ArticleJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2025
Outcomes of Use of Inotropes at Waitlisting Through Heart Transplantation: The UNOS Experience.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite its use in patients awaiting heart transplant (HT), the impact of continuous inotropic support on short-term complications and long-term transplant outcomes remains unclear. This study evaluated inotrope use at the time of HT on perioperative complications and post-transplant survival, comparing outcomes at 30 days, 1 year, and 10 years with mechanical circulatory support (MCS) strategies including ECMO, IABP, and VADs.
methodsA retrospective analysis of the United Network for Organ sharing (UNOS) registry was performed, stratifying patients based on bridge strategy at the time of transplant: inotropes, ECMO, IABP, or VADs. Baseline characteristics, perioperative complications, and 30-day, 1-year, and 10-year post-transplant survival outcomes were analyzed across groups. Survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models.
resultsAmong the 11,801 heart transplant patients included, 9330 were on inotropes, 372 were on ECMO, 1072 received an IABP, and 1027 had VADs. Inotrope-bridged patients had significantly lower 30-day and 1-year mortality rates compared to the ECMO, IABP, and VAD groups. They also experienced reduced incidences of post-transplant dialysis and stroke. At 10 years, the inotrope group demonstrated superior long-term survival, with significantly lower mortality risk compared to ECMO (HR: 1.81; CI: 1.49-2.20,
conclusionsContinuous use of inotropes after waitlisting is associated with lower short, intermediate, and long-term mortality and does not lead to worse outcomes compared to ECMO, IABP, and VAD support. When mechanical support is not an option, inotropic therapy remains a viable and effective strategy.
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.