Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Cardiac CT and PET for Surveillance of Heart Transplant Recipients: Systematic Review and Bayesian Meta-Analysis

Ahmed Sayed, Malek Nayfeh, Fares Alahdab, Mahmoud Al Rifai, Dmitry Abramov, Marat Fudim, Yasbanoo Moayedi, Rayan Yousefzai, Mouaz H. Al-Mallah

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Background: For noninvasive surveillance of cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), cardiac computed tomography (cardiac computed tomography [CT]) and positron emission tomography (PET) received a Class IIa recommendation by the 2023 ISHLT (International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation) guidelines. However, implementation has lagged behind because of concerns about their ability to rule out disease and stratify risk. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to define the diagnostic and prognostic ability of PET and cardiac CT in cardiac transplant recipients. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for studies evaluating CT or PET for their diagnostic (for detecting angiographic CAV) and prognostic (for predicting major adverse cardiovascular outcomes) value. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled using Bayesian bivariate binormal-normal models with random-effects. HRs were pooled using Bayesian normal random-effects models. Results: In total, 44 studies (32 CT and 12 PET) enrolling 3,049 patients were included. Coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) showed high sensitivity (97.6%; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 93.7%-99.1%) and specificity (82.3%; 95% CrI: 75.3%-88.3%) for detecting any CAV. Coronary CTA also showed high sensitivity (92.6%; 95% CrI: 86.2%-96.2%) and specificity (92.6%; 95% CrI: 89.8%-94.9%) for significant CAV. The PET CAV algorithm for detecting significant CAV showed good sensitivity (83.9%; 95% CrI: 69.1%-92.4%) and specificity (89.6%; 95% CrI: 82.2%-94.2%). PET-derived parameters including myocardial flow reserve, stress myocardial blood flow, PET CAV score, and summed stress score, predicted future major adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Conclusions: Both coronary CTA and PET can rule out significant CAV; however, at higher pretest probabilities, coronary CTA may be preferrable. Multiple PET-derived parameters may have prognostic value, whereas there is insufficient evidence for the long-term prognostic value of CT.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1330-1344
Number of pages15
JournalJACC: Cardiovascular Imaging
Volume18
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2025

Keywords

  • cardiac allograft vasculopathy
  • cardiac computed tomography
  • heart transplant
  • invasive angiography
  • positron emission tomography
  • transplant rejection

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Cardiac CT and PET for Surveillance of Heart Transplant Recipients: Systematic Review and Bayesian Meta-Analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this