ArticleClinical transplantation2022
Observed elevated donor-derived cell free DNA in orthotopic heart transplant recipients without clinical evidence of rejection.
Article in Clinical transplantation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Donor-Derived Cell-Free DNA in Allograft Transplantation: Exaggerated Hope or Cautious Reality?Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Donor-derived cell-free DNA-based liquid biopsies to determine future kidney transplant rejection.Kidney research and clinical practice · 2025Article
- Transforming heart transplantation care with multi-omics insights.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Review
- Diagnosis of rejection following heart transplantation: diving into the future.Frontiers in transplantation · 2025Review
- Diagnostic approach to elevated dd-cfDNA with reassuring EMB in heart transplantation.Frontiers in transplantation · 2025Review
- Heart Transplant Rejection: From the Endomyocardial Biopsy to Gene Expression Profiling.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- A modern heart transplant rejection surveillance protocol utilizing cell-free DNA: A single-center experience.JHLT open · 2024Article
- False Positives in Brucellosis Serology: Wrong Bait and Wrong Pond?Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2023Review
- Observed elevated donor-derived cell free DNA in orthotopic heart transplant recipients without clinical evidence of rejection.Clinical transplantation · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Donor-derived cell free DNA (dd-cfDNA) has rapidly become part of rejection surveillance following orthotopic heart transplantation. However, some patients show elevated dd-cfDNA without clinical evidence of rejection. With the aim to provide a clinical description of this subpopulation, we retrospectively analyzed 35 cardiac transplant recipients at our center who experienced elevated (≥.20%) dd-cfDNA in the absence of clinical rejection, out of a total 106 recipients who had dd-cfDNA results available during the first year. The median time to first elevated dd-cfDNA level was 46 days, and the highest dd-cfDNA recorded within 1 year was .31% [inter-quartile range, .23-.45]. Twenty-two (63%) patients experienced infections (cytomegalovirus (CMV) or other), and 16 (46%) presented with de novo donor-specific antibodies. Cluster analysis revealed four distinct groups characterized by (a) subclinical rejection with 50% CMV (n = 16), (b) non-CMV infections and the longest time to first elevated dd-cfDNA (187 days) (n = 8), (c) right ventricular dysfunction (n = 6), and (d) women who showed the youngest median age (45 years) and highest median dd-cfDNA (.50%) (n = 5). Continued prospective analysis is needed to determine if these observations warrant changes in patient management to optimize the utilization of this vital non-invasive graft surveillance tool.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.