Skip Navigation

European Heart Journal 1989 10(5):400-408;
Copyright © 1989 by the European Society of Cardiology.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by CILIBERTO, G. R.
Right arrow Articles by PESSANO, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by CILIBERTO, G. R.
Right arrow Articles by PESSANO, A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1989 The European Society of Cardiology

Echocardiographic assessment of cardiac allograft rejection

G. R. CILIBERTO*,, G. CATLDO*, M. CIPRIANI*, M. MASCARELLO*, F. FALETRA*, E. GRONDA*, R. DE MARIA{dagger}, L. MAURI and A. PESSANO*

*Dipartimento di Cardiologia ‘A. De Gasperis’ Milano Italy
{dagger}Istituto Fisiologia Clinica CNR, Sezione di Milano,Ospedale Ca Granda Milano Italy

Received 15 June 1988; .

Address for correspondence: G. R. Ciliberto, Via E. De Marchi 8, 20123, Milano, Italy.

Abstract

Twenty-one patients surviving orthotopic cardiac transplantation were studied by serial M-Mode and cross-sectional echocardiography on the same day as endomyocardial biopsy (EBS) (n = 205) during a mean follow-up period of 7.7 ± 6 months.

Results of EBS and the corresponding echocardiograms were divided into three groups: (1) no rejection (62 patients); (2) onset of mild rejection (11 patients); (3) onset of moderate rejection (17 patients). Groups 1 and 3 differed significantly in interventricular septum plus posterior wall thickness (IVS+PWth) (P<0.001), LV mass (P<0.001), LV ejection fraction (LVEF) (P<0.001), increased myocardial echo–genicity (ME) (P<0.01), impaired RV wall motion (P<0.001). Groups 1 and 2 differed significantly only in increased ME (P<0.01). Groups 2 and 3 differed significantly in IVS+PWth (P<0.05), LV mass (P<0.01), LVEF (P<0.01), and impaired RVwall motion (P<0.01).

With acute rejection we observed (1) increase of <4mm in IVS+PWth (55%), (2) increase of 30% in LV mass (34%), (3) reduction of <10 points in LVEF (27%), (4) RV dilatation and wall motion impairment (31%), (5) appearance or marked increase of per icar dial effusion (34%), (6) increased ME (58%). Specificity of the individual criteria ranged from 95-6% to 100%.

If only one of the above changes was used for echocardiographic diagnosis of rejection, 89% sensitivity and 90% specificity were found; if two or more of the above criteria were considered for diagnosis, specificity rose to 100% and sensitivity decreased to 72%

Echocardiography provides a promising non-invasive tool for the detection of the onset of acute rejection, particularly if the diagnosis is based on a multiparametric evaluation of serial changes.

Key Words: Echocardiography • heart transplant • rejection • endomyocardial biopsy


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
CirculationHome page
C. E. Angermann, K. Nassau, H.-U. Stempfle, T. M. Kruger, R. Drewello, R. Junge, P. Uberfuhr, M. Weiß, and K. Theisen
Recognition of Acute Cardiac Allograft Rejection From Serial Integrated Backscatter Analyses in Human Orthotopic Heart Transplant Recipients: Comparison With Conventional Echocardiography
Circulation, January 7, 1997; 95(1): 140 - 150.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
ANGIOLOGYHome page
A. M. Pellicelli, J. Barba Cosial, E. Ferranti, A. Gomez, and M. C. Borgia
Alteration of Left Ventricular Filling Evaluated by Doppler Echocardiography as a Potential Marker of Acute Rejection in Orthotopic Heart Transplant
Angiology, January 1, 1996; 47(1): 35 - 41.
[Abstract] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.