ArticleJHLT open2025
Mid-term follow-up of non-ischemic heart preservation in heart transplantation.
Article in JHLT open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clarity in ex-vivo cardiac transport system naming conventions.JHLT open · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ex-vivo perfusion of donor hearts is gaining importance in minimizing ischemia-reperfusion injury during heart transplantation. The Non-Ischemic Heart Preservation (NIHP) device, developed in 2016, has shown promising results in pilot studies. This study aims to compare the mid-term follow-up outcomes of NIHP with traditional Static Cold Storage (SCS) in heart transplantation. Methods: This hybrid cohort study included 47 patients. The primary outcome was event-free survival at one year, defined as survival free of severe primary graft dysfunction (PGD), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use within 7 days, acute cellular rejection (ACR ≥ 2R), and death. Secondary outcomes included graft function, incidence of adverse events at one year, and overall survival. Results: At 1 year, event-free survival was observed in 12 of 15 patients (80%) in the NIHP group and 23 of 32 patients (72%) in the SCS group. No patients in the NIHP group developed severe PGD, compared to three patients in the SCS group. ACR ≥ 2R occurred in 2/15 (13%) of NIHP patients and 5/32 (16%) of SCS patients. Overall survival at 5 years was 14/15 (93%) for NIHP and 24/32 (75%) for SCS. Immediate graft function and markers of ischemia-reperfusion injury favored the NIHP group, with lower CK-MB and lactate levels post-transplantation. Adverse events were comparable between groups, although the NIHP group had fewer severe complications. Conclusions: The NIHP system demonstrated outcomes comparable to SCS in heart transplantation, with improved graft function and reduced markers of ischemia-reperfusion injury. Further research is required to confirm these findings.
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.