Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2025 May 15;21(3):51-57.
doi: 10.14797/mdcvj.1578. eCollection 2025.

Rejection Surveillance: Integrating Cell-Free DNA and Gene Expression Panels to Decrease Invasiveness in Routine Monitoring of Heart Transplant Recipients

Hatem Alansari  1 , Janardhana R Gorthi  1
Affiliations
Review

Rejection Surveillance: Integrating Cell-Free DNA and Gene Expression Panels to Decrease Invasiveness in Routine Monitoring of Heart Transplant Recipients

Hatem Alansari et al. Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J. .

Abstract

Post-transplant rejection surveillance remains a cornerstone of heart transplant care. Although endomyocardial biopsy has long been the gold standard for monitoring rejection, its invasiveness and limitations have driven innovations in noninvasive techniques. Molecular diagnostics, including gene expression profiling (GEP) and donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA), have emerged as promising alternatives with demonstrated utility. GEP excels in identifying immune activation with high negative predictive value, while dd-cfDNA provides insights into allograft injury, with sensitivity up to 81% and specificity of 85%. Complementary cardiac imaging such as echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance enhance graft assessment by providing structural and functional data. Together, these investigations offer a multimodal approach to rejection surveillance, reducing the frequency of endomyocardial biopsy and improving overall care for transplant recipients.

Keywords: heart transplantation; noninvasive surveillance post heart transplant; post-transplant rejection.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Copeland H, Knezevic I, Baran DA, et al. Donor heart selection: Evidence-based guidelines for providers. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2023. Jan;42(1):7-29. doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2022.08.030 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Briasoulis A, Inampudi C, Pala M, Asleh R, Alvarez P, Bhama J. Induction immunosuppressive therapy in cardiac transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart Fail Rev. 2018. Sep;23(5):641-649. doi: 10.1007/s10741-018-9691-2 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Khush KK, Cherikh WS, Chambers DC, et al.; International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. The International Thoracic Organ Transplant Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: Thirty-fifth Adult Heart Transplantation Report-2018; Focus Theme: Multiorgan Transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2018. Oct;37(10):1155-1168. doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2018.07.022 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Caves P, Coltart J, Billingham M, Rider A, Stinson E. Transvenous endomyocardial biopsy--application of a method for diagnosing heart disease. Postgrad Med J. 1975. May;51(595):286-90. doi: 10.1136/pgmj.51.595.286 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Crespo-Leiro MG, Zuckermann A, Bara C, et al. Concordance among pathologists in the second Cardiac Allograft Rejection Gene Expression Observational Study (CARGO II). Transplantation. 2012. Dec 15;94(11):1172-7. doi: 10.1097/TP.0b013e31826e19e2 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources