Blood Test Gives Early Warning of Failing Heart Transplant

The new DNA-based test predicts transplant rejection

Human heart art concept.

ANGELHELL Getty Images

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Having heart transplant surgery is daunting enough. But in the months afterward the body's immune system sometimes attacks the donor organ, which can have deadly consequences. To check for inflammation (a sign of organ rejection), doctors have to snip and analyze a sliver of tissue from the recipient's new heart—typically about 16 times in the first year. “There is a risk of damage during the procedure, and the results are far from reliable, yet [such] biopsies are the current gold standard,” says cardiovascular medicine researcher Hannah Valantine of Stanford University.

But a new DNA-based blood test could give doctors crucial time to prevent sudden, early rejection of transplanted hearts. It would reduce the number of required invasive biopsies by about 80 percent, according to a study published in Circulation.

For each transplant in the study, co-author Valantine and her colleagues used blood samples to identify small genetic differences between heart donors and recipients. After the transplant, the researchers measured the percentage of donor-derived DNA in the recipients' blood plasma. Injured or dying cells from a transplanted heart release more donor DNA fragments than healthy cells do, so higher amounts of donor DNA imply a higher risk of rejection. With early warning doctors can start medical treatment to reverse the situation. The study analyzed blood samples from 171 recent transplant recipients and found rejection is likely when more than 0.25 percent of detected DNA is from the donor. The test provided a clearer signal and picked up rejection signs earlier than tissue biopsies did. It also revealed much earlier signs of a pernicious type of rejection, called antibody-mediated rejection, that biopsies can miss.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


About 44 percent of the recipients in the study were Black. This was particularly important, Valantine says, because multiple studies have established that African-Americans have a high risk of rejecting donor organs of all kinds.

The test looks promising, but long-term clinical utility studies are needed to evaluate how treatments based on test results fare, says University of British Columbia medical researcher Scott Tebbutt, who was not part of the study. Noninvasive tests are invaluable, Tebbutt says, and “reducing the number of biopsies even by half is a significant improvement to the quality of the patients' lives.”

Harini Barath is a freelance science writer based in Hanover, N.H.

More by Harini Barath
Scientific American Magazine Vol 324 Issue 5This article was published with the title “Heart Smarts” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 324 No. 5 (), p. 18
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0521-18b

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe