ArticleJournal of the American College of Cardiology2022
Recovery With Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support While Waitlisted for Heart Transplantation.
Article in Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Nationwide Outcomes and Predictors of Mortality After Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation in Korea: Insights From the Korean Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support.Circulation reports · 2026Article
- Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients in Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Cardiac Surgery: Protected Cardiac Surgery Concept.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- A Recovery-Focused Framework for the Management of Cardiogenic Shock.Circulation. Heart failure · 2026Review
- LVAD Bridge Duration, Post-transplant Employment, and Return to Work: A National Registry Analysis of Heart Transplant Recipients.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2026Article
- International Utah Cardiac Recovery Symposium (U-CARS) 2025: Clinical Science Proceedings.Heart failure reviews · 2026Article
- Heart Replacement Therapy in Young Patients: A Comparative Analysis of HeartMate 3 LVAD and Heart Transplant Using MOMENTUM 3 and UNOS Registry.JACC. Heart failure · 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
- Impact of 2018 allocation system change on heart transplantation outcomes in china: a retrospective analysis.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Clinical Outcomes for Heart-Alone and Multiorgan Transplant Under the New Heart Allocation Policy Era.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Mechanical circulatory support as a cornerstone in advanced heart failure and transplantation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- A Milestone in Cardiac Care: The Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiac Surgery and Transplantation.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2024Article
- Heart Transplantation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Temporary mechanical circulatory support devices: practical considerations for all stakeholders.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2023Review
- Emerging concepts in heart failure management and treatment: circulatory support with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).Drugs in context · 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
- Prolonged waitlisting is associated with mortality in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-supported heart transplantation candidates.JTCVS open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe 2018 U.S. heart allocation system offers an accelerated pathway for heart transplantation to the most urgent patients.
objectivesThis study sought to determine whether the new allocation system resulted in lower likelihood of candidate recovery.
methodsAdult patients waitlisted for heart transplantation with temporary mechanical circulatory support at the time of initial listing between 2010 and 2020 in the United Network for Organ Sharing registry were included. Competing events of heart transplantation, waitlist death or delisting for deteriorating condition, and delisting for improved condition (candidate recovery) were analyzed in the new vs old heart allocation system.
resultsA total of 688 patients were waitlisted with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or a surgical nondischargeable biventricular assist device (status 1 or old 1A). Overall, 2,237 patients were waitlisted with an intra-aortic balloon pump, a percutaneous left ventricular assist device (LVAD), or a surgical nondischargeable LVAD (status 2 or old 1A). Patients waitlisted with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or a nondischargeable biventricular assist device had significantly shorter median waitlist times (5 vs 31 days), higher incidence for cardiac transplantation (81.5% vs 43.0%), and lower incidence of candidate recovery (1.5% vs 7.9%) in the new vs old heart allocation system (all P < 0.05). Patients waitlisted with an intra-aortic balloon pump or percutaneous or a nondischargeable LVAD also had significantly shorter median waitlist times (8 vs 35 days), higher incidence of transplantation (88.9% vs 64.9%), and lower incidence of candidate recovery (0.2% vs 1.6%) in the new vs old heart allocation system (all P < 0.05).
conclusionsCurrent practice of the new allocation system may not offer select temporary mechanical circulatory support patients the opportunity and adequate time to recover to the point of waitlist removal. Further research will determine which patients would benefit from urgent transplantation vs recovery strategy.
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.