ArticleScientific reports2025
Heart transplantation: comparing the impact of modified heart preservation with conventional methods.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2026-06-22Concerns/Issues about Data · Error in Methods · Investigation by Third Party · Lack of IRB/IACUC Approval and/or Compliance ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of modified heart preservation techniques with conventional heart preservation techniques on heart transplant recipients. The goal was to determine if these modified preservation techniques could extend the preservation of the donor heart without increasing the risk of recipient mortality. A retrospective analysis was carried out on 763 cases of orthotopic heart transplantation performed at Wuhan Union Hospital and Nanjing First Hospital, from September 2008 to October 2022. Among these, 656 cases underwent modified heart preservation and were assigned to the study group, while 107 cases underwent conventional heart preservation and were designated as the control group. Detailed information from both groups was collected and compared, including demographic and donor characteristics, survival status, disease type, and recipient/donor characteristics. The study revealed that the modified heart preservation method did not increase the risk of mortality compared to the conventional method. However, it was found that patient factors such as diagnostic classification, recipient age, and donor age significantly influenced mortality risk and were strongly associated with patient survival. The preservation time of the donor heart was significantly longer in the study group compared to the control group, without affecting the survival of the transplant recipients. The findings of our study suggest that modified heart preservation techniques hold promise as a potential method for prolonging heart preservation time. Despite extending the preservation period, these modified techniques did not increase the mortality risk in heart transplant recipients. This could potentially allow for more flexibility in the long-distance transport and preservation of hearts, thereby broadening the scope of viable donors for heart transplantation.
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.