Endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) still remains the gold standard to assess the histopathological consequences in patients following heart transplantation (
1). The sensitivity and high specificity of this method are significant for the diagnosis of acute cellular rejection (
2,
3). Numerous studies are being investigated to replace this method with a non-invasive method or to increase the precision and accuracy of the biopsy, for example several cardiac MRI methods are being studied; as well as serum biomarkers and ECG; however, none of them, alone or even combined with other clinical symptoms, have been applicable as a replacement for periodic biopsy (
4,
5). There is still no cardiac imaging or serum biomarker that could provide an appropriate replacement for histological assessment of cardiac biopsy in terms of survival and long-term stability of these patients (
6).
Biopsy is valuable because it provides an initial assessment of the condition of myocardial damage, especially in terms of hypertrophy, ischemia, or the presence of any other pathological process, such as myocarditis (
7). In the final correction made in ISHLT-WF 2004 (
8), lack of lymphocytic inflammation was considered to be the marker of no acute rejection following transplantation, whereas the presence of mononuclear cells infiltration in the interstitial or perivascular region without disrupting the tissue structure was considered as a form of mild rejection. Moderate rejection is signified by the presence of two or more regions of mononuclear cell infiltration associated with myocardial damage. A severe acute or grade three rejection is indicated by myocyte injury often associated with polymorphonuclear inflammatory cells, also accompanied by edema and hemorrhage.
An important point is the use of immunosuppressive drugs called calcineurin inhibitors. In this regard, the role of cyclosporine (
9) and Tacrolimus is quite prominent. With the goal of significantly reducing the toxic effects of these drugs, their dosage should be regulated and adapted for each patient. Monitoring of drug concentrations is the most important point in this regard. High doses of cyclosporine are sometimes recommended at 250 and 350 grams per liter, mainly in the 6 to 12 months after transplantation (
8). In some studies, the survival and graft stability results were similar in cyclosporine doses of 250 to 350 grams per liter and 150 to 250 grams per liter, and thus it seems that the low dose of cyclosporine can also be safe and effective (
10). The timing of the administration of these drugs was also of some concern. Some studies assessed the effects of early or delayed use of drug which did not differ between the two groups in terms of graft survival (
11,
12). Some have also shown that not only the decrease in cyclosporine dose does not affect the survival of the transplant, but will also reduce the incidence of neoplasia following the transplantation (
12,
13). Also, in comparison with the efficacy and toxic effects of cyclosporine and tacrolimus, similar effects of the two drugs have been observed in the survival of the organ transplant (
14-
16). Some studies have acknowledged that although the efficacy of the two drugs in the graft sustainability is quite similar, some complications such as nephrotoxicity, hypertension, hirsutism and hyperlipidemia were more prevalent in cyclosporine-receiving patients and diabetes, neuropathy and alopecia were more common in those on tacrolimus (
17). Therefore, it is recommended that tacrolimus be given priority in patients with hypertension or hyperlipidemia. In addition, women and children may benefit more from tacrolimus (
18).
To take advantage of these drugs, serum drug monitoring is essential for the best drug efficacy and maintenance of survival and tissue stability. It is necessary to examine the relationship between immunosuppressive levels and their effects on the results of endomyocardial biopsy.
Recently, it is shown that cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) can be useful to detect the rejection of heart transplantation. It is a non-invasive and safe method but its cost and the inexistence of experienced and professional experts in this field restrict the application of this modality (
6).