Evolving Concepts and Treatment Strategies for Cardiac Allograft Vasculopathy

Heart Failure (W Tang, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Heart Failure

Opinion statement

The central event in the development of allograft vasculopathy is the inflammatory response to immune-mediated and nonimmune-mediated endothelial damage. This response is characterized by the release of inflammatory cytokines, upregulation of cell-surface adhesion molecules, and subsequent binding of leukocytes. Growth factors stimulate smooth muscle cell proliferation and circulating progenitor cells are recruited to sites of arterial injury leading to neointima formation. Because of its diffuse nature, intravascular ultrasound is more sensitive than angiography for early diagnosis. Proliferation signal inhibitors (PSIs) have the capacity to slow vasculopathy progression by inhibiting smooth muscle cell proliferation, but its side effects profile makes its use as a first line agent difficult. Retransplantation is still the only definitive therapy but is available only in selected cases. The current hope is that immunomodulation at the time of transplant could induce long-term tolerance and graft accommodation, leading to less vasculopathy.


Heart transplant Cardiac allograft vasculopathy Proliferation signal inhibitor (PSI) Retransplantation Review 

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Stehlik J, Edwards LB, Kucheryavaya AY, et al. International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation. The registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: 29th official adult heart transplant report-2012. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012;31:1052–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mancini D, Pinney S, Burkhoff D, et al. Use of rapamycin slows progression of cardiac transplantation vasculopathy. Circulation. 2003;108:48–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rogers NJ, Lechler RI. Allorecognition. Am J Transplant. 2001;1:97–102.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mitchell RN, Libby P. Vascular remodeling in transplant vasculopathy. Circ Res. 2007;100:967–78.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wehner JR, Fox-Talbot K, Halushka MK, et al. B cells and plasma cells in coronaries of chronically rejected cardiac transplants. Transplantation. 2010;89:1141–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bahlmann FH, DeGroot K, Duckert T, et al. Endothelial progenitor cell proliferation and differentiation is regulated by erythropoietin. Kidney Int. 2003;64:1648–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Choi J, Enis DR, Koh KP, et al. T lymphocyte-endothelial cell interactions. Annu Rev Immunol. 2004;22:683–709.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Salomon RN, Hughes CC, Schoen FJ, et al. Human coronary transplantation-associated arteriosclerosis. Evidence for a chronic immune reaction to activated graft endothelial cells. Am J Pathol. 1991;138:791–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhang XP, Kelemen SE, Eisen HJ. Quantitative assessment of cell adhesion molecule gene expression in endomyocardial biopsy specimens from cardiac transplant recipients using competitive polymerase chain reaction. Transplantation. 2000;70:505–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nabel EG, Shum L, Pompili VJ, et al. Direct transfer of transforming growth factor beta 1 gen into arteries stimulates fibrocellular hyperplasia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993;90:10759–63.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koh KP, Wang Y, Yi T, et al. T cell-mediated vascular dysfunction of human allografts results from IFN-gamma dysregulation of NO synthase. J Clin Invest. 2004;114:846–56.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Win TS, Rehakova S, Negus MC, et al. Donor CD4 T cells contribute to cardiac allograft vasculopathy by providing help for autoantibody production. Circ Heart Fail. 2009;2:361–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Topilsky Y, Gandhi MJ, Hasin T, et al. Donor-specific antibodies to class II antigens are associated with accelerated cardiac allograft vasculopathy: a three-dimensional volumetric intravascular ultrasound study. Transplantation. 2013;95:389–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tambur AR, Pamboukian SV, Costanzo MR, et al. The presence of HLA-directed antibodies after heart transplantation is associated with poor allograft outcome. Transplantation. 2005;80:1019–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wu GW, Kobashigawa JA, Fishbein MC, et al. Asymptomatic antibody-mediated rejection after heart transplantation predicts poor outcomes. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2009;28:417–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Loupy A, Cazes A, Guillemain R, et al. Very late heart transplant rejection is associated with microvascular injury, complement deposition and progression to cardiac allograft vasculopathy. Am J Transplant. 2011;11:1478–87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nath DS, Ilias Basha H, Tiriveedhi V, et al. Characterization of immune responses to cardiac self-antigens myosin and vimentin in human cardiac allograft recipients with antibody-mediated rejection and cardiac allograft vasculopathy. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2010;29:1277–85.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Andrade CF, Waddell TK, Keshavjee S, et al. Innate immunity and organ transplantation: the potential role of toll-like receptors. Am J Transplant. 2005;5:969–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Graham JA, Wilkinson RA, Hirohashi T, et al. Viral infection induces de novo lesions of coronary allograft vasculopathy through a natural killer cell-dependent pathway. Am J Transplant. 2009;9:2479–84.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vassalli G, Gallino A, Weis M, et al. Alloimmunity and nonimmunologic risk factors in cardiac allograft vasculopathy. Eur Heart J. 2003;24:1180–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Valantine HA. Role of CMV in transplant coronary artery disease and survival after heart transplantation. Transpl Infect Dis. 1999;1 Suppl 1:25–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van Dorp WT, van Wieringen PA, Marselis-Jonges E, et al. Cytomegalovirus directly enhances MHC class I and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 expression on cultured proximal tubular epithelial cells. Transplantation. 1993;55:1367–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weis M, Kledal TN, Lin KY, et al. Cytomegalovirus infection impairs the nitric oxide synthase pathway: role of asymmetric dimethylarginine in transplant arteriosclerosis. Circulation. 2004;109:500–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Simmonds J, Fenton M, Dewar C, et al. Endothelial dysfunction and cytomegalovirus replication in pediatric heart transplantation. Circulation. 2008;117:2657–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Potena L, Grigioni F, Ortolani P, et al. Relevance of cytomegalovirus infection and coronary-artery remodeling in the first year after heart transplantation: a prospective three-dimensional intravascular ultrasound study. Transplantation. 2003;75:839–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pratschke J, Neuhaus P, Tullius SG. What can be learned from brain-death models? Transpl Int. 2005;18:15–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Atkinson C, Floerchinger B, Qiao F, et al. Donor brain death exacerbates complement-dependent ischemia/reperfusion injury in transplanted hearts. Circulation. 2013;127:1290–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mehra MR, Uber PA, Ventura HO, et al. The impact of mode of donor brain death on cardiac allograft vasculopathy: an intravascular ultrasound study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:806–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Perrault LP, Mahlberg F, Breugnot C, et al. Hypercholesterolemia increases coronary endothelial dysfunction, lipid content, and accelerated atherosclerosis after heart transplantation. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2000;20:728–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Biadi O, Potena L, Fearon WF, et al. Interplay between systemic inflammation and markers of insulin resistance in cardiovascular prognosis after heart transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2007;26:324–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zaguri R, Verbovetski I, Atallah M, et al. “Danger” effect of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and oxidized LDL on human immature dendritic cells. Clin Exp Immunol. 2007;149:543–52.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Khanna AK, Xu J, Uber PA, et al. Tobacco smoke exposure in either the donor or recipient before transplantation accelerates cardiac allograft rejection, vascular inflammation, and graft loss. Circulation. 2009;120:1814–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kobayashi H, Ouchi N, Kihara S, et al. Selective suppression of endothelial cell apoptosis by the high molecular weight form of adiponectin. Circ Res. 2004;94:e27–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ouedraogo R, Gong Y, Berzins B, et al. Adiponectin deficiency increases leukocyte-endothelium interactions via upregulation of endothelial cell adhesion molecules in vivo. J Clin Invest. 2007;117:1718–26.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Okamoto Y, Kihara S, Funahashi T, et al. Adiponectin: a key adipocytokine in metabolic syndrome. Clin Sci (Lond). 2006;110:267–78.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lara-Castro C, Luo N, Wallace P, et al. Adiponectin multimeric complexes and the metabolic syndrome trait cluster. Diabetes. 2006;55:249–59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    von Eynatten M, Humpert PM, Bluemm A, et al. High-molecular weight adiponectin is independently associated with the extent of coronary artery disease in men. Atherosclerosis. 2008;199:123–8.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Shu KH, Tsai IC, Ho HC, et al. Serum adiponectin levels in renal transplant recipients with and without metabolic syndrome. Transplant Proc. 2012;44:676–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cañas L, Bayés B, Granada ML, et al. Is adiponectin a marker of preclinical atherosclerosis in kidney transplantation? Clin Transplant. 2012;26:259–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Roos M, Baumann M, Liu D, et al. Low pre-transplant adiponectin multimers are associated with adverse allograft outcomes in kidney transplant recipients a 3-year prospective study. Regul Pept. 2012;178:11–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Okamoto Y, Christen T, Shimizu K, et al. Adiponectin inhibits allograft rejection in murine cardiac transplantation. Transplantation. 2009;88:879–83.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ishihara T, Haraguchi G, Konishi M, et al. Effect of adiponectin on cardiac allograft vasculopathy. Circ J. 2011;75:2005–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wehner JR, Baldwin III WM. Cardiac allograft vasculopathy: do adipocytes bridge alloimmune and metabolic risk factors? Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2010;15:639–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Minami E, Laflamme MA, Saffitz JE, et al. Extracardiac progenitor cells repopulate most major cell types in the transplanted human heart. Circulation. 2005;112:2951–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Simper D, Wang S, Deb A, et al. Endothelial progenitor cells are decreased in blood of cardiac allograft patients with vasculopathy and endothelial cells of noncardiac origin are enriched in transplant atherosclerosis. Circulation. 2003;108:143–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lagaaij EL, Cramer-Knijnenburg GF, van Kemenade FJ, et al. Endothelial cell chimerism after renal transplantation and vascular rejection. Lancet. 2001;357:33–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schober A, Hristov M, Kofler S, et al. CD34 + CD140b + cells and circulating CXCL12 correlate with the angiographically assessed severity of cardiac allograft vasculopathy. Eur Heart J. 2011;32:476–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.•
    Costanzo MR, Dipchand A, Starling R, et al. International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation. Guidelines. The International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation. Guidelines for the care of heart transplant recipients. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2010;29:914–56. Latest and extensive guidelines covering all aspects of heart transplant care.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Tuzcu EM, Hobbs RE, Rincon G, et al. Occult and frequent transmission of atherosclerotic coronary disease with cardiac transplantation: insights from intravascular ultrasound. Circulation. 1995;91:1706–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Johnson DE, Aldermann EL, Schroeder JS, et al. Transplant coronary artery disease: histopathologic correlations with angiographic morphology. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991;17:449–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lavine KJ, Sintek M, Novak E, et al. Coronary collaterals predict improved survival and allograft function in patients with coronary allograft vasculopathy. Circ Heart Fail. 2013;6:773–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kobashigawa JA, Tobis JM, Starling RC, et al. Multicenter intravascular ultrasound validation study among heart transplant recipients: outcomes after five years. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:1532–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Raichlin E, Bae JH, Kushwaha SS, et al. Inflammatory burden of cardiac allograft coronary atherosclerotic plaque is associated with early recurrent cellular rejection and predicts a higher risk of vasculopathy progression. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:1279–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Tomai F, Adorisio R, De Luca L, et al. Coronary plaque composition assessed by intravascular ultrasound virtual histology: association with long-term clinical outcomes after heart transplantation in young adult recipients. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013; [In press].Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Khandhar SJ, Yamamoto H, Teuteberg JJ, et al. Optical coherence tomography for characterization of cardiac allograft vasculopathy after heart transplantation (OCTCAV study). J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013;32:596–602.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hirohata A, Nakamura M, Waseda K, et al. Changes in coronary anatomy and physiology after heart transplantation. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99:1603–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hollenberg SM, Klein LW, Parrillo JE, et al. Changes in coronary endothelial function predict progression of allograft vasculopathy after heart transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2004;23:265–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Weis M, Hartmann A, Olbrich HG, et al. Prognostic significance of coronary flow reserve on left ventricular ejection fraction in cardiac transplant recipients. Transplantation. 1998;65:103–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Haddad F, Khazanie P, Deuse T, et al. Clinical and functional correlates of early microvascular dysfunction after heart transplantation. Circ Heart Fail. 2012;5:759–68.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Korosoglou G, Riedle N, Erbacher M, et al. Quantitative myocardial blush grade for the detection of cardiac allograft vasculopathy. Am Heart J. 2010;159:643–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Derumeaux G, Redonnet M, Mouton-Schleifer D, et al. Dobutamine stress echocardiography in orthotopic heart transplant recipients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;25:1665–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Bacal F, Moreira L, Souza G, et al. Dobutamine stress echocardiography predicts cardiac events or death in asymptomatic patients long-term after heart transplantation: 4-year prospective evaluation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2004;23:1238–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Eroglu E, D’hooge J, Sutherland GR, et al. Quantitative dobutamine stress echocardiography for the early detection of cardiac allograft vasculopathy in heart transplant recipients. Heart. 2008;94:e3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Carlsen J, Toft JC, Mortensen SA, et al. Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy as a screening method for significant coronary artery stenosis in cardiac transplant recipients. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2000;19:873–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Ciliberto GR, Ruffini L, Mangiavacchi M, et al. Resting echocardiography and quantitative dipyridamole technetium-99m sestamibi tomography in the identification of cardiac allograft vasculopathy and the prediction of long-term prognosis after heart transplantation. Eur Heart J. 2001;22:964–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Gregory SA, Ferencik M, Achenbach S, et al. Comparison of sixty-four-slice multidetector computed tomographic coronary angiography to coronary angiography with intravascular ultrasound for the detection of transplant vasculopathy. Am J Cardiol. 2006;98:877–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Steen H, Merten C, Refle S, et al. Prevalence of different gadolinium enhancement patterns in patients after heart transplantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:1160–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Muehling OM, Wilke NM, Panse P, et al. Reduced myocardial perfusion reserve and transmural perfusion gradient in heart transplant arteriopathy assessed by magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42:1054–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Labarrere CA, Lee JB, Nelson DR, et al. C-reactive protein, arterial endothelial activation, and development of transplant coronary artery disease: a prospective study. Lancet. 2002;360:1462–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Labarrere CA, Nelson DR, Cox CJ, et al. Cardiac-specific troponin I levels and risk of coronary artery disease and graft failure following heart transplantation. JAMA. 2000;284:457–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Shaw SM, Williams SG. Is brain natriuretic peptide clinically useful after cardiac transplantation? J Heart Lung Transplant. 2006;25:1396–401.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Mehra MR, Uber PA, Walther D, et al. Gene expression profiles and B-type natriuretic peptide elevation in heart transplantation: more than a hemodynamic marker. Circulation. 2006;114(Suppl I):I-21–26.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Mehra MR, Uber PA, Potluri S, et al. Usefulness of an elevated B-type natriuretic peptide to predict allograft failure, cardiac allograft vasculopathy, and survival after heart transplantation. Am J Cardiol. 2004;94:454–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Yamani MH, Taylor DO, Rodriguez ER, et al. Transplant vasculopathy is associated with increased AlloMap gene expression score. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2007;26:403–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Singh N, Van Craeyveld E, Tjwa M, et al. Circulating apoptotic endothelial cells and apoptotic endothelial microparticles independently predict the presence of cardiac allograft vasculopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:324–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Lin D, Cohen Freue G, Hollander Z, et al. Plasma protein biosignatures for detection of cardiac allograft vasculopathy. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013;32:723–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.•
    Mehra MR, Crespo-Leiro MG, Dipchand A, et al. International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. Working formulation of a standardized nomenclature for cardiac allograft vasculopathy-2010. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2010;29:717–27. Explains the rationale behind the proposed nomenclature and its research importance.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Weis M, Pehlivanli S, Meiser BM, et al. Simvastatin treatment is associated with improvement in coronary endothelial function and decreased cytokine activation in patients after heart transplantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;38:814–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Kobashigawa JA, Katznelson S, Laks H, et al. Effect of pravastatin on outcomes after cardiac transplantation. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:621–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Kobashigawa JA, Moriguchi JD, Laks H, et al. Ten-year follow-up of a randomized trial of pravastatin in heart transplant patients. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2005;24:1736–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Wenke K, Meiser B, Thiery J, et al. Simvastatin initiated early after heart transplantation: 8-year prospective experience. Circulation. 2003;107:93–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Steinhauff S, Pehlivanli S, Bakovic-Alt R, et al. Beneficial effects of quinaprilat on coronary vasomotor function, endothelial oxidative stress, and endothelin activation after human heart transplantation. Transplantation. 2004;77:1859–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Bae JH, Rihal CS, Edwards BS, et al. Association of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and serum lipids with plaque regression in cardiac allograft vasculopathy. Transplantation. 2006;82:1108–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Schroeder JS, Gao SZ, Alderman EL, et al. A preliminary study of diltiazem in the prevention of coronary artery disease in heart-transplant recipients. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:164–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Erinc K, Yamani MH, Starling RC, et al. The effect of combined Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition and calcium antagonism on allograft coronary vasculopathy validated by intravascular ultrasound. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2005;24:1033–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Fang JC, Kinlay S, Beltrame J, et al. Effect of vitamins C and E on progression of transplant-associated arteriosclerosis: a randomized trial. Lancet. 2002;359:1108–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Lim DS, Mooradian SJ, Goldberg CS, et al. Effect of oral L-arginine on oxidant stress, endothelial dysfunction, and systemic arterial pressure in young cardiac transplant recipients. Am J Cardiol. 2004;94:828–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Grimm M, Rinaldi M, Yonan NA, et al. Superior prevention of acute rejection by tacrolimus vs cyclosporine in heart transplant recipients: a large European trial. Am J Transplant. 2006;6:1387–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Meiser BM, Groetzner J, Kaczmarek I, et al. Tacrolimus or cyclosporine: which is the better partner for mycophenolate mofetil in heart transplant recipients? Transplantation. 2004;78:591–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Kobashigawa JA, Patel J, Furukawa H, et al. Five-year results of a randomized, single-center study of tacrolimus vs microemulsion cyclosporine in heart transplant patients. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2006;25:434–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Eisen HJ, Kobashigawa J, Keogh A, et al. Three-year results of a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of mycophenolate mofetil vs azathioprine in cardiac transplant recipients. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2005;24:517–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Kaczmarek I, Ertl B, Schmauss D, et al. Preventing cardiac allograft vasculopathy: long-term beneficial effects of mycophenolate mofetil. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2006;25:550–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Keogh A, Richardson M, Ruygrok P, et al. Sirolimus in de novo heart transplant recipients reduces acute rejection and prevents coronary artery disease at 2 years: a randomized clinical trial. Circulation. 2004;110:2694–700.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Raichlin E, Bae JH, Khalpey Z, et al. Conversion to sirolimus as primary immunosuppression attenuates the progression of allograft vasculopathy after cardiac transplantation. Circulation. 2007;116:2726–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Eisen HJ, Tuzcu EM, Dorent R, et al. Everolimus for the prevention of allograft rejection and vasculopathy in cardiac-transplant recipients. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:847–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Hill JA, Hummel M, Starling RC, et al. A lower incidence of cytomegalovirus infection in de novo heart transplant recipients randomized to everolimus. Transplantation. 2007;15(84):1436–42.Google Scholar
  97. 97.••
    Eisen HJ, Kobashigawa J, Starling RC, et al. Everolimus vs mycophenolate mofetil in heart transplantation: a randomized, multi-center trial. Am J Transplant. 2013;13:1203–16. This is a very important clinical study that showed that Everolimus is not associated with improved survival compared with MMF despite decreased vasculopathy progression and at the expense of increased risk of adverse events. It raises the question about the PSI benefit and safety in transplant medicine.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.••
    Arora S, Erikstad I, Ueland T, et al. Virtual histology assessment of cardiac allograft vasculopathy following introduction of everolimus–results of a multi-center trial. Am J Transplant. 2012;12:2700–9. Since the Mancini et al. trial [2], the PSI class has been the great hope to slow CAV progression. This study shows possible vasculopathy worsening associated with late PSI introduction.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.••
    Matsuo Y, Cassar A, Yoshino S, et al. Attenuation of cardiac allograft vasculopathy by sirolimus: relationship to time interval after heart transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013;32:784–91. This an important study because it confirms Arora et al. [99] finding that late PSI introduction may make vasculopathy worse.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Masetti M, Potena L, Nardozza M, et al. Differential effect of everolimus on progression of early and late cardiac allograft vasculopathy in current clinical practice. Am J Transplant. 2013;13:1217–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Bader FM, Kfoury AG, Gilbert EM, et al. Percutaneous coronary interventions with stents in cardiac transplant recipients. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2006;25:298–301.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Benza RL, Zoghbi GJ, Tallaj J, et al. Palliation of allograft vasculopathy with transluminal angioplasty: a decade of experience. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:1973–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Lee MS, Kobashigawa J, Tobis J. Comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with bare-metal and drug-eluting stents for cardiac allograft vasculopathy. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;1:710–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Nfor T, Ansaarie I, Gupta A, et al. Comparing long-term outcomes between drug-eluting and bare-metal stents in the treatment of cardiac allograft vasculopathy. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;74:543–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Musci M, Loebe M, Wellnhofer E, et al. Coronary angioplasty, bypass surgery, and retransplantation in cardiac transplant patients with graft coronary disease. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1998;46:268–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Patel VS, Radovancevic B, Springer W, et al. Revascularization procedures in patients with transplant coronary artery disease. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1997;11:895–901.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Tsai VW, Cooper J, Garan H, et al. The efficacy of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in heart transplant recipients: results from a multi-center registry. Circ Heart Fail. 2009;2:197–201.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Srivastava R, Keck BM, Bennett LE, et al. The results of cardiac retransplantation: an analysis of the Joint International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation/United Network for Organ Sharing Thoracic Registry. Transplantation. 2000;70:606–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Topkara VK, Dang NC, John R, et al. A decade experience of cardiac retransplantation in adult recipients. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2005;24:1745–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Mogollón Jiménez MV, Sobrino Márquez JM, Arizón Muñoz JM, et al. Incidence and importance of de novo diabetes mellitus after heart transplantation. Transplant Proc. 2008;40:3053–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Hamblin M, Chang L, Zhang H, et al. Vascular smooth muscle cell peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ mediates pioglitazone-reduced vascular lesion formation. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2011;31:352–9.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Kosuge H, Haraguchi G, Koga N, et al. Pioglitazone prevents acute and chronic cardiac allograft rejection. Circulation. 2006;113:2613–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Hermann TS, Dall CH, Christensen SB, et al. Effect of high intensity exercise on peak oxygen uptake and endothelial function in long-term heart transplant recipients. Am J Transplant. 2011;11:536–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Nytrøen K, Annette Rustad L, Erikstad I, et al. Effect of high-intensity interval training on progression of cardiac allograft vasculopathy. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013; [In press].Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Kelishadi SS, Azimzadeh AM, Zhang T, et al. Preemptive CD20+ B cell depletion attenuates cardiac allograft vasculopathy in cyclosporine-treated monkeys. J Clin Invest. 2010;120:1275–84.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Heslan JM, Renaudin K, Thebault P, et al. New evidence for a role of allograft accommodation in long-term tolerance. Transplantation. 2006;82:1185–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kaufman Center for Heart Failure, Department of Cardiovascular MedicineHeart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland ClinicClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations