Heart transplant Recipients' perspectives on invasive versus Non-invasive graft failure surveillance Methods.

BACKGROUND

Heart transplant recipients must regularly be assessed for graft rejection; however, endomyocardial biopsy (EMB), can be stressful, painful, and inconvenient. AlloMap® is the only commercially available non-invasive test for graft rejection. Current guidelines include AlloMap® testing in low-risk patients

OBJECTIVES

To examine the patients' perspective, this study compared patients' experiences of AlloMap® and EMB surveillance at our center.

METHODS

We enrolled consecutive heart transplant recipients who were to undergo routine EMB and AlloMap® testing (on different visits) to quantify their anxiety on the GAD-7 scale and their pain level on the Polyclinic Pain Scale. We assessed paired differences of anxiety and pain within patients according to surveillance method.

RESULTS

We studied 43 participants (median age 60.5[54, 66] years; 35(81%) men; 27(63%) Caucasian). The median GAD-7 scores were 1[0, 4] and 2[0, 5] prior to EMB and AlloMap®, respectively (paired difference: 0[-1, 1],P = 0.323). The median pain scores were 1[0, 1] and 0[0, 0] for EMB and AlloMap®, respectively. Patients experienced less pain with AlloMap® testing compared to EMB (EMB-AlloMap;1[0, 1],P = 0.006). Seven (16%) participants experienced a total of 9 adverse events (pain, bruising, bleeding, swelling) from EMB vs 2(5%) participants who experienced a total of 3 adverse events (pain, bruising) from AlloMap®(P = 0.059).

CONCLUSION

Heart transplant recipients had less pain and fewer adverse events while undergoing graft rejection surveillance with AlloMap® testing compared to EMB. An additional benefit of AlloMap® testing is that it may be performed at home and reduce these high-risk patients' infectious exposures.