ArticleJHLT open2026
T1 mapping for diagnosis of early cardiac cellular allograft rejection.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Non-invasive surveillance of acute cellular rejection (ACR) has become a primary focus in heart transplantation (HTx), aiming to reduce the frequency of invasive endomyocardial biopsies (EMB). While cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) with T1 mapping has shown promise as a diagnostic tool, its application during the early post-transplant phase remains a significant knowledge gap, as perioperative tissue injury can confound imaging interpretation. Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of cardiac T1 mapping for ACR in heart transplant recipients within the first 60 days post-transplantation, using EMB as the reference standard. Methods: This prospective single-center study included adult HTx recipients within 60 days post-transplant. All patients underwent CMR with native T1 mapping and extracellular volume (ECV) quantification. EMB served as the gold standard, classifying patients into non-significant (<2R) and significant (≥2R) rejection groups. Results: Forty-five recipients were included; 14 (31.1%) presented with cellular rejection ≥2R. Baseline characteristics such as recipient mean age (50.1 vs 49.6 years, Conclusion: The diagnostic accuracy of standalone T1 mapping for identifying ACR was modest in this early post-HTx period. However, native T1 and ECV were significantly higher in the rejection group, and their integration into a multiparametric approach, including LGE, demonstrated a high NPV in this cohort. These findings highlight CMR's potential for monitoring myocardial changes even in the early post-transplant stage.
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.