Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41586337›Full record

ArticleAmerican heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice2026

Magnetocardiography for noninvasive surveillance of rejection and cardiac allograft vasculopathy in heart transplant recipients.

Christian Eskander, Matthew Peters, Dipankar Gupta, Katelyn A Bruno, Juan R Vilaro

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Letter to the Editor about the article:American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026
    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

5 authors.

Christian EskanderDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Matthew PetersDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Dipankar GuptaCongenital Heart Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Katelyn A BrunoDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Juan R VilaroDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Heart transplantation is the definitive treatment for end-stage heart failure, yet long-term graft survival is hindered by two major complications: acute/chronic rejection (cellular or antibody mediated) and cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV). Standard surveillance is performed to screen for these issues and predominantly consists of cardiac catheterization with hemodynamics, endomyocardial biopsy and invasive coronary angiography, with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and coronary flow reserve. The use of IVUS increases the sensitivity for CAV detection. Overall, these procedures have associated morbidities, need anesthesia and have associated patient discomfort and substantial cost. Magnetocardiography (MCG), a noninvasive modality that measures cardiac magnetic fields, has emerged as a potential tool for early detection of complications in post-transplant patients. Unlike electrocardiography, MCG provides spatially resolved data on depolarization and repolarization, independent of body habitus or tissue conductivity. Early studies suggest that MCG can identify electrophysiologic abnormalities associated with both acute rejection and CAV, in some cases preceding histologic or angiographic confirmation. Rejection is reflected by alterations in magnetic dipole strength and repolarization heterogeneity, while CAV correlates with repolarization dispersion indices such as QTc heterogeneity and Magnetic Dispersion Velocity. Despite promising pilot data, MCG remains underutilized, largely due to small study sizes, lack of standardized interpretation, and limited availability of equipment. This review synthesizes the existing evidence, highlights potential advantages and limitations, and outlines future directions for integrating MCG into standard post-transplant surveillance protocols.

Identifiers

PMID41586337
PMCPMC12830094

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.