Rejection diagnosis by endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is invasive, expensive and variable. We investigated gene expression profiling of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) to discriminate ISHLT grade 0 rejection (quiescence) from moderate/severe rejection (ISHLT ≥3A). Patients were followed prospectively with blood sampling at post‐transplant visits. Biopsies were graded by ISHLT criteria locally and by three independent pathologists blinded to clinical data. Known alloimmune pathways and leukocyte microarrays identified 252 candidate genes for which real‐time PCR assays were developed. An 11 gene real‐time PCR test was derived from a training set (n = 145 samples, 107 patients) using linear discriminant analysis (LDA), converted into a score (0–40), and validated prospectively in an independent set (n = 63 samples, 63 patients). The test distinguished biopsy‐defined moderate/severe rejection from quiescence (p = 0.0018) in the validation set, and had agreement of 84% (95% CI 66% C94%) with grade ISHLT ≥3A rejection. Patients >1 year post‐transplant with scores below 30 (approximately 68% of the study population) are very unlikely to have grade ≥3A rejection (NPV = 99.6%). Gene expression testing can detect absence of moderate/severe rejection, thus avoiding biopsy in certain clinical settings. Additional clinical experience is needed to establish the role of molecular testing for clinical event prediction and immunosuppression management.

Background —Use of wearable left ventricular assist systems (LVAS) in the treatment of advanced heart failure has steadily increased since 1993, when these devices became generally available in Europe. The aim of this study was to identify in an unselected cohort of LVAS recipients those aspects of patient selection that have an impact on postimplant survival. Methods and Results —Data were obtained from the Novacor European Registry. Between 1993 and 1999, 464 patients were implanted with the Novacor LVAS. The majority had idiopathic (60%) or ischemic (27%) cardiomyopathy; the median age at implant was 49 (16 to 75) years. The median support time was 100 days (4.1 years maximum). Forty-nine percent of the recipients were discharged from the hospital on LVAS; they spent 75% of their time out of the hospital. For a subset of 366 recipients, for whom a complete set of data was available, multivariate analysis revealed that the following preimplant conditions were independent risk factors for survival after LVAS implantation: respiratory failure associated with septicemia (odds ratio 11.2), right heart failure (odds ratio 3.2), age >65 years (odds ratio 3.01), acute postcardiotomy (odds ratio 1.8), and acute infarction (odds ratio 1.7). For patients without any of these factors, the 1-year survival after LVAS implantation including the posttransplantation period was 60%; for the combined group with at least 1 risk factor, it was 24%. Conclusions —Careful selection, specifically implantation before patients become moribund, and improvement of management may result in improved outcomes of LVAS treatment for advanced heart failure.

Objective: To determine whether there is a survival benefit associated with cardiac transplantation in Germany. Design: Prospective observational cohort study. Setting: All 889 adult patients listed for a first heart transplant in Germany in 1997. Main outcome measure: Mortality, stratified by heart failure severity. Results: Within 1 year after listing, patients with a predicted high risk had the highest global death rate (51% v 32% and 29% for medium and low risk patients respectively; P<0.0001), had the highest risk of dying on the waiting list (32% v 20% and 20%; P=0.0003), and were more likely to receive a transplant (48% v 45% and 41%; P=0.01). Differences between the risk groups in outcome after transplantation did not reach significance (P=0.2). Transplantation was not associated with a reduction in mortality risk for the total cohort, but it did provide a survival benefit for the high risk group. Conclusion: Cardiac transplantation in Germany is currently associated with a survival benefit only in patients with a predicted high risk of dying on the waiting list. Patients with a predicted low or medium risk have no reduction in mortality risk associated with transplantation; they should be managed with organ saving approaches rather than transplantation.

There has been progress in medical treatment including angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors ^w16 and β blockers.² Surgical therapies including coronary artery bypass grafting with or without surgical anterior ventricular endocardial restoration,^w17 mitral reconstruction in cardiomyopathy patients with severe mitral regurgitation,^w18 combined with partial left ventriculectomy in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy,^w19 and left ventricular assist device therapy^3w20–24 are evolving. The current status of surgical therapies for advanced heart failure has recently been reviewed in this series.^w25 Antiarrhythmic heart failure therapy with implantable defibrillators has also improved survival.^w26