ArticleClinical transplantation2024
Bridge-to-transplant temporary mechanical circulatory support and risk of allosensitization.
Article in Clinical transplantation, 2024. 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.
- Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients in Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Cardiac Surgery: Protected Cardiac Surgery Concept.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSince the 2018 change in the US adult heart allocation policy, more patients are bridged-to-transplant on temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS). Previous studies indicate that durable left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) may lead to allosensitization. The goal of this study was to assess whether tMCS implantation is associated with changes in sensitization.
methodsWe included patients evaluated for heart transplants between 2015 and 2022 who had alloantibody measured before and after MCS implantation. Allosensitization was defined as development of new alloantibodies after tMCS implant.
resultsA total of 41 patients received tMCS before transplant. Nine (22.0%) patients developed alloantibodies following tMCS implantation: 3 (12.0%) in the intra-aortic balloon pump group (n = 25), 2 (28.6%) in the microaxial percutaneous LVAD group (n = 7), and 4 (44.4%) in the veno-arterial extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation group (n = 9)-p = .039. Sensitized patients were younger (44.7 ± 11.6 years vs. 54.3 ± 12.5 years, p = .044), were more likely to be sensitized at baseline - 3 of 9 (33.3%) compared to 2 out of 32 (6.3%) (p = .028) and received more transfusions with red blood cells (6 (66.6%) vs. 8 (25%), p = .02) and platelets (6 (66.6%) vs. 5 (15.6%), p = .002). There was no significant difference in tMCS median duration of support (4 [3,15] days vs. 8.5 [5,14.5] days, p = .57). Importantly, out of the 11 patients who received a durable LVAD after tMCS, 5 (45.5%) became sensitized, compared to 4 out of 30 patients (13.3%) who only had tMCS-p = .028.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that patients bridged-to-transplant with tMCS, without significant blood product transfusions and a subsequent durable LVAD implant, have a low risk of allosensitization. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings and determine whether risk of sensitization varies by type of tMCS and duration of support.
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.