplantation outcomes from cardiac arrest-resuscitated donors.J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013; 32: 1090-1095Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (36) Google Scholar assessed the effect of donor cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on outcomes after transplant. The mean duration of CPR was 19.9 minutes. CPR+ donors were younger, and CPR+ recipients were more likely to be in the hospital or in intensive care at the time of transplant. Survival at 30 days and at 1 and 5 years was equivalent in recipients from CPR– vs CPR+ donors.9Quader M.A. Wolfe L.G. Kasirajan V. Heart transplantation outcomes from cardiac arrest-resuscitated donors.J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013; 32: 1090-1095Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (36) Google ScholarIn a provocative study, Vorlat et al10Vorlat A. Conraads V.M. Jorens P.G. et al.Donor B-type natriuretic peptide predicts early cardiac performance after heart transplantation.J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012; 31: 579-584Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (20) Google Scholar found that donor brain natriuretic peptide was able to predict recipient cardiac output, although not powered to look at short-term or long-term mortality. This bears further investigation.Smits et al11Smits J.M. De Pauw M. de Vries E. et al.Donor scoring system for heart transplantation and the impact on patient survival.J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012; 31: 387-397Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (76) Google Scholar used Eurotransplant data to develop and validate a donor quality assessment tool based on 10 pre-procurement donor factors that would act as a risk score to predict donor use and transplant recipient outcomes. The donor risk score predicted donor discard due to donor medical reasons (Figure 1). Donor age and LVH were independently predictive of poor outcomes at 3 years after transplant. The multivariable risk score was also highly predictive of 3-year outcomes when differentiating between high-risk and low-risk donors.11Smits J.M. De Pauw M. de Vries E. et al.Donor scoring system for heart transplantation and the impact on patient survival.J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012; 31: 387-397Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (76) Google ScholarWeiss et al12Weiss E.S. Allen J.G. Kilic A. et al.Development of a quantitative donor risk index to predict short-term mortality in orthotopic heart transplantation.J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012; 31: 266-273Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (110) Google Scholar used the UNOS database (N = 22,252), including 284 donor-specific variables, to develop a donor risk score. Multivariate analysis identified 4 specific donor factors: ischemic time, age, race mismatching, and urea-to-creatinine ratio. They were able to predict short-term and long-term recipient mortality using the donor risk score, with the exception of the population with congenital heart disease (CHD). Female donor gender also predicted risk but was not included in the model due to its isolated effect for male gender. Donor LVEF ≤25% was a predictor of outcomes; however, it occurred with such low frequency that it was not included in the model. It is hoped that by better defining donor risk, expansion of the donor pool may be feasible.AllocationA number of important reports addressed the UNOS allocation system. In the United States, 30 days of elective status 1A (priority) is allotted to recipients of LV assist devices (LVAD), to be used at the transplant center’s discretion, with an indefinite amount of time at status 1B. These recommendations were based on the waiting list mortality from the historic era of pulsatile-flow LVADs. Eurotransplant does not list stable LVAD patients at high status. Dardas et al,13Dardas T. Mokadam N.A. Pagani F. Aaronson K. Levy W.C. Transplant registrants with implanted left ventricular assist devices have insufficient risk to justify elective organ procurement and transplantation network status 1A time.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 60: 36-43Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (49) Google Scholar using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database, found that patients supported with LVADs on elective 1A status had lower 30-day mortality (1%) than those supported by LVADs with a complication (6%), by paracorporeal devices (15%), or dual inotropes (6%), raising controversy about the practice of UNOS elective 1A status.Wever-Pinzon et al14Wever-Pinzon O. Drakos S.G. Kfoury A.G. et al.Morbidity and mortality in heart transplant candidates supported with mechanical circulatory support: is reappraisal of the current United network for organ sharing thoracic organ allocation policy justified?.Circulation. 2013; 127: 452-462Crossref PubMed Scopus (112) Google Scholar further supported this by finding that stable continuous-flow (CF) VAD-supported patients in the current era (April 2008 to December 2011; FDA approval of CF-VADs) had similar waiting list mortality (1.0% per month) as status 2 patients (1.0% per month), and lower mortality than those patients listed status 1A (9.6% per month) or 1B (2.6% per month). However, CF-VAD patients do have higher waiting list mortality once they have had a serious LVAD-related complication. Moreover, patients bridged to transplant with temporary or biventricular support continue to have a waiting list mortality that is high. The effect and interplay of changes in the allocation system are complex; however, these recent reports suggest the need for review.Singh et al15Singh T.P. Almond C.S. Taylor D.O. Graham D.A. Decline in heart transplant wait list mortality in the United States following broader regional sharing of donor hearts.Circ Heart Fail. 2012; 5: 249-258Crossref PubMed Scopus (78) Google Scholar evaluated the effect of the new UNOS broader regional algorithm for donor organ sharing that prioritizes donor heart allocation to higher-risk (status 1A and 1B) wait-listed patients. Since adoption, they found a significant reduction in waiting list mortality in status 1A and 1B patients, supported or not by LVAD, with no change in the waiting list mortality for lower-priority patients (status 2). Importantly post-transplant outcomes were sustained despite the higher-risk nature of the recipients.15Singh T.P. Almond C.S. Taylor D.O. Graham D.A. Decline in heart transplant wait list mortality in the United States following broader regional sharing of donor hearts.Circ Heart Fail. 2012; 5: 249-258Crossref PubMed Scopus (78) Google Scholar In another report using the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network database, Singh et al16Singh T.P. Almond C.S. Taylor D.O. Milliren C.E. Graham D.A. Racial and ethnic differences in wait-list outcomes in patients listed for heart transplantation in the United States.Circulation. 2012; 125: 3022-3030Crossref PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar found that Hispanic Americans were 50% more likely to die on the waiting list or become too sick for transplant compared with white patients. This may be related to lower use of LVAD as bridge to transplant in this group.16Singh T.P. Almond C.S. Taylor D.O. Milliren C.E. Graham D.A. Racial and ethnic differences in wait-list outcomes in patients listed for heart transplantation in the United States.Circulation. 2012; 125: 3022-3030Crossref PubMed Scopus (19) Google ScholarOutcomesImmunosuppressionKey research priorities in HTx over the next decade include individualized IS therapy and investigation and management of long-term immune and non-immune complications, such as cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) and chronic kidney disease (CKD).1Shah M.R. Starling R.C. Schwartz Longacre L. Mehra M.R. Working Group P. Heart transplantation research in the next decade—a goal to achieving evidence-based outcomes: National Heart, Lung, And Blood Institute Working Group.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 59: 1263-1269Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (34) Google Scholar Numerous recent trials have tested different IS protocols assessing short-term and long-term outcomes.17Kaczmarek I. Zaruba M.M. Beiras-Fernandez A. et al.Tacrolimus with mycophenolate mofetil or sirolimus compared with calcineurin inhibitor-free immunosuppression (sirolimus/mycophenolate mofetil) after heart transplantation: 5-year results.J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013; 32: 277-284Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (35) Google Scholar, 18Boissonnat P. Gaillard S. Mercier C. et al.Impact of the early reduction of cyclosporine on renal function in heart transplant patients: a French randomised controlled trial.Trials. 2012; 13: 231Crossref PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar, 19Guethoff S. Meiser B.M. Groetzner J. et al.Ten-year results of a randomized trial comparing tacrolimus versus cyclosporine a in combination with mycophenolate mofetil after heart transplantation.Transplantation. 2013; 95: 629-634Crossref PubMed Scopus (60) Google Scholar, 20Zuckermann A. Wang S.S. Epailly E. et al.Everolimus immunosuppression in de novo heart transplant recipients: what does the evidence tell us now?.Transplant Rev (Orlando). 2013; 27: 76-84Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (26) Google Scholar, 21Eisen H.J. Kobashigawa J. Starling R.C. et al.Everolimus versus mycophenolate mofetil in heart transplantation: a randomized, multicenter trial.Am J Transplant. 2013; 13: 1203-1216Crossref PubMed Scopus (149) Google Scholar, 22Kobashigawa J. Ross H. Bara C. et al.Everolimus is associated with a reduced incidence of cytomegalovirus infection following de novo cardiac transplantation.Transpl Infect Dis. 2013; 15: 150-162Crossref PubMed Scopus (47) Google Scholar Overall, current trends suggest lower use of cyclosporine A (CsA) compared with tacrolimus-based IS; with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) remaining the most commonly used adjunctive agent.23Lund L.H. Edwards L.B. Kucheryavaya A.Y. et al.The Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: thirtieth official adult heart transplant report—2013; focus theme: age.J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013; 32: 951-964Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (445) Google Scholar Proliferation signal inhibitor (everolimus and sirolimus) use has steadily increased.23Lund L.H. Edwards L.B. Kucheryavaya A.Y. et al.The Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: thirtieth official adult heart transplant report—2013; focus theme: age.J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013; 32: 951-964Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (445) Google Scholar In the largest randomized study to date in de novo HTx recipients, Eisen et al21Eisen H.J. Kobashigawa J. Starling R.C. et al.Everolimus versus mycophenolate mofetil in heart transplantation: a randomized, multicenter trial.Am J Transplant. 2013; 13: 1203-1216Crossref PubMed Scopus (149) Google Scholar found the primary end point (a 12-month composite incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection, acute rejection associated with hemodynamic compromise, graft loss/retransplant, death, or loss to follow-up) was non-inferior in patients receiving everolimus (1.5 mg) and reduced-dose CsA compared with standard-dose CsA and MMF. Non-fatal serious adverse events, including pericardial effusion, were higher in the everolimus group. Cytomegalovirus infection was lower in the everolimus arm. The 3.0-mg everolimus arm was discontinued prematurely due to increased mortality.21Eisen H.J. Kobashigawa J. Starling R.C. et al.Everolimus versus mycophenolate mofetil in heart transplantation: a randomized, multicenter trial.Am J Transplant. 2013; 13: 1203-1216Crossref PubMed Scopus (149) Google ScholarTen years after initial randomization, combination tacrolimus/MMF therapy (n = 30) compared with CsA/MMF (n = 30) was associated with greater freedom from rejection and less CAV but overall similar long-term survival.19Guethoff S. Meiser B.M. Groetzner J. et al.Ten-year results of a randomized trial comparing tacrolimus versus cyclosporine a in combination with mycophenolate mofetil after heart transplantation.Transplantation. 2013; 95: 629-634Crossref PubMed Scopus (60) Google Scholar Kaczmarek et al17Kaczmarek I. Zaruba M.M. Beiras-Fernandez A. et al.Tacrolimus with mycophenolate mofetil or sirolimus compared with calcineurin inhibitor-free immunosuppression (sirolimus/mycophenolate mofetil) after heart transplantation: 5-year results.J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013; 32: 277-284Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (35) Google Scholar compared tacrolimus/MMF, tacrolimus/sirolimus, and sirolimus/MMF in 78 de novo HTx patients and recently reported their 5-year results. Survival was similar across the 3 IS groups, with a trend toward more rejection and adverse events but greater freedom from CAV and better preservation of renal function in the sirolimus/MMF arm.17Kaczmarek I. Zaruba M.M. Beiras-Fernandez A. et al.Tacrolimus with mycophenolate mofetil or sirolimus compared with calcineurin inhibitor-free immunosuppression (sirolimus/mycophenolate mofetil) after heart transplantation: 5-year results.J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013; 32: 277-284Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (35) Google ScholarChallenges with proliferation signal inhibitors (PSI) included a 16% withdrawal rate within the first year after conversion due to adverse events (25% within 4 years), including edema (4.7%) and gastrointestinal toxicity (3.8%).24Gonzalez-Vilchez F. Vazquez de Prada J.A. Almenar L. et al.Withdrawal of proliferation signal inhibitors due to adverse events in the maintenance phase of heart transplantation.J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012; 31: 288-295Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (13) Google Scholar This Spanish Registry study found higher rates of PSI withdrawal in patients not on statin therapy (p = 0.006), those treated with concomitant anti-metabolites (p = 0.006), and in patients with poor baseline renal function (p = 0.026).24Gonzalez-Vilchez F. Vazquez de Prada J.A. Almenar L. et al.Withdrawal of proliferation signal inhibitors due to adverse events in the maintenance phase of heart transplantation.J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012; 31: 288-295Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (13) Google ScholarCardiac allograft vasculopathyLong-term outcomes in recipients with transplant coronary artery disease stratified by those who develop in-stent restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention found that in-stent stenosis is a marker of poor long-term prognosis.25Lee M.S. Cheng R.K. Kandzari D.E. Kirtane A.J. Long-term outcomes of heart transplantation recipients with transplant coronary artery disease who develop in-stent restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention.Am J Cardiol. 2012; 109: 1729-1732Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (8) Google ScholarIn an intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) study of de novo HTx patients, Kobashigawa et al26Kobashigawa J.A. Pauly D.F. Starling R.C. et al.Cardiac allograft vasculopathy by intravascular ultrasound in heart transplant patients.JACC Heart Fail. 2013; 1: 389-399Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (97) Google Scholar showed that everolimus was more effective in preventing CAV development at 1 year than MMF, an effect maintained across numerous sub-groups. The Topilsky et al27Topilsky Y. Hasin T. Raichlin E. et al.Sirolimus as primary immunosuppression attenuates allograft vasculopathy with improved late survival and decreased cardiac events after cardiac transplantation.Circulation. 2012; 125: 708-720Crossref PubMed Scopus (86) Google Scholar study of maintenance HTx patients found attenuation in CAV owing to favorable coronary remodelling when a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) was substituted with sirolimus. Matsuo et al28Matsuo Y. Cassar A. Yoshino S. et al.Attenuation of cardiac allograft vasculopathy by sirolimus: relationship to time interval after heart transplantation.J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013; 32: 784-791Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (42) Google Scholar demonstrated that sirolimus attenuated plaque progression in HTx recipients but that this effect occurred with early conversion (≤2 years post-HTx) to a sirolimus-based IS regimen. Masetti et al,29Masetti M. Potena L. Nardozza M. et al.Differential effect of everolimus on progression of early and late cardiac allograft vasculopathy in current clinical practice.Am J Transplant. 2013; 13: 1217-1226Crossref PubMed Scopus (46) Google Scholar in an observational study of 143 consecutive recipients divided into an early (de novo—IVUS baseline and 1 year) and late (IVUS 1 and 5 years) cohort of patients undergoing serial IVUS, found that everolimus reduced the odds for early CAV (0.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.01–0.77; p = 0.02) but did not appear to affect late progression. These two studies suggest that for PSI to be effective in prevention of CAV progression, it should be started within 2 years of HTx.Identification and surveillance of CAV remain extremely important. Prada-Delgado et al30Prada-Delgado O. Estevez-Loureiro R. Paniagua-Martin M.J. Lopez-Sainz A. Crespo-Leiro M.G. Prevalence and prognostic value of cardiac allograft vasculopathy 1 year after heart transplantation according to the ISHLT recommended nomenclature.J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012; 31: 332-333Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (33) Google Scholar found the 2010 published International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) CAV nomenclature recommendations31Mehra M.R. Crespo-Leiro M.G. Dipchand A. et al.International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation working formulation of a standardized nomenclature for cardiac allograft vasculopathy-2010.J Heart Lung Transplant. 2010; 29: 717-727Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (571) Google Scholar have prognostic relevance, specifically, that the ISHLT definition of moderate or severe CAV 1 year after HTx was associated with subsequent major adverse cardiac events.30Prada-Delgado O. Estevez-Loureiro R. Paniagua-Martin M.J. Lopez-Sainz A. Crespo-Leiro M.G. Prevalence and prognostic value of cardiac allograft vasculopathy 1 year after heart transplantation according to the ISHLT recommended nomenclature.J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012; 31: 332-333Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (33) Google Scholar Although coronary angiography remains the standard of care,31Mehra M.R. Crespo-Leiro M.G. Dipchand A. et al.International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation working formulation of a standardized nomenclature for cardiac allograft vasculopathy-2010.J Heart Lung Transplant. 2010; 29: 717-727Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (571) Google Scholar other imaging modalities have demonstrated promising potential.32Hou J. Lv H. Jia H. et al.OCT assessment of allograft vasculopathy in heart transplant recipients.JACC Cardiovasc Imag. 2012; 5: 662-663Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (34) Google Scholar, 33Pollack A. Nazif T. Mancini D. Weisz G. Detection and imaging of cardiac allograft vasculopathy.JACC Cardiovasc Imag. 2013; 6: 613-623Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (67) Google Scholar Progressive impairment of LV function assessed by gated single photon emission computed tomography (CT) in 161 patients over a follow-up of 4.2 ± 2.0 years was associated with a greater likelihood of moderate and severe CAV.34Wenning C. Stypmann J. Papavassilis P. et al.Left ventricular dilation and functional impairment assessed by gated SPECT are indicators of cardiac allograft vasculopathy in heart transplant recipients.J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012; 31: 719-728Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (16) Google Scholar Multislice CT allows increasingly precise non-invasive assessment of the coronary artery tree and may represent an alternative to coronary angiography. Barthelemy et al,35Barthelemy O. Toledano D. Varnous S. et al.Multislice computed tomography to rule out coronary allograft vasculopathy in heart transplant patients.J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012; 31: 1262-1268Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar in a study of 102 patients, found multislice CT had a negative-predictive value for CAV of 96.6% by patient analysis and 99.7% by segment analysis. Likewise in a small study of 21 patients, Garrido et al36Garrido I.P. Garcia-Lara J. Pinar E. et al.Optical coherence tomography and highly sensitivity troponin T for evaluating cardiac allograft vasculopathy.Am J Cardiol. 2012; 110: 655-661Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (33) Google Scholar showed a lower interobserver variability and better plaque characterization with optical coherence tomography compared with IVUS.Biomarkers may be of use in the future for identification of CAV. Recently promising results were seen with highly sensitive troponin,36Garrido I.P. Garcia-Lara J. Pinar E. et al.Optical coherence tomography and highly sensitivity troponin T for evaluating cardiac allograft vasculopathy.Am J Cardiol. 2012; 110: 655-661Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (33) Google Scholar an 18-plasma protein biomarker classifier panel,37Lin D. Cohen Freue G. Hollander Z. et al.Plasma protein biosignatures for detection of cardiac allograft vasculopathy.J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013; 32: 723-733Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Pub" @default.
• W2138698851 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2138698851 creator A5003330197 @default.
• W2138698851 creator A5021437066 @default.
• W2138698851 creator A5061416170 @default.
• W2138698851 date "2014-08-01" @default.
• W2138698851 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2138698851 title "A contemporary review of adult heart transplantation: 2012 to 2013" @default.
• W2138698851 cites W1514328721 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W1547374382 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W1563797570 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W1594636479 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W1966517422 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W1968553117 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W1968857911 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W1970015799 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W1973335643 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W1977703774 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W1980656682 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W1982056837 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W1987098340 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W1987453322 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W1989561255 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W1990845722 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W1998642407 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2000040002 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2000718582 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2004593880 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2007073526 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W200785664 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2009678985 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2009974217 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2010840678 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2012553211 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2016997557 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2027432849 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2028208800 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2030314923 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2031059041 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2039405603 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2039967263 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2041056150 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2042107653 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2042384239 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2043927385 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2046701414 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2049470206 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2053046929 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2056719417 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2056847875 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2059771877 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2060798217 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2061092145 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2067423986 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2067679957 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2070237253 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2070925697 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2073403198 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2076317260 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2079335656 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2079579268 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2080781763 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2086407755 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2089298440 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2090874382 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2091853745 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2095272144 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2097440077 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2100981337 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2110078536 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2122126113 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2122517123 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2129792203 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2135876407 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2137483071 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2146097598 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2158623621 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2164025200 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2168563640 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2168890593 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2169933347 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2170371096 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2332390840 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W2548152723 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W53279463 @default.
• W2138698851 cites W99447238 @default.
• W2138698851 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healun.2014.04.019" @default.
• W2138698851 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24954884" @default.
• W2138698851 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W2138698851 type Work @default.
• W2138698851 sameAs 2138698851 @default.
• W2138698851 citedByCount "22" @default.
• W2138698851 countsByYear W21386988512015 @default.
• W2138698851 countsByYear W21386988512016 @default.
• W2138698851 countsByYear W21386988512017 @default.
• W2138698851 countsByYear W21386988512018 @default.
• W2138698851 countsByYear W21386988512020 @default.
• W2138698851 countsByYear W21386988512021 @default.

• next