ReviewGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2017
Heart transplantation for adults with congenital heart disease: current status and future prospects.
Review in General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- A case report of midodrine to treat protein-losing enteropathy for heart transplant candidacy.European heart journal. Case reports · 2025Article
- Cardiac transplantation in adult congenital heart disease: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2023Review
- Failures of the Fontan System in Univentricular Hearts and Mortality Risk in Heart Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Association between Illness Perception and Emotional Status in Iranian Patients after Heart Transplantation.The journal of Tehran Heart Center · 2020Article
- Current spectrum, challenges and new developments in the surgical care of adults with congenital heart disease.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2018Review
- Overview of adult congenital heart transplants.Annals of cardiothoracic surgery · 2018Article
- Where Is the "Optimal" Fontan Hemodynamics?Korean circulation journal · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Increased survival rates after corrective or palliative surgery for complex congenital heart disease (CHD) in infancy and childhood are now being coupled with increased numbers of patients who survive to adulthood with various residual lesions or sequelae. These patients are likely to deteriorate in cardiac function or end-organ function, eventually requiring lifesaving treatment including heart transplantation. Although early and late outcomes of heart transplantation have been improving for adult survivors of CHD, outcomes and pretransplant management could still be improved. Survivors of Fontan procedures are a vulnerable cohort, particularly when single ventricle physiology fails, mostly with protein-losing enteropathy and hepatic dysfunction. Therefore, we reviewed single-institution and larger database analyses of adults who underwent heart transplantation for CHD, to enable risk stratification by identifying the indications and outcomes. As the results, despite relatively high early mortality, long-term results were encouraging after heart transplantation. However, further investigations are needed to improve the indication criteria for complex CHD, especially for failed Fontan. In addition, the current system of status criteria and donor heart allocation system in heart transplantation should be arranged as suitable for adults with complex CHD. Furthermore, there is a strong need to develop ventricular assist devices as a bridge to transplantation or destination therapy, especially where right-sided circulatory support is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.