Logo Annals of Transplantation Logo Annals of Transplantation Logo Annals of Transplantation

11 November 2025: Original Paper  

Invasive Coronary Physiology Assessment for Detecting Microcirculatory Dysfunction in Heart Transplant Recipients

Mateusz Sokolski ORCID logo ABCDEFG 1,2*, Natalia Oliwia Bernacka ORCID logo CDEF 3, Wiktoria Zychla CDEF 3, Magdalena J. Cielecka ORCID logo BE 1,2, Mateusz Rakowski ORCID logo BE 2,4, Maciej Bochenek ORCID logo BE 1,2, Wiktor Kuliczkowski ORCID logo BE 2,5, Roman Przybylski ORCID logo BEG 2,6, Michał Zakliczyński ORCID logo ABEG 1,2

DOI: 10.12659/AOT.950138

Ann Transplant 2025; 30:e950138

0 Comments

Abstract

0:00

BACKGROUND: Coronary vasculopathy is one of the most serious late complications after heart transplantation (Htx). The aim of this study was to assess the utility and safety of the invasive assessment of coronary physiology and investigate the occurrence of coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) and its association with clinical characteristics of recipients and donors.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: Coronary microcirculation was assessed during routine coronary angiography, performed prospectively between December 1, 2020, and July 24, 2023, by using index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) and coronary flow reserve (CFR). Values of IMR ³25 or CFR <2.0 confirmed CMD.

RESULTS: Thirty-three patients aged 49±14 years were included; 21 (64%) were men. CMD was found in 8 (24%) patients. There were no complications, and examination was performed in all patients. The median values for IMR and CFR were 13 [IQR: 10-20] and 3.6 [IQR: 2.2-4.9], respectively. CMD was more common in younger patients: 40±16 vs 51±13 years (P=0.045), and those with lower BMI: 22±4 vs 26±4 kg/m² (P=0.016). Patients with CMD were more likely to require pacemaker implantation, with 3 (38%) vs 1 (4%) in the post-transplant period (P=0.012). The median time since Htx was 2 [IQR: 2-10] years and was higher in the CMD group: 9.5 [IQR: 6-16] vs 2 [IQR: 1-8] years, (P=0.042). There were no significant differences in other recipient and donor characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS: Invasive assessment of coronary physiology was safe and effective and diagnosed CMD in nearly one-fourth of heart transplant recipients. CMD is related to age, time since transplantation, and chronotropic graft dysfunction.

Keywords: Cardiovascular Diseases, Fractional Flow Reserve, Myocardial, Heart Transplantation, Humans, Middle Aged, Male, Female, Microcirculation, adult, Coronary Circulation, Coronary Angiography, Coronary Artery Disease, Prospective Studies, Coronary Vessels, Postoperative Complications, transplant recipients, Aged

Introduction

Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is a common complication and one of the leading causes of long-term mortality in adults after heart transplantation (Htx). According to the 2019 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) registry data report, in adult cardiac transplant recipients, the prevalence of CAV at 1, 5, and 10 years after Htx was 8%, 29%, and 47%, respectively [1]. CAV is a specific form of coronary artery disease affecting heart transplant recipients. It is characterized by an early, widespread intimal proliferation that affects both the epicardial and microvascular vessels, which leads to stenosis of the epicardial coronary artery and occlusion of small vessels. According to the 2010 ISHLT guidelines, coronary angiography remains the criterion standard for diagnosing CAV and allows classification of disease severity based on defined angiographic changes [2]. Follow-up angiography is performed according to different protocols and at different times [3]. Thus, after Htx, macrocirculation is evaluated routinely; however, there is no validated tool to assess microcirculation in these patients. This issue is particularly important, as current studies show that elevated microvascular resistance can be an independent predictor of CAV [4,5]. Considering the significance of CAV following Htx, it can be beneficial to explore various techniques, invasive and noninvasive, for assessing microcirculation in these circumstances [6,7]. For the invasive assessment of coronary microcirculation, there are currently 2 different tools available: Doppler-based and thermodilution-derived tools (8]. In this study, we focused on a thermodilution-based technique involving fractional flow reserve (FFR) [9]. This tool was established among patients with native heart diseases for the functional assessment of the coronary artery; however, few data exist on the use of FFR in heart transplant recipients to assess coronary microcirculation [10]. To fill this gap, we aimed to evaluate the utility and safety of this method in this population. The FFR index, when measured concurrently with the index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) and coronary flow reserve (CFR), provides a highly reproducible and comprehensive assessment of coronary physiology at both the epicardial and microvascular levels [11]. Research findings indicate that advancing age [12], hypercholesterolemia [13], smoking [14], obesity [15], hypertension [16], diabetes mellitus [17] and chronic kidney disease [18] are associated with microcirculatory dysfunction in humans. Thus, the primary objective of this study was to evaluate the safety of the invasive FFR method and its utility in assessing the occurrence of coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) in heart transplant recipients who underwent follow-up angiography. Recipient and donor factors that may influence the occurrence of this pathology were examined, treatment regimens were compared, laboratory parameters were analyzed, and transplantation details were reviewed.

Material and Methods

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:

In the statistical analysis, for each quantitative variable, a histogram was created with the Shapiro-Wilk test. For quantitative variables with normal distribution, the Levene test was performed. For quantitative variables that met the homogeneity assumption of variance in this test, the independent-samples t test was performed. For the remaining quantitative variables that did not meet the homogeneity assumption of variance, the independent-samples t test with unequal variances was performed. For quantitative variables with non-normal distribution, a non-parametric test was performed: comparison of 2 independent samples (groups) using the Mann-Whitney U test. Qualitative variables were assessed using the Pearson chi-square test. A P value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were performed in Statistica 13, Software Inc (Statsoft Poland). Visualizations were performed using Python 3.11.13 with matplotlib 3.10.0, pandas 2.2.2, numpy 2.0.2, scipy 1.15.3.

Results

The study included 33 heart transplant recipients. Twenty-one (64%) patients were men, and the mean age of patients was 49±14 years. The group under study was divided into patients with normal microcirculation and patients with abnormal microcirculation. The study variables are shown in Tables 1–3. Abnormal IMR or CFR values were found in 8 (24%) patients. The median [IQR] for IMR and CFR was 13 [10–20] and 3.6 [2.2–4.9]. CMD occurred more frequently in younger patients: 40±16 vs 51±13 years (P=0.045) and those with lower BMI: 22 kg/m2 vs 26 kg/m2 (P=0.016; Figure 2A). The median time since Htx was 2 [2–10] years, and it was higher in the group with CMD than in the group without, at 9.5 [6–16] vs 2 [1–8] years, respectively (P=0.042; Figure 2B). There were no significant differences in atherosclerotic changes in the epicardial arteries detected in coronary angiography: 5 (63%) vs 9 (36%) (P=0.186). The need for pacemaker implantation, thus chronotropic insufficiency of the graft, was noted in 4 (12%) patients, and occurred more frequently in those with CMD, 3 (38%), than in those with normal microcirculation, 1 (4%) (P=0.012; Figure 2C). In basic laboratory test results, triglyceride levels differed between groups, with 76 mg/dL [65–96] in those with CMD and 114 [77–158] mg/dL in patients with normal microcirculation (P=0.048; Figure 2D). No significant differences were observed in other basic laboratory test results or pharmacological treatment. In this study, there were no complications related to the applied FFR method, which was used in all patients qualified to participate.

Discussion

CAV remains one of the main causes of long-term mortality in heart transplant recipients [22]. Assessment of FFR, CMR, and IMR allows early detection of CAV by tracking changes in macro- and micro-coronary vessels [23]. In the present study, the invasive evaluation of these functional tests during routine follow-up angiography in patients who underwent Htx allowed us to effectively evaluate coronary microcirculation. In our study, 24% of patients examined had CMD, and none of the patients experienced complications, thereby supporting FFR as a reliable and safe tool. In the pathogenesis of CAV, macrocirculation and microcirculation are impaired. In our study, 3 of 8 patients with CMD did not show significant changes at last follow-up, according to the ISHLT classification of CAV. Therefore, in most cases examined, these changes coexisted, but microcirculatory dysfunction can also occur as an isolated pathology, possibly preceding changes in macrocirculation. According to a study by Tona et al, CMD evaluated beyond the first year after Htx can be used to independently predict the future occurrence of new-onset epicardial CAV [24]. In their 2025 study, Ha et al evaluated prognosis after Htx and reported that impaired microcirculatory function found early after transplantation was based on another new indicator, vascular resistance reserve, which was associated with a high risk of acute cellular rejection and death [25]. In our study, CMD occurrence was associated with a longer time since Htx. We believe this may be related to the increasing incidence of this pathology with length of time since Htx, as it occurred in approximately 30% of patients 5 years after Htx [1]. Patients with CMD also had a lower BMI than did those with normal microcirculation. It has been shown that in non-transplanted patients with obesity, greater BMI was correlated with declining coronary microvascular function [26,27], and in heart transplant recipients with normal functioning allografts, weight gain and BMI were independent predictors of the severity of CAV [28]. However, results similar to those of the present study have been found in other studies. Russo et al conducted a study using the United Network of Organ Sharing database and demonstrated that obesity I (BMI of 30–34.99) appeared to not be associated with significantly higher morbidity and mortality in heart transplant recipients. They reported that the groups with a BMI ranging from 22 to 28 kg/m2, classified as between normal and overweight, had the best risk-adjusted survival [29]. There is also a debated concept, called the “obesity paradox”, whereby patients with numerous chronic diseases who have overweight or moderate obesity appear to have better clinical outcomes than patients with a normal BMI [30]; however, this paradox has become less clinically relevant due to the many drawbacks of the concept [31]. In the present study, the same surprising association as with BMI was observed with triglyceride levels: significantly higher triglyceride levels were seen in the group of patients with normal microcirculation. The presence of CMD in patients with lower blood triglyceride levels may have resulted from these patients taking statins in greater amounts or for a longer time. Statin therapy should be considered in all heart transplant recipients, as it has been shown to reduce CAV and improve long-term outcomes, independent of lipid levels [3]. Unfortunately, we did not have data on the duration of treatment with statins and their dosage before the study, which prevented us from drawing conclusions.

In our study, pacemaker implantation was performed in 4 heart transplant recipients, accounting for 12% of patients. According to the 2024 analysis of pacemaker implantation frequency after Htx by Boluk et al, pacemaker implantation after Htx is a common phenomenon and was observed in 9% of the study population, which supports our findings. Another notable discovery in the study by Boluk et al includes factors influencing the risk of pacemaker implantation, namely higher donor age and BMI [32]. It appears that CMD can be related to damage to the cardiac conduction system. Moreover, in the present study, recipient age was younger in the group with CMD. We tried to explain this rather surprising result but concluded that the small number of patients included in the study was a significant limitation affecting the interpretation of this finding. CFR and IMR values differed significantly between groups with normal and abnormal microcirculation (Figure 3A, 3B). These anomalies were able to predict the development of CAV and further complications, such as acute cellular rejection or patient death [33]. In the study by Ahn et al, lower CFR was correlated with a higher risk of death and re-transplantation at 10 years, while elevated IMR at baseline (median 7.2 weeks) and after 1 year was correlated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiac events at 10 years [34]. Thus, early detection of CMD by modern invasive tests allows for the prediction of adverse events, modification of treatment, and personalizing of post-transplant management for the best possible outcome for the patient [35,36].

This study had limitations, including the small sample size of 33 patients, which was the main limitation to drawing definite conclusions. Other limitations were the lack of blinding and lack of predictive evaluation of the FFR method for adverse events in long-term follow-up. Further investigation of the prognostic and therapeutic role of intracoronary flow assessment in CAV surveillance after Htx and factors predisposing patients to microcirculatory dysfunction is needed. Investigating these factors in a larger number of patients could provide new useful information and even contribute to the reduction of CMD and CAV in this group of patients.

Conclusions

As well as being safe, FFR, CMR, and IMR are indicators that allow effective invasive evaluation of the coronary microcirculation of heart transplant recipients. Patients with CMD were younger, had a longer time since transplantation, exhibited a greater frequency of pacemaker implantation after Htx, and had a lower BMI and triglyceride values than did patients with normal coronary microcirculation. Further large-scale studies on factors that predispose heart transplant recipients to microvascular dysfunction are greatly needed.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Figures

Example of a hemodynamic recording assessing coronary vessel physiology. In the upper half of the figure, a graph illustrates aortic pressure (Pa), distal pressure (Pd), and the Pd/Pa ratio, represented in red, green, and yellow, respectively. On the right side, key indicators for assessing coronary vessel function, such as fractional flow reserve (FFR), index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR), and coronary flow reserve (CFR) are displayed. These indicators provide essential information for evaluating coronary flow. The recording was obtained using the PressureWire X Guidewire during a routine follow-up coronary angiography. The figure was created in RadiView 2.0, Radi Medical Systems AB (Uppsala, SE).Figure 1. Example of a hemodynamic recording assessing coronary vessel physiology. In the upper half of the figure, a graph illustrates aortic pressure (Pa), distal pressure (Pd), and the Pd/Pa ratio, represented in red, green, and yellow, respectively. On the right side, key indicators for assessing coronary vessel function, such as fractional flow reserve (FFR), index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR), and coronary flow reserve (CFR) are displayed. These indicators provide essential information for evaluating coronary flow. The recording was obtained using the PressureWire X Guidewire during a routine follow-up coronary angiography. The figure was created in RadiView 2.0, Radi Medical Systems AB (Uppsala, SE). (A) Comparison of body mass index (BMI). The box plot compares the distribution of BMI (kg/m2) among the 2 groups of patients: heart transplant recipients with normal coronary microcirculation and those with coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD). The boxes extend from the lower quartile (Q1) to the upper quartile (Q3), indicating the interquartile range (IQR). In both groups, the median BMI is represented by the horizontal line inside the box. The whiskers extend to the minimum and maximum values within 1.5×IQR of the quartiles. There were no outliners. The figure was created in Python 3.11.13 with matplotlib 3.10.0, pandas 2.2.2. (B) Comparison of time since transplantation. The box plot compares the distribution of time since transplantation (years) among the 2 groups of patients: heart transplant recipients with normal coronary microcirculation and those with CMD. The boxes extend from the lower quartile (Q1) to the upper quartile (Q3), indicating the interquartile range (IQR). In both groups, the median time since transplantation is represented by the horizontal line inside the box. The whiskers extend to minimum and maximum values within 1.5×IQR quartiles. In the group with normal coronary microcirculation, there were outliners, shown as white dots. The figure was created in Python 3.11.13 with matplotlib 3.10.0, pandas 2.2.2. (C) Comparison of pacemaker implantation. The bar chart compares the number of patients who required pacemaker implantation after heart transplantation among the 2 groups: heart transplant recipients with normal coronary microcirculation and those with CMD. The figure was created in Python 3.11.13 with matplotlib 3.10.0, pandas 2.2.2, numpy 2.0.2. (D) Comparison of triglyceride levels. The box plot compares the distribution of triglyceride levels (mg/dL) among the 2 groups of patients: heart transplant recipients with normal coronary microcirculation and those with CMD. The boxes extend from the lower quartile (Q1) to the upper quartile (Q3), indicating the interquartile range (IQR). In both groups, the median triglyceride level is represented by the horizontal line inside the box. The whiskers extend to the minimum and maximum values within 1.5×IQR of the quartiles. There were no outliners. The figure was created in Python 3.11.13 with matplotlib 3.10.0, pandas 2.2.2.Figure 2. (A) Comparison of body mass index (BMI). The box plot compares the distribution of BMI (kg/m2) among the 2 groups of patients: heart transplant recipients with normal coronary microcirculation and those with coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD). The boxes extend from the lower quartile (Q1) to the upper quartile (Q3), indicating the interquartile range (IQR). In both groups, the median BMI is represented by the horizontal line inside the box. The whiskers extend to the minimum and maximum values within 1.5×IQR of the quartiles. There were no outliners. The figure was created in Python 3.11.13 with matplotlib 3.10.0, pandas 2.2.2. (B) Comparison of time since transplantation. The box plot compares the distribution of time since transplantation (years) among the 2 groups of patients: heart transplant recipients with normal coronary microcirculation and those with CMD. The boxes extend from the lower quartile (Q1) to the upper quartile (Q3), indicating the interquartile range (IQR). In both groups, the median time since transplantation is represented by the horizontal line inside the box. The whiskers extend to minimum and maximum values within 1.5×IQR quartiles. In the group with normal coronary microcirculation, there were outliners, shown as white dots. The figure was created in Python 3.11.13 with matplotlib 3.10.0, pandas 2.2.2. (C) Comparison of pacemaker implantation. The bar chart compares the number of patients who required pacemaker implantation after heart transplantation among the 2 groups: heart transplant recipients with normal coronary microcirculation and those with CMD. The figure was created in Python 3.11.13 with matplotlib 3.10.0, pandas 2.2.2, numpy 2.0.2. (D) Comparison of triglyceride levels. The box plot compares the distribution of triglyceride levels (mg/dL) among the 2 groups of patients: heart transplant recipients with normal coronary microcirculation and those with CMD. The boxes extend from the lower quartile (Q1) to the upper quartile (Q3), indicating the interquartile range (IQR). In both groups, the median triglyceride level is represented by the horizontal line inside the box. The whiskers extend to the minimum and maximum values within 1.5×IQR of the quartiles. There were no outliners. The figure was created in Python 3.11.13 with matplotlib 3.10.0, pandas 2.2.2. (A) Coronary flow reserve (CFR) distribution. The jitter scatter plot compares the distribution of CFR values among 2 groups of patients: heart transplant recipients with normal coronary microcirculation and recipients with coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD). The figure was created in Python 3.11.13 with matplotlib 3.10.0, pandas 2.2.2, numpy 2.0.2. (B) Index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) distribution. The jitter scatter plot compares the distribution of IMR values among 2 groups of patients: heart transplant recipients with normal coronary microcirculation and recipients with CMD. The figure was created in Python 3.11.13 with matplotlib 3.10.0, pandas 2.2.2, numpy 2.0.2, scipy 1.15.3.Figure 3. (A) Coronary flow reserve (CFR) distribution. The jitter scatter plot compares the distribution of CFR values among 2 groups of patients: heart transplant recipients with normal coronary microcirculation and recipients with coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD). The figure was created in Python 3.11.13 with matplotlib 3.10.0, pandas 2.2.2, numpy 2.0.2. (B) Index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) distribution. The jitter scatter plot compares the distribution of IMR values among 2 groups of patients: heart transplant recipients with normal coronary microcirculation and recipients with CMD. The figure was created in Python 3.11.13 with matplotlib 3.10.0, pandas 2.2.2, numpy 2.0.2, scipy 1.15.3.

References

1. Khush KK, Cherikh WS, Chambers DCInternational Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, The International Thoracic Organ Transplant Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: Thirty-sixth adult heart transplantation report – 2019; focus theme: Donor and recipient size match: J Heart Lung Transplant, 2019; 38(10); 1056-66 [Erratum in: J Heart Lung Transplant. 2020;39(1):91]

2. Mehra MR, Crespo-Leiro MG, Dipchand A, International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation working formulation of a standardized nomenclature for cardiac allograft vasculopathy – 2010: J Heart Lung Transplant, 2010; 29(7); 717-27 [Erratum in: J Heart Lung Transplant. 2011;30(3):360]

3. Velleca A, Shullo MA, Dhital K, The International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) guidelines for the care of heart transplant recipients: J Heart Lung Transplant, 2023; 42(5); e1-e141

4. Lee JH, Okada K, Khush K, Coronary endothelial dysfunction and the index of microcirculatory resistance as a marker of subsequent development of cardiac allograft vasculopathy: Circulation, 2017; 135(11); 1093-95

5. Chih S, Chong AY, Džavík V, Fibrotic plaque and microvascular dysfunction predict early cardiac allograft vasculopathy progression after heart transplantation: The early post transplant cardiac allograft vasculopathy study: Circ Heart Fail, 2023; 16(6); e010173

6. Velleca A, Shullo MA, Dhital K, The International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) guidelines for the care of heart transplant recipients: J Heart Lung Transplant, 2023; 42(5); e1-e141

7. Prasad P, Nagappan R, Davidson BP, Cardiac allograft vasculopathy diagnosed by vasodilator myocardial contrast echocardiography perfusion imaging: ESC Heart Fail, 2023; 10(5); 3184-89

8. Ciaramella L, Di Serafino L, Mitrano L, Invasive assessment of coronary microcirculation: A state-of-the-art review: Diagnostics (Basel), 2023; 14(1); 86

9. Yang HM, Khush K, Luikart H, Invasive assessment of coronary physiology predicts late mortality after heart transplantation: Circulation, 2016; 133(20); 1945-50

10. Pijls NH, De Bruyne B, Peels K, Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess the functional severity of coronary-artery stenoses: N Engl J Med, 1996; 334(26); 1703-8

11. Ng MK, Yeung AC, Fearon WF, Invasive assessment of the coronary microcirculation: Superior reproducibility and less hemodynamic dependence of index of microcirculatory resistance compared with coronary flow reserve: Circulation, 2006; 113(17); 2054-61

12. van de Hoef TP, Echavarria-Pinto M, Meuwissen M, Contribution of age-related microvascular dysfunction to abnormal coronary: Hemodynamics in patients with ischemic heart disease: JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2020; 13(1); 20-29

13. Yokoyama I, Ohtake T, Momomura S, Reduced coronary flow reserve in hypercholesterolemic patients without overt coronary stenosis: Circulation, 1996; 94(12); 3232-38

14. Rooks C, Faber T, Votaw J, Effects of smoking on coronary microcirculatory function: a twin study: Atherosclerosis, 2011; 215(2); 500-6

15. van der Heijden DJ, van Leeuwen MAH, Janssens GN, Body mass index is associated with microvascular endothelial dysfunction in patients with treated metabolic risk factors and suspected coronary artery disease: J Am Heart Assoc, 2017; 6(9); e006082

16. Rizzoni D, Palombo C, Porteri E, Relationships between coronary flow vasodilator capacity and small artery remodelling in hypertensive patients: J Hypertens, 2003; 21(3); 625-31

17. Miura H, Wachtel RE, Loberiza FR, Diabetes mellitus impairs vasodilation to hypoxia in human coronary arterioles: Reduced activity of ATP-sensitive potassium channels: Circ Res, 2003; 92(2); 151-58

18. Tebaldi M, Biscaglia S, Fineschi M, Fractional flow reserve evaluation and chronic kidney disease: Analysis from a Multicenter Italian Registry (the FREAK Study): Catheter Cardiovasc Interv, 2016; 88(4); 555-62

19. Pijls NH, Tanaka N, Fearon WF, Functional assessment of coronary stenoses: Can we live without it?: Eur Heart J, 2013; 34(18); 1335-44

20. Travieso A, Jeronimo-Baza A, Faria D, Invasive evaluation of coronary microvascular dysfunction: J Nucl Cardiol, 2022; 29(5); 2474-86

21. Vrints C, Andreotti F, Koskinas KCESC Scientific Document Group, 2024 ESC Guidelines for the management of chronic coronary syndromes: Eur Heart J, 2024; 45(36); 3415-37 [Erratum in: Eur Heart J. 2025;46(16):1565]

22. Lund LH, Khush KK, Cherikh WSInternational Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, The Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: Thirty-fourth Adult heart transplantation report – 2017; Focus theme: Allograft ischemic time: J Heart Lung Transplant, 2017; 36(10); 1037-46

23. Bora N, Balogh O, Ferenci T, Piroth Z, Functional assessment of long-term microvascular cardiac allograft vasculopathy: J Pers Med, 2023; 13(12); 1686

24. Tona F, Osto E, Famoso G, Coronary microvascular dysfunction correlates with the new onset of cardiac allograft vasculopathy in heart transplant patients with normal coronary angiography: Am J Transplant, 2015; 15(5); 1400-6

25. Ha J, Lee SH, Choi KH, Microvascular resistance reserve and prognosis after heart transplantation: JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2025; 18(4); 439-52

26. Jiang L, Shi K, Guo YK, The additive effects of obesity on myocardial microcirculation in diabetic individuals: A cardiac magnetic resonance first-pass perfusion study: Cardiovasc Diabetol, 2020; 19(1); 52

27. Bajaj NS, Osborne MT, Gupta A, Coronary microvascular dysfunction and cardiovascular risk in obese patients: J Am Coll Cardiol, 2018; 72(7); 707-17

28. Escobar A, Ventura HO, Stapleton DD, Cardiac allograft vasculopathy assessed by intravascular ultrasonography and nonimmunologic risk factors: Am J Cardiol, 1994; 74(10); 1042-46

29. Russo MJ, Hong KN, Davies RR, The effect of body mass index on survival following heart transplantation: do outcomes support consensus guidelines?: Ann Surg, 2010; 251(1); 144-52

30. Liu H, Huang Y, Zhuo W, U-shaped association between body mass index and ejection fraction in intensive care unit patients with heart failure: ESC Heart Fail, 2023; 10(1); 377-84

31. Lembo M, Strisciuglio T, Fonderico C, Obesity: The perfect storm for heart failure: ESC Heart Fail, 2024; 11(4); 1841-60

32. Boluk A, Sokolski M, Rakowski M, Pacemaker implantation following heart transplantation – incidence and risk factors. Single-center experience: Transplant Proc, 2024; 56(4); 851-53

33. Lee JM, Choi KH, Choi JO, Coronary microcirculatory dysfunction and acute cellular rejection after heart transplantation: Circulation, 2021; 144(18); 1459-72

34. Ahn JM, Zimmermann FM, Arora S, Prognostic value of comprehensive intracoronary physiology assessment early after heart transplantation: Eur Heart J, 2021; 42(48); 4918-29

35. Ahn JM, Zimmermann FM, Gullestad L, Microcirculatory resistance predicts allograft rejection and cardiac events after heart transplantation: J Am Coll Cardiol, 2021; 78(24); 2425-35

36. Okada K, Honda Y, Luikart H, Early invasive assessment of the coronary microcirculation predicts subsequent acute rejection after heart transplantation: Int J Cardiol, 2019; 290; 27-32

Figures

Figure 1. Example of a hemodynamic recording assessing coronary vessel physiology. In the upper half of the figure, a graph illustrates aortic pressure (Pa), distal pressure (Pd), and the Pd/Pa ratio, represented in red, green, and yellow, respectively. On the right side, key indicators for assessing coronary vessel function, such as fractional flow reserve (FFR), index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR), and coronary flow reserve (CFR) are displayed. These indicators provide essential information for evaluating coronary flow. The recording was obtained using the PressureWire X Guidewire during a routine follow-up coronary angiography. The figure was created in RadiView 2.0, Radi Medical Systems AB (Uppsala, SE).Figure 2. (A) Comparison of body mass index (BMI). The box plot compares the distribution of BMI (kg/m2) among the 2 groups of patients: heart transplant recipients with normal coronary microcirculation and those with coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD). The boxes extend from the lower quartile (Q1) to the upper quartile (Q3), indicating the interquartile range (IQR). In both groups, the median BMI is represented by the horizontal line inside the box. The whiskers extend to the minimum and maximum values within 1.5×IQR of the quartiles. There were no outliners. The figure was created in Python 3.11.13 with matplotlib 3.10.0, pandas 2.2.2. (B) Comparison of time since transplantation. The box plot compares the distribution of time since transplantation (years) among the 2 groups of patients: heart transplant recipients with normal coronary microcirculation and those with CMD. The boxes extend from the lower quartile (Q1) to the upper quartile (Q3), indicating the interquartile range (IQR). In both groups, the median time since transplantation is represented by the horizontal line inside the box. The whiskers extend to minimum and maximum values within 1.5×IQR quartiles. In the group with normal coronary microcirculation, there were outliners, shown as white dots. The figure was created in Python 3.11.13 with matplotlib 3.10.0, pandas 2.2.2. (C) Comparison of pacemaker implantation. The bar chart compares the number of patients who required pacemaker implantation after heart transplantation among the 2 groups: heart transplant recipients with normal coronary microcirculation and those with CMD. The figure was created in Python 3.11.13 with matplotlib 3.10.0, pandas 2.2.2, numpy 2.0.2. (D) Comparison of triglyceride levels. The box plot compares the distribution of triglyceride levels (mg/dL) among the 2 groups of patients: heart transplant recipients with normal coronary microcirculation and those with CMD. The boxes extend from the lower quartile (Q1) to the upper quartile (Q3), indicating the interquartile range (IQR). In both groups, the median triglyceride level is represented by the horizontal line inside the box. The whiskers extend to the minimum and maximum values within 1.5×IQR of the quartiles. There were no outliners. The figure was created in Python 3.11.13 with matplotlib 3.10.0, pandas 2.2.2.Figure 3. (A) Coronary flow reserve (CFR) distribution. The jitter scatter plot compares the distribution of CFR values among 2 groups of patients: heart transplant recipients with normal coronary microcirculation and recipients with coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD). The figure was created in Python 3.11.13 with matplotlib 3.10.0, pandas 2.2.2, numpy 2.0.2. (B) Index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) distribution. The jitter scatter plot compares the distribution of IMR values among 2 groups of patients: heart transplant recipients with normal coronary microcirculation and recipients with CMD. The figure was created in Python 3.11.13 with matplotlib 3.10.0, pandas 2.2.2, numpy 2.0.2, scipy 1.15.3.

In Press

Original article  

Diagnostic Utility of FAR1 Methylation Levels in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Undergoing Liver Transpl...

Ann Transplant In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AOT.951568  

Original article  

Inferior Long-Term Outcome of Fatty Liver Allografts After Orthotopic Liver Transplantation

Ann Transplant In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AOT.950589  

Database Analysis  

Identification and Validation of Liver Transplantation-Induced Acute Lung Injury Biomarkers Using a Bioinfo...

Ann Transplant In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AOT.950289  

Original article  

Survival and Recurrence in Liver Transplant Patients With Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma and Hepatocellula...

Ann Transplant In Press; DOI: 10.12659/AOT.950997  

Most Viewed Current Articles

24 Aug 2021 : Review article   18,372

Normothermic Machine Perfusion (NMP) of the Liver – Current Status and Future Perspectives

DOI :10.12659/AOT.931664

Ann Transplant 2021; 26:e931664

05 Apr 2022 : Original article   14,731

Impact of Statins on Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurrence After Living-Donor Liver Transplantation

DOI :10.12659/AOT.935604

Ann Transplant 2022; 27:e935604

22 Nov 2022 : Original article   14,244

Long-Term Effects of Everolimus-Facilitated Tacrolimus Reduction in Living-Donor Liver Transplant Recipient...

DOI :10.12659/AOT.937988

Ann Transplant 2022; 27:e937988

29 Dec 2021 : Original article   13,752

Efficacy and Safety of Tacrolimus-Based Maintenance Regimens in De Novo Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Sys...

DOI :10.12659/AOT.933588

Ann Transplant 2021; 26:e933588

Your Privacy

We use cookies to ensure the functionality of our website, to personalize content and advertising, to provide social media features, and to analyze our traffic. If you allow us to do so, we also inform our social media, advertising and analysis partners about your use of our website, You can decise for yourself which categories you you want to deny or allow. Please note that based on your settings not all functionalities of the site are available. View our privacy policy.

Annals of Transplantation eISSN: 2329-0358
Annals of Transplantation eISSN: 2329-0358