ArticleBrazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery
Rational Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support as a Bridge to Pediatric and Congenital Heart Transplantation.
Article in Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Safety and efficacy of short-term ventricular assist devices in paediatric heart transplant candidates: a systematic review and single arm meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Pooled it
- Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation After Norwood Surgery in Patients With Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome: A Retrospective Single-Center Cohort Study From Brazil.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDonor shortage and organ allocation is the main problem in pediatric heart transplant. Mechanical circulatory support is known to increase waiting list survival, but it is not routinely used in pediatric programs in Latin America.
methodsAll patients listed for heart transplant and supported by a mechanical circulatory support between January 2012 and March 2016 were included in this retrospective single-center study. The endpoints were mechanical circulatory support time, complications, heart transplant survival and discharge from the hospital.
resultsTwenty-nine patients from our waiting list were assessed. Twelve (45%) patients were initially supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and a centrifugal pump was implanted in 17 (55%) patients. Five patients initially supported by ECMO were bridged to another device. One was bridged to a centrifugal pump and four were bridged to Berlin Heart Excor®. Among the 29 supported patients, 18 (62%) managed to have a heart transplant. Thirty-day survival period after heart transplant was 56% (10 patients). Median support duration was 12 days (interquartile range [IQR] 4 - 26 days) per run and the waiting time for heart transplant was 9.5 days (IQR 2.5-25 days). Acute kidney injury was identified as a mortality predictor (OR=22.6 [CI=1.04-494.6]; P=0.04).
conclusionMechanical circulatory support was able to bridge most INTERMACS 1 and 2 pediatric patients to transplant with an acceptable complication rate. Acute renal failure increased mortality after mechanical circulatory support in our experience.
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.