In order to bring you the best possible user experience, this site uses Javascript. If you are seeing this message, it is likely that the Javascript option in your browser is disabled. For optimal viewing of this site, please ensure that Javascript is enabled for your browser.


The free consultation period for this content is over.

It is now only available year-round to EACVI Silver Members, Fellows of the ESC and Young combined Members

Quantitative cardiac magnetic resonance vs. endomyocardial biopsy in the detection of early cardiac transplant rejection

Session Poster session 1

Speaker Dietrich Beitzke

Congress : EuroCMR 2019

  • Topic : imaging
  • Sub-topic : T1 and T2 Mapping, T2*
  • Session type : Poster Session
  • FP Number : P169

Authors : D Beitzke (Vienna,AT), M Raudner (Vienna,AT), A Wielandner (Vienna,AT), K Uyanik-Uenal (Vienna,AT), M Stelzmueller (Vienna,AT), J Goekler (Vienna,AT), A Zuckermann (Vienna,AT), C Loewe (Vienna,AT)

Authors:
D Beitzke1 , M Raudner1 , A Wielandner1 , K Uyanik-Uenal2 , M Stelzmueller2 , J Goekler2 , A Zuckermann2 , C Loewe1 , 1Medical University of Vienna, Biomedical Imaging and Image Guided Therapy - Vienna - Austria , 2Medical University of Vienna, Department of Surgery - Vienna - Austria ,

Citation:
European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging ( 2019 ) 20 ( Supplement 2 ), ii125

Background/Introduction:

Cardiac transplantation is a lifesaving procedure for patients with end-stage heart failure. As acute rejection is a severe complication patients have to undergo invasive endomyocardial biopsy to rule out rejection episodes especially in the early phase after cardiac transplant.

Purpose:

This study is focused on comparing extracellular volume (ECV), T1 and T2 mapping via cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) with results endomyocardial biopsy at early post-transplant follow-ups to provide reference values for rejecting and non-rejecting patients.

Methods:

Forty-five patients underwent endomyocardial biopsy three months after cardiac transplantation alongside CMR on a 1.5T system for evaluation of graft rejection and function. Left ventricular function (LVEF) was derived from short axis steady-state free precision (SSFP) sequences, myocardial ECV (%) was calculated using T1 pre- and postcontrast maps at three short axis slices using a 16-segment model. T2 maps were acquired from identical planes for edema assessment. CMR findings were compared with histology based on the guideline of the international society for heart and lung transplant (ISHLT).

Results:

Myocardial biopsy showed no signs of rejection (0A/0R) in thirty-nine patients and mild rejection (1A/1R) in six patients. Mean LVEF was normal in both groups (64.1% vs. 72.7%; p=.082). Mean ECV% (31.8% vs. 31.8%; p=.980), T1 in ms (1063.0 vs. 1079.1; p=.418) and T2 in ms (51.2 vs. 53.0; p=.137) did not differ significantly between patients with no or mild rejection.

Conclusion:

In the reported patient cohort, there was no significant difference in the observed quantitative CMR markers in patients with mild vs. no transplant rejection, showing comparable pseudonormal values. The reported values may serve as reference values for CMR in the early stage after transplant. Further data from patients with higher rejection scores is needed to establish CMR as a screening tool for transplant rejection.



Based on your interests

Members get more

Join now
  • 1ESC Professional Members – access all resources from ESC Congress and ESC Asia with APSC & AFC
  • 2ESC Association Members (Ivory, Silver, Gold) – access your Association’s congress resources
  • 3Under 40 or in training - with a Combined Membership, access resources from all congresses
Join now

Our sponsors

ESC 365 is supported by Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly Alliance, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer Alliance, Novartis Pharma AG and Vifor Pharma in the form of educational grants. The sponsors were not involved in the development of this platform and had no influence on its content.

logo esc

Our mission: To reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease

Who we are