ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2026
Long-Term Outcome of Myocardial Protection in Heart Transplantation: Comparison Among 3 Different Solutions.
Article in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2026. 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.
- Letter to the Editor.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Reply to Claus Juergen Preusse.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe analysed our long-term experience with heart transplantation (Htx) utilizing 3 different cardioplegic solutions.
methodsDuring a 20-year period, 538 adult individuals underwent isolated Htx at our institution. Ten cases in which the Organ Care System TransMedics Inc was utilized were excluded, resulting in a final cohort of 528 individuals. Patients were stratified into 3 groups according to the donor heart cardioplegic solution: Celsior (n = 301; reference group), HTK-Custodiol (n = 88), and St Thomas (n = 139). Mean follow-up period was 6.2 ± 5.5 years (maximum 20 years).
resultsThe rate of severe primary graft dysfunction (PGD) was 10.2% in the HTK-Custodiol group, significantly higher than the reference group (4.5%; P < .040). Overall, in-hospital mortality was 12.9%: 13.6% in the HTK-Custodiol group and 12.9% in the St Thomas group, comparable to the reference group (P = .803 and P = .924). Survival at 1, 5, and 12 years in the Celsior and HTK-Custodiol groups was 82.6 ± 2.2% vs 85.2±3.8%, 79.4 ± 2.4% vs 82.1 ± 4.3%, and 66.8 ± 3.3% vs 62.9 ± 7.3%, respectively (P = .706). Survival at 1, 5, and 12 years in the St Tomas group was 81.5 ± 3.4%, 71.9 ± 4.1%, and 65.5 ± 5.2%, respectively, comparable to the reference group (P = .640). Post-transplant rejection rate was similar among the groups.
conclusionsThe use of HTK-Custodiol solution was associated with a significantly higher incidence of PGD when compared to Celsior solution, although this data had no impact on in-hospital mortality. Long-term survival and post-transplant rejection were comparable among the 3 groups. HTK-Custodiol solution should be used with caution for preservation of donor hearts. ERB APPROVAL NUMBER: 215-29042020; May 5, 2020.
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.