ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2025
Evolving Changes in Centre-Level Utilization of Longer Distance Donors in Heart Transplantation.
Article in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study evaluates changes in centre-level utilization of longer distance donors (LDD) in heart transplantation (HT) before and after the allocation policy change in 2018.
methodsAdult HT recipients from 2010 to 2023 were identified from the United Network for Organ Sharing registry. Patients were categorized based on donor centre distance and policy change. The Mann-Kendall trend test was utilized for trend analysis. A propensity-matched analysis was performed. Survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier, restricted mean survival time, and multivariable Cox proportional models. Interaction analysis with Bonferroni correction and sensitivity analysis to test the robustness of primary findings were performed.
resultsAmong 32 036 recipients from 152 centres, 29 410 from ≤500 miles and 2626 from >500 miles. The mean distance increased from 171 miles to 288 (P < .001) and mean cold ischaemia time from 3.20 to 3.60 h (P < .001) after allocation change. The proportion of recipients with LDD increased from 5.50% in 2010 to 14.00% in 2022, P = .021. In the unmatched cohort, unadjusted 30-day, 1-year, and 5-year survival was comparable between LDD and non-LDD recipients (P > .05). However, risk-adjusted survival in the matched cohort was significantly better with LDD: 30-day (0.60, 0.43-0.82, P = .002), 1-year (0.67, 0.55-0.82, P < .001), and 5-y (0.75, 0.65-0.86, P < .001). Similar findings persisted even after restricted mean survival time analysis. There was a weak correlation between distance and ischaemia time in the matched cohort (r = 0.19).
conclusionsThere has been a substantial increase in the use of LDD following the allocation change. Distance is not a surrogate for ischaemia time. Survival after HT with LDD use is significantly better compared to non-LDD, but further research is warranted.
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.