Abstract 4141173: CMR can discriminate need for biopsy and rejection therapy in children post heart transplant

Background: Heart transplantation remains definitive therapy for children with heart failure, but the burden of acute graft rejection remains. While adult data has shown cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) offers reliable, non-invasive identification of graft rejection1-3, endo-myocardial biopsy (EMB) continues to be the gold-standard in children. Hypothesis: CMR can establish the presence/absence of rejection, guiding need for EMB and rejection therapy. Aims: To assess the (1) strength of CMR parametric mapping in discriminating presence of rejection (defined as need for new therapy), and (2) the ability of CMR to identify patients without rejection, negating the need for EMB. Methods: Pediatric heart transplant patients referred for EMB underwent concurrent noncontrast CMR with volumetry, flows, MOLLI T1 and T2 parametric mapping at 1.5T. Average and peak segmental native T1 and T2 were measured in 6 slices, and regions of sub-segmental ‘hotspot’ elevation (3 continuous voxels T1>1050 ms or T2>60 ms) were identified. Rejection treatment was per institutional protocol, blinded to CMR results, categorized as (A)new IV therapy, (B)oral augmentation of maintenance, or (C) no change. Sensitivity, specificity and ROC analyses were performed. Results: 95 encounters in 34 patients (median age 13.1y (IQR 7.5-16.3), BSA 1.37 m2 (1.1-1.6), 47% female) were completed, with treatment groups A 13%, B 5%, and C 82%. Significantly higher T1 and T2 values were found in the rejection groups. ROC curve analysis identified elevated peak T1 levels as the strongest predictor of rejection (AUC = 0.848, 95% CI: 0.746, 0.950, p<0.001), with optimal cutoff T1 >1099 ms. Subsegmental hotspots were present in all encounters with rejection requiring new therapy (100% sensitivity), however the type/ number of hotspots did not correlate with rejection. New rejection therapy was not initiated in any patient encounter without hotspots (NPV 100%). Conclusions: Elevated segmental T1 CMR values can identify children with graft rejection, and absence of subsegmental hotspot elevations can reliably identify patients without rejection. CMR is a promising non-invasive test to aid in graft surveillance and direct invasive testing and therapy.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Circulation
Published
2024-11-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.150.suppl_1.4141173
Primary Topic
Transplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Abstract 4141173: CMR can discriminate need for biopsy and rejection therapy in children post heart transplant

Tacy Downing, David Zurakowski, Steven J. Staffa, Yue-Hin Loke et al.
Circulation
Transplantation: Methods and Outcomes
article

Abstract 4141173: CMR can discriminate need for biopsy and rejection therapy in children post heart transplant

Tacy Downing, David Zurakowski, Steven J. Staffa, Yue-Hin Loke, Nicolle Ceneri, John Berger, Joshua Kanter, R. J. Cross, Devika Richmann, Karin Hamman, Laura Olivieri, Ravi Vegulla, Nicholas Mouzakis
article en

Abstract

Background: Heart transplantation remains definitive therapy for children with heart failure, but the burden of acute graft rejection remains. While adult data has shown cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) offers reliable, non-invasive identification of graft rejection1-3, endo-myocardial biopsy (EMB) continues to be the gold-standard in children. Hypothesis: CMR can establish the presence/absence of rejection, guiding need for EMB and rejection therapy. Aims: To assess the (1) strength of CMR parametric mapping in discriminating presence of rejection (defined as need for new therapy), and (2) the ability of CMR to identify patients without rejection, negating the need for EMB. Methods: Pediatric heart transplant patients referred for EMB underwent concurrent noncontrast CMR with volumetry, flows, MOLLI T1 and T2 parametric mapping at 1.5T. Average and peak segmental native T1 and T2 were measured in 6 slices, and regions of sub-segmental ‘hotspot’ elevation (3 continuous voxels T1>1050 ms or T2>60 ms) were identified. Rejection treatment was per institutional protocol, blinded to CMR results, categorized as (A)new IV therapy, (B)oral augmentation of maintenance, or (C) no change. Sensitivity, specificity and ROC analyses were performed. Results: 95 encounters in 34 patients (median age 13.1y (IQR 7.5-16.3), BSA 1.37 m2 (1.1-1.6), 47% female) were completed, with treatment groups A 13%, B 5%, and C 82%. Significantly higher T1 and T2 values were found in the rejection groups. ROC curve analysis identified elevated peak T1 levels as the strongest predictor of rejection (AUC = 0.848, 95% CI: 0.746, 0.950, p<0.001), with optimal cutoff T1 >1099 ms. Subsegmental hotspots were present in all encounters with rejection requiring new therapy (100% sensitivity), however the type/ number of hotspots did not correlate with rejection. New rejection therapy was not initiated in any patient encounter without hotspots (NPV 100%). Conclusions: Elevated segmental T1 CMR values can identify children with graft rejection, and absence of subsegmental hotspot elevations can reliably identify patients without rejection. CMR is a promising non-invasive test to aid in graft surveillance and direct invasive testing and therapy.

CirculationVol. 150(Suppl_1)
Boston Children's Hospital (US), Morgan Stanley Children's Hospital (US), Children's National (US), Beebe Healthcare (US), Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh (US)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 61%
Transplantation: Methods and Outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.