Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30098353›Full record

Trial reportOphthalmology2018

Donor, Recipient, and Operative Factors Associated with Graft Success in the Cornea Preservation Time Study.

Mark A Terry, Anthony J Aldave, Loretta B Szczotka-Flynn, Wendi Liang, Allison R Ayala, Maureen G Maguire, Christopher Croasdale, Yassine J Daoud, Steven P Dunn, Caroline K Hoover and 12 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 106 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors at 17 institutions in 1 country.

Mark A TerryDevers Eye Institute, Portland, Oregon.
Anthony J AldaveStein Eye Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Loretta B Szczotka-FlynnDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Case Western Reserve University and University Hospitals Eye Institute, Cleveland, Ohio.
Wendi LiangJaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida.
Allison R AyalaJaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida.
Maureen G MaguireCenter for Preventive Ophthalmology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Christopher CroasdaleDean Medical Center, Madison, Wisconsin.
Yassine J DaoudThe Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Steven P DunnMichigan Cornea Consultants, PC, Southfield, Michigan.
Caroline K HooverSightLife, Seattle, Washington.
Marian S MacsaiNorthshore University Health System, Glenview, Illinois.
Thomas F MaugerThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Havener Eye Institute, Columbus, Ohio.
Sudeep PramanikMid Atlantic Cornea Consultants, Baltimore, Maryland.
George O D RosenwasserCentral Pennsylvania Eye Institute, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Jennifer Rose-NussbaumerFrancis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
R Doyle StultingWoolfson Eye Institute, Atlanta, Georgia.
Alan SugarUniversity of Michigan, Kellogg Eye Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Elmer Y TuUniversity of Illinois Chicago Eye and Ear Infirmary, Chicago, Illinois.
David D VerdierVerdier Eye Center, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Sonia H YooBascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
Jonathan H LassDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Case Western Reserve University and University Hospitals Eye Institute, Cleveland, Ohio. Electronic address: jonathan.lass@uhhospitals.org.
Cornea Preservation Time Study Group
Jaeb Center for Health Research · USCase Western Reserve University · USDean Health Systems · USHershey (United States) · USJohns Hopkins University · USLegacy Health · USNew York Eye and Ear Infirmary · USNorthShore University HealthSystem · USSightLife · USThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center · USUniversity Hospitals of Cleveland · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of Miami · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USW.K. Kellogg Foundation · USWoolfson Eye Institute · US

Funding

Effect of Corneal Preservation Time on Long-Term Graft Success (CPTS)U10EY020797 · NEI · JAEB CENTER FOR HEALTH RESEARCH, INC. · PI AYALA, ALLISON RENEE · 2011 to 2016
$7.5M
Effect of Corneal Preservation Time on Long-Term Graft Success - Study ChairU10EY020798 · NEI · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI LASS, JONATHAN H · 2011 to 2015
$5.6M
NEI NIH HHS U10 EY020797NEI NIH HHS U10 EY020798
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo associate donor, recipient, and operative factors with graft success 3 years after Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) in the Cornea Preservation Time Study (CPTS).

designCohort study within a multicenter, double-masked, randomized clinical trial.

participantsOne thousand ninety individuals (1330 study eyes) with a median age of 70 years undergoing DSAEK for Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (94% of eyes) or pseudophakic or aphakic corneal edema (PACE; 6% of eyes).

methodsEyes undergoing DSAEK were randomized to receive a donor cornea with preservation time (PT) of 0 to 7 days (n = 675) or 8 to 14 days (n = 655). Donor, recipient, and operative parameters were recorded prospectively. Graft failure was defined as regraft for any reason, a graft that failed to clear by 8 weeks after surgery, or an initially clear graft that became and remained cloudy for 90 days. Failure in the first 8 weeks was classified further as primary donor failure or early failure, in the absence or presence of operative complications, respectively. Proportional hazards and logistic regression models were used to estimate risk ratios (RR) and 99% confidence intervals (CIs) for graft failure.

main outcome measuresGraft success at 3 years.

resultsOne thousand two hundred fifty-one of 1330 grafts (94%) remained clear at 3 years and were considered successful. After adjusting for PT, tissue from donors with diabetes (RR, 2.35; 99% CI, 1.03-5.33) and operative complications (RR, 4.21; 99% CI, 1.42-12.47) were associated with increased risk for primary or early failure. Preoperative diagnosis of PACE (RR, 3.59; 99% CI, 1.05-12.24) was associated with increased risk for late failure by 3 years after surgery compared with Fuchs dystrophy. Graft success showed little variation among other factors evaluated, including donor age (RR, 1.19 per decade; 99% CI, 0.91-1.56 per decade), preoperative donor endothelial cell density (RR, 1.10 per 500 cells; 99% CI, 0.74-1.63 per 500 cells), graft diameter (RR, 1.22 per 1 mm; 99% CI, 0.39-3.76 per 1 mm), and injector use for graft insertion (RR, 0.92; 99% CI, 0.40-2.10).

conclusionsDescemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty success in the early and entire postoperative period is more likely when the donor did not have diabetes and was without operative complications and in the long-term postoperative period in recipients with Fuchs dystrophy compared with those with PACE. Mechanisms whereby diabetic donors and PACE recipients reduce the rate of graft success after DSAEK warrant further study.

Indexed as

Organ PreservationTissue DonorsTransplant RecipientsAdultAgedCell CountCohort StudiesCorneal EdemaDescemet Stripping Endothelial KeratoplastyDouble-Blind MethodEndothelium, CornealEye BanksFemaleFuchs' Endothelial DystrophyGraft SurvivalHumans

Identifiers

PMID30098353
PMCPMC6196643
OpenAlexW2887609269

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.