Back

Clinical course and outcomes of antibody-mediated rejection after heart transplant in the contemporary era

Yang, B. Q.; Elesawy, M.; Laux, S.; Deych, E.; Fernandes, A.; Pattanayak, V.; Wong, K. E.; Tsao, L.; Zlotoff, D. A.; Kreso, A.; Schilling, J. D.; Lewis, G. D.

2026-05-21 transplantation
10.64898/2026.05.19.26353576 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) after heart transplant (HT) is associated with increased risk of mortality and graft loss. Contemporary studies delineating AMR presentation, management, and response to treatment are lacking, especially for patients who do not have typical immunohistological evidence of rejection (biopsy-negative, BN-AMR). In this study, we sought to describe the prevalence and clinical course of BN-AMR compared to biopsy-positive (BP-AMR) patients in a multicenter HT population. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all adult HT recipients at 2 academic medical centers. AMR was further divided into BP-AMR and BN-AMR, depending on their endomyocardial biopsy findings. The primary outcome was death and secondary outcome was a composite of death, retransplant, and new International Society of Heart and Lung Transplant grade 2 or 3 coronary artery vasculopathy. Results: A total of 742 patients were included in this study. We found that AMR occurred in 10% of HT recipients and was associated with worse overall survival compared to those with only cellular rejection or no rejection. BN-AMR accounted for 33% of AMR cases. Compared to BP-AMR, BN-AMR was diagnosed later, less aggressively treated, and associated with high morbidity and mortality. The long-term outcomes between BP-AMR and BN-AMR were similarly poor, with 5-year mortality approaching 50% after diagnosis. Conclusions: AMR after HT is associated with poor clinical outcomes and BN-AMR is common. Future studies should focus on incorporating novel tools for earlier detection of AMR and investigating AMR sub-phenotypes and optimal modes of treatment.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
International Journal of Cardiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.0%
2
Transplantation
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.2%
3
Circulation
74 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
12.2%
4
American Journal of Transplantation
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.9%
50% of probability mass above
5
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 26%
6.4%
6
The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.6%
7
Journal of Clinical Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.4%
8
Frontiers in Immunology
638 papers in training set
Top 3%
4.2%
9
npj Regenerative Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
10
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
202 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.5%
11
Annals of Internal Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
12
Journal of the American Heart Association
140 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
13
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
14
Pulmonary Circulation
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
15
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
16
Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology
40 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
17
Circulation: Heart Failure
14 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
18
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 12%
1.1%
19
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis
32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
20
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
21
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
56 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
22
Science Translational Medicine
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
23
Frontiers in Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
24
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 58%
0.6%
25
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 67%
0.6%