ArticleTransplantation direct2021
Differences in Heart Graft Survival by Recipient Sex.
Article in Transplantation direct, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Meta-Analysis of Durable Compared to Temporary Left Ventricular Assist Devices Compared to Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Bridging to Heart Transplantation or Treatment of Primary Graft Dysfunction.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Sex Differences in Alloimmunity and Other Immunological Considerations in Organ Transplantation.Immunological reviews · 2026Review
- Targeting androgen receptor signaling to enhance cancer immunotherapy.Trends in pharmacological sciences · 2025Review
- Sex- and Age-based Comparison of Key Clinical Markers of Immunity After Heart and Kidney Transplantation.Transplantation direct · 2025Article
- The combinatorial effect of age and biological sex on alloimmunity and transplantation outcome.Frontiers in transplantation · 2023Review
- Donor Utilization in the Recent Era: Effect of Sex, Drugs, and Increased Risk.Circulation. Heart failure · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to characterize patterns of differences in heart graft failure rates by recipient sex, accounting for modifying effects of donor sex and recipient age.
methodsWe evaluated 69 246 first heart transplant recipients (1988-2019; Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients). We used multivariable time-varying Cox models, considering recipient sex by donor sex by recipient age interaction and adjusting for potential confounders. Using the hazard ratio (HR) from the models and a fixed profile of recipient and donor characteristics, we also compared fitted absolute failure rates by recipient sex.
resultsAmong recipients of male donors, female recipients of all ages had higher failure rates than males (0-12 y: HR 1.36 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.81); 13-24 y: 1.43 [1.09-1.88]; 25-44 y: 1.22 [0.95-1.57]; ≥45 y: 1.16 [1.06-1.27]); differences were statistically significant in all age intervals except 25-44 y. When the donor was male, 13 to 24-y-olds showed the largest absolute difference in fitted absolute failure rates, with rates higher by 11.3 failures per 1000 person-y in female than male recipients. Among recipients of female donors, there were no statistically significant differences in graft failure rates between female and male heart recipients of any age. Although point estimates suggested higher failure rates in female than male recipients <25 y (0-12 y: HR 1.19 [95% CI, 0.85-1.66]; 13-24 y: 1.17 [0.84-1.63]), these were not statistically significant.
conclusionsFemale recipients tended to have poorer outcomes than males, particularly at younger ages and when the donor was male, consistent with observations in kidney transplants.
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.