ArticleESC heart failure2020
Invasive haemodynamics in de novo everolimus vs. calcineurin inhibitor heart transplant recipients.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Corrigendum.ESC heart failure · 2021Article
- Invasive haemodynamics in de novo everolimus vs. calcineurin inhibitor heart transplant recipients.ESC heart failure · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrigendum.2021
Authors and funding
13 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
aimsInvasive haemodynamic profiles at rest and during exercise after heart transplantation (HTx) have never been described in a randomized trial where de novo everolimus (EVR)-based therapy with early calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) withdrawal has been compared with conventional CNI treatment. We report central invasive haemodynamic parameters at rest and exercise during a 3 year follow-up after HTx in a sub-study of the SCandiavian Heart transplant Everolimus De novo stUdy with earLy calcineurin inhibitor avoidancE trial. We hypothesized that the nephroprotective properties, the less development of cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), and the antifibrotic properties of EVR, in comparison with CNI-based immunosuppression, would demonstrate favourable invasive haemodynamic profiles in patients at rest and during exercise. METHODS AND
resultsNinety of 115 HTx recipients randomized to EVR or CNI treatment performed right heart catheterization at rest and 68 performed right heart catheterization at exercise up to 3 years after HTx. Haemodynamic profiles were compared between EVR and CNI treatment groups. Resting haemodynamics improved in both groups from pre-HTx to the first follow-up at 7-11 weeks post-HTx and thereafter remained unchanged up to 3 years of follow-up. During follow-up, cardiac reserve during exercise increased with higher levels of maximum heart rate (118 to 148 b.p.m., P < 0.001), mean arterial pressure (103 to 128 mmHg, P < 0.001), and cardiac output (10.3 to 12.2 l/min, P < 0.001). No significant differences in haemodynamic parameters were observed between the EVR and CNI groups at rest or exercise. Isolated post-capillary pulmonary hypertension (mean pulmonary arterial pressure > 20 mmHg, pulmonary arterial wedge pressure ≥ 15 mmHg, and pulmonary vascular resistance <3) were measured in 11% of the patients at 7-11 weeks, 5% at 12 months, and 6% at 36 months after HTx. The EVR group had significantly better kidney function (76 mL/min/1 vs. 60 mL/min/1, P < 0.001) and reduced CAV (P < 0.01) but an increased rate of early biopsy-proven treated rejections (21.2% vs 5.7%, P < 0.01) compared with the CNI group at any time point. The differences in renal function, CAV, or early biopsy-proven treated acute rejections were not associated with altered haemodynamics.
conclusionsDe novo EVR treatment with early CNI withdrawal compared with conventional CNI therapy did not result in differences in haemodynamics at rest or during exercise up to 3 years after HTx despite significant differences in renal function, reduced CAV, and number of early biopsy-proven treated rejections.
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.