ReviewTranslational pediatrics2023
The potential of cardiac xenotransplantation for management of infants with complex congenital heart disease.
Review in Translational pediatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment of Presumptive Rejection After Orthotopic Pig-to-Baboon Cardiac Xenotransplantation.XenotransplantationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Gene editing of the porcine genome has enabled the production of pigs that do not express the three known carbohydrate antigens that are associated with hyperacute rejection of a pig organ xenotransplant. In addition, it is now possible to insert a variety of human transgenes to protect against the human immune response, e.g., to protect from complement and coagulation activation. As a result, cardiac xenotransplantation of the gene-edited porcine heart is progressing towards clinical application. Many hope that it will definitively address the disparity between organ supply and demand. The role of cardiac xenotransplantation in pediatric care remains controversial but we believe there is an infant patient population with complex congenital heart disease (CHD) (not optimally managed by conventional surgical approaches) that is ideally suited to initial clinical application of this new technology. The most efficacious start would be to initiate clinical use as a short-term bridge to allotransplantation, particularly in infants with single ventricle pathology and significant risk factors for first stage Norwood palliation. Infants with end-stage heart failure after first stage palliation would represent a second target population. Infants experience unacceptably high mortality and morbidity when placed on mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to allotransplant. Effectively bridging these vulnerable populations could promote acceptance of cardiac xenotransplantation, allowing indications and use to expand, e.g., by (I) bridging patients with failed second and third stage single ventricle disease, or (II) with complex biventricular CHD, or (III) those with a restrictive or dilated cardiomyopathy. Finally, there is a reasonable expectation that the immunologic privilege of infants will allow porcine heart xenotransplantation to be destination therapy for some patients. In summary, heart allotransplantation in infants offers superior outcomes when compared to three-stage single ventricle palliation, but there is a continual shortage of deceased human donor organs. We should pursue research towards the application of xenotransplantation in patients with single ventricle pathology, in whom the results of staged palliation are likely to be suboptimal. There are many remaining issues to be resolved before cardiac xenotransplantation enters regular pediatric clinical use, but experience in this field is progressing rapidly.
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.