ReviewCurrent opinion in anaesthesiology2022
Critically appraising the 2018 United Network for Organ Sharing donor allocation policy: adding life boats or rearranging the deck chairs?
Review in Current opinion in anaesthesiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of prolonged microaxial flow pump support on outcomes in heart transplantation: A single-center experience.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- Impact of the United Network for Organ Sharing allocation criteria changes on temporary mechanical circulatory support use as a bridge to transplant.World journal of transplantation · 2025Review
- Outcomes of Use of Inotropes at Waitlisting Through Heart Transplantation: The UNOS Experience.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Article
- Understanding preservation time thresholds in the modern era of heart transplantation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Mechanical circulatory support as a cornerstone in advanced heart failure and transplantation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Association of high-priority exceptions with waitlist mortality among heart transplant candidates.The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation · 2023Article
- The Accuracy of Initial U.S. Heart Transplant Candidate Rankings.JACC. Heart failure · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewDue to the growing mismatch between donor supply and demand as well as unacceptably high transplant waitlist mortality, the heart organ allocation system was revised in October 2018. This review gives an overview of the changes in the new heart organ allocation system and its impact on heart transplant practice and outcomes in the United States. RECENT
findingsThe 2018 heart allocation system offers a 6-tiered policy and therefore prioritizes the sickest patients on the transplant waitlist. Patients supported with temporary mechanical circulatory support devices are prioritized as Status 1 or Status 2, resulting in increased utilization of this strategy. Patients supported with durable left ventricular assist devices have been prioritized as Status 3 or 4, which has resulted in decreased utilization of this strategy. Broader geographic sharing in the new heart allocation system has resulted in prolonged donor ischemic times. Overall, the new heart allocation system has resulted in significantly lower candidate waitlist mortality, shorter waitlist times, and higher incidence of transplantation. SUMMARY: The new United Network for Organ Sharing allocation policy confers significant advantages over the prior algorithm, allowing for decreased waitlist times and improved waitlist mortality without major impact on posttransplant survival.
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.