ArticleJHLT open2025
Clinical course of patients relisted for orthotopic heart transplantation: A national study.
Article in JHLT open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The clinical course in patients relisted for heart transplant at a different transplant center is poorly understood. We sought to describe the baseline characteristics, outcomes, and hospital selection of relisted patients by comparing their clinical status at the time of initial and subsequent listing. Methods: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried for adults listed for first-time isolated heart transplantation between October 18, 2018 and September 30, 2023. Patients delisted from their original transplant center due to relisting at another center were identified. Upon propensity score matching, waitlist and post-transplant outcomes were compared between single-listing and relisted patients. The same characteristics and center volume at the time of initial listing and subsequent relisting were compared. Center quality based on aggregated 1-year mortality was also assessed. Results: Two hundred and seventeen patients were delisted and subsequently relisted. Upon propensity score matching, no significant differences were found between single-listing and relisted patients with regard to waitlist outcomes (all Conclusions: Although waitlist outcomes were similar between single-listing and relisted patients, at the time of relisting, patients were more likely to have severe functional limitations coinciding with higher listing statuses. Further work is needed to determine the underlying motivators for relisting.
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.