Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41541417›Full record

ArticleJHLT open2026

Three-year outcomes with the use of dual non-invasive rejection surveillance after heart transplantation.

Erik J Henricksen, Juka S Kim, Kiran K Khush, Joyce Njoroge, Helen Luikart, Melody B Zhang, Roy Lee, Thu Le, Brandon A Guenthart, Jeffrey J Teuteberg

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in JHLT open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Erik J HenricksenDepartment of Transplant, Stanford Medicine, California, CA.
Juka S KimDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University, California, CA.
Kiran K KhushSection of Heart Failure, Cardiac Transplant, and Mechanical Circulatory Support, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, California, CA.
Joyce NjorogeSection of Heart Failure, Cardiac Transplant, and Mechanical Circulatory Support, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, California, CA.
Helen LuikartSection of Heart Failure, Cardiac Transplant, and Mechanical Circulatory Support, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, California, CA.
Melody B ZhangDepartment of Pathology, Stanford University, California, CA.
Roy LeeDepartment of Transplant, Stanford Medicine, California, CA.
Thu LeDepartment of Transplant, Stanford Medicine, California, CA.
Brandon A GuenthartCardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University, California, CA.
Jeffrey J TeutebergSection of Heart Failure, Cardiac Transplant, and Mechanical Circulatory Support, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, California, CA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Donor-derived cell-free DNA (ddcfDNA) and gene expression profiling (GEP) allow for non-invasive monitoring of rejection after heart transplantation in place of endomyocardial biopsies (EMBx). However, data are limited on the impact this strategy has on heart transplant graft outcomes after 2 years post transplant. Methods: This is a single center, retrospective analysis of adult heart transplant recipients, comparing a rejection surveillance cohort of GEP/biopsy (1/2015-12/2017) against a rejection surveillance cohort of GEP/ddcfDNA (7/2018-12/2020). The primary outcome was survival at 3 years post transplant. Secondary outcomes included ejection fraction (EF), rejection free survival, total number of EMBx in follow-up period, and development of de novo donor specific antibodies (dnDSA). Results: A total of 88 patients in the GEP/Biopsy cohort and 90 patients in the GEP/ddcfDNA cohort were included in the analysis. When comparing GEP/Biopsy against GEP/ddcfDNA, overall survival (85.2% vs. 86.7%, p=0.78). Biopsy proven acute cellular rejection (70.5% vs 83.3%, p = 0.062), biopsy proven antibody mediated rejection (97.7 vs. 94.5%, p = 0.26), LVEF at 3 years [60.3 (57.9-63.6) vs. 60.3 (57.5-63.1], and development of dnDSA [34/88 (38.6%) vs. 36/91 (39.6%), p = 1.0] when comparing GEP/biopsy against GEP/ddcfDNA, indicating similar clinical outcomes. However, patients in the GEP/ddcfDNA had fewer biopsies [4 (3-6) vs. 12 (10-14), p<0.001)]. Conclusions: When comparing a rejection surveillance strategy of GEP/biopsy against GEP/ddcfDNA, heart transplant outcomes were similar at 3 years, while a strategy of GEP/ddcfDNA resulted in significantly fewer EMBx.

Indexed as

Donor-derived cell-free DNAEndomyocardial biopsiesHeart transplantNon-invasive monitoringRejection

Identifiers

PMID41541417
PMCPMC12799936

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.