ArticleJACC. Heart failure2022
Impact of Temporary Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Before Transplantation in the 2018 Heart Allocation System.
Article in JACC. Heart failure, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients in Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Cardiac Surgery: Protected Cardiac Surgery Concept.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- From innovation to implementation: expanding global access to mechanical circulatory support and heart transplantation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Optimizing outcomes in heart transplantation: multidisciplinary Heart Teams and mechanical circulatory support for primary graft dysfunction.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
- A Milestone in Cardiac Care: The Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiac Surgery and Transplantation.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2024Article
- Kidney health and function with left ventricular assist devices.Current opinion in nephrology and hypertension · 2023Review
- Impact of the 2018 UNOS Heart Transplant Policy Changes on Patient Outcomes.JACC. Heart failure · 2023Review
- Optimizing Outcomes for Post-ECMO Heart Transplant Patients in South Korea: Addressing Multi-Organ Failure and Allocation Challenges.International journal of heart failure · 2023Article
- Temporary mechanical circulatory support devices: practical considerations for all stakeholders.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2023Review
- UNOS policy change benefits high-priority patients without harming those at low priority.American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis analysis sought to investigate the waitlist and post-transplant outcomes of individuals bridged to transplantation by using temporary percutaneous endovascular mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) through a status 2 designation (cardiogenic shock and exception).
backgroundThe 2018 donor heart allocation policy change granted a status 2 designation to patients supported with tMCS.
methodsAdult patients in the United Network for Organ Sharing registry after October 18, 2018 who received a status 2 designation for tMCS were included and grouped by their status 2 criteria: cardiogenic shock with hemodynamic criteria (CS-HD), cardiogenic shock without hemodynamic criteria before tMCS (CS-woHD), and exception. Baseline characteristics, waitlist events (death and delisting), and post-transplant outcomes were compared.
resultsA total of 2,279 patients met inclusion criteria: 68.6% (n = 1,564) with CS-HD, 3.2% (n = 73) with CS-woHD, and 28.2% (n = 642) with exceptions. A total of 64.2% of patients underwent heart transplantation within 14 days of status 2 listing or upgrade, and 1.9% died or were delisted for worsening clinical condition. Among the 35.8% who did not undergo transplantation following 14 days, only 2.8% went on to receive a left ventricular assist device (LVAD). The 30-day transplantation likelihood was similar among groups: 80.1% for the CS-HD group vs 79.7% for the exception group vs 73.3% for the CS-woHD group; P = 0.31. However, patients who met criteria for CS-woHD had 2.3-fold greater risk of death or delisting (95% CI: 1.10-4.75; P = 0.03) compared with CS-HD patients after multivariable adjustment. Pre-tMCS hemodynamics were not associated with adverse waitlist events.
conclusionsThe use of tMCS is an efficient, safe, and effective strategy as a bridge to transplantation; however, patients with CS-woHD may represent a high-risk cohort. Transition to a durable LVAD was a rare event in this group.
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.