ArticleCell and tissue banking2023
Cryopreserved human heart valve allografts: a ten-year single centre experience.
Article in Cell and tissue banking, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Seven-year experience (2018-2025) of a hospital-based cardiovascular tissue bank in Israel: operational insights and clinical impact.Cell and tissue banking · 2026Article
- Current State and Challenges of Tissue and Organ Cryopreservation in Biobanking.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Last twenty-years activity of cardiovascular tissue banking in Barcelona.Cell and tissue banking · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study provides an overview of tissue banking activities at the Croatian Cardiovascular Tissue Bank (CTB) during past ten years and presents the outcomes of cryopreserved heart valve allografts (CHAs) use in different patient groups. From June 2011 until December 2021, 75 heart donations were referred to CTB: 41 recipient of heart transplant (RHT), 32 donors after brain death (DBD) and 2 donors after circulatory death (DCD) donations. Processing resulted in 103 valves of which 65 met quality requirements for clinical use. Overall tissue discard rate was 37%. The most frequent reasons for discard were inadequate morphology (12%) in RHT donations and microbiological contamination (19%) in DBD donations. Altogether, 38 CHAs were transplanted to 36 patients. Recipients were divided in three groups; infective endocarditis (IE), non-infectious heart disease and congenital heart disease group. In the IE group, the 30-day, 1-year and 3-year survival was 71%, 53% and 47%, respectively. Freedom from re-operation due to all graft-related causes was 76% and due to structural valve deterioration 88%. There were no cases of graft reinfection. In the congenital heart disease group CHAs were predominantly (94%) used for right ventricular outflow tract reconstruction and 88% of patients recovered without graft-related complications. At present, the number of demands for CHAs at CTB considerably outweighs their availability.
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.