Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34268796›Full record

ArticleTransplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation2021

Clinical implementation of coronary computed tomography angiography for routine detection of cardiac allograft vasculopathy in heart transplant patients.

Fay M A Nous, Stefan Roest, Eva D van Dijkman, Mohamed Attrach, Kadir Caliskan, Jasper J Brugts, Koen Nieman, Alexander Hirsch, Alina A Constantinescu, Olivier C Manintveld and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Non-invasive imaging in heart transplant recipients: state of art and future direction.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Fay M A NousDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Stefan RoestDepartment of Cardiology, Thorax Center, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0195-7499
Eva D van DijkmanDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Mohamed AttrachDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Kadir CaliskanDepartment of Cardiology, Thorax Center, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Jasper J BrugtsDepartment of Cardiology, Thorax Center, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Koen NiemanDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Alexander HirschDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Alina A ConstantinescuDepartment of Cardiology, Thorax Center, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Olivier C ManintveldDepartment of Cardiology, Thorax Center, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Ricardo P J BuddeDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3792-615X
Erasmus MC · NLCardiovascular Institute of the South · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is an accelerated form of coronary artery disease that affects long-term outcomes in heart transplant (HTx) patients. We prospectively evaluated the feasibility of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) for the detection of CAV during clinical implementation at our center. All consecutive HTx patients >4 years post-transplant were actively converted from myocardial perfusion imaging to CCTA for the annual assessment of CAV. Between February 2018 and May 2019, 129/172 (75%) HTx patients underwent a CCTA. Renal impairment (n = 21/43) was the most frequent reason for patients could not undergo CCTA. CCTA image quality was good-excellent in 118/129 (92%) patients, and the radiation dose was 2.1 (1.6-2.8) mSv. CCTA showed obstructive CAV in 19/129 (15%) patients. Thirteen (10%) patients underwent additional tests, of which 8 patients underwent coronary revascularization within 90 days of CCTA. After 1 year, 3 additional coronary angiograms were performed, resulting in one revascularization in a patient with known severe CAV who developed ventricular tachycardia. One myocardial infarction after coronary stenting and 2 non-cardiac deaths were observed. CCTA can be successfully implemented for routine detection of CAV with good image quality and low radiation dose. CCTA allows CAV evaluation with the limited need for additional invasive testing.

Indexed as

Coronary Artery DiseaseHeart TransplantationAllograftsComputed Tomography AngiographyCoronary AngiographyHumanscardiac allograft vasculopathycomputed tomography angiographycoronary artery diseaseheart transplantationinvasive coronary angiography

Identifiers

PMID34268796
PMCPMC8519137
OpenAlexW3180924109

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.