ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2024
Longitudinal Assessment of T1 Mapping Trends Disease in Pediatric Patients With Heart Transplant.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Multimodal Cardiac Imaging of Immune-Mediated Complications Post Heart Transplantation: A Contemporary Review.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSurveillance for heart transplant rejection by endomyocardial biopsy is invasive and may yield false negatives. T1 and T2 mapping from cardiac magnetic resonance can demonstrate elevations with rejection. We sought to evaluate longitudinal changes in T1 and T2 mapping in pediatric patients with heart transplant. METHODS AND
resultsA cohort study was performed of pediatric patients with heart transplant who underwent concurrent endomyocardial biopsy and cardiac magnetic resonance with T1 and T2 mapping from December 2019 to July 2024. Segmental values were measured and subsegmental elevations (ie, hotspots) were identified. Subjects were categorized as either treated rejection or no rejection. Peak and mean T1 and T2 values and number of hotspots at/between each time point for patient dyads were compared between the groups. A total of 21 subjects (7 treated rejection, 14 no rejection) with 68 total encounters met inclusion criteria. Peak and mean T1 values were higher in treated rejection patients during the rejection period and decreased with treatment (peak, 1086 versus 1052; mean, 1028 versus 1021), such that at last follow-up when their rejection had resolved, there was no significant difference in values when compared with no rejection patients (peak, 1066; mean, 1016). The number of T1 hotspots decreased after rejection treatment (2 versus 1). There were no changes in peak or mean T2 values in the treated rejection group despite treatment, and peak and mean T2 values were similar to patients with no rejection through last follow-up.
conclusionsElevated T1 values and hotspots observed during cardiac allograft rejection decline in response to treatment. Cardiac magnetic resonance may serve as a noninvasive monitoring tool for the development and resolution of rejection, as well as the effectiveness of rejection therapy.
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.