ArticlePediatric transplantation2025
Utilization of Exception Requests After Implementation of the National Heart Review Board for Pediatrics.
Article in Pediatric transplantation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Status Exceptions and Misalignment of Medical Urgency in U.S. Pediatric Heart Transplantation.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2026Article
- Utilization of Exception Requests After Implementation of the National Heart Review Board for Pediatrics.Pediatric transplantation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2020, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network authorized the creation of a National Heart Review Board for Pediatrics along with a guidance document. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utilization of exception requests and approval rates after the implementation of the new review board.
methodsThis was a retrospective review of 1A and 1B exception requests between June 2021 and January 2023. Exception request narratives were reviewed to determine if the request followed guidance and then analyzed the frequency of those approved by diagnosis.
resultsThere were 591 exception requests submitted for 419 candidates with an overall approval rate of 91%. Only 55% of the exceptions followed the guidance, but of those, 97% were approved. Exceptions submitted that did not follow the guidance had a lower approval rate of 85%. 1A exception requests that followed the guidance were significantly more likely to be approved than those that did not (97% vs. 62%, respectively, p < 0.05). For 1B requests, approval rates did not differ between requests that followed the guidance and those that did not (98% vs. 95%, respectively, p = 0.15). Candidates with single ventricle congenital heart disease made up 59% of 1B exception requests. There is no 1B exception guidance for candidates with dilated or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; however, requests were still submitted and 95% were approved.
conclusionMost status 1A exceptions being granted followed the guidance document from OPTN. While the greatest number of requests for 1B exceptions were for single ventricle physiology candidates, many exceptions outside the guidance are being sought and granted.
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.