ReviewJHLT open2026
Risk factors for primary graft dysfunction after heart transplantation-a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in JHLT open, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Primary graft dysfunction (PGD) is an important contributor to early mortality after heart transplantation (HTX). The International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) published a consensus definition of primary graft dysfunction in 2014. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature to identify risk factors for primary graft dysfunction according to this consensus definition. Methods: According to PRISMA-guidelines, eligible studies were identified using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane. Studies were included if focused on patients ≥18 years old who received a primary, isolated HTX and outcome was specified as PGD according to the ISHLT consensus definition. Risk factors for severe PGD were included in meta-analysis if reported in ≥2 studies. Results: A total of 39 studies were included. Significant heterogeneity was noted. A total of 37 risk factors for PGD were identified. Meta-analysis identified recipient amiodarone therapy, female sex of the donor, recipient prior sternotomy (other than for LVAD implantation), recipient LVAD therapy and cold ischemic time per hour increment as risk factors for severe PGD. Blood product administration was associated with severe PGD in multiple studies, but was excluded from meta-analysis due to heterogeneity in definition. Conclusion: In this systematic review, we identified a total of 37 risk factors for PGD, while meta-analysis solidified amiodarone therapy, female sex of the donor, recipient prior sternotomy (other than for LVAD implantation), recipient LVAD therapy and cold ischemic time per hour increment as risk factors for severe PGD. Blood product administration was associated with severe PGD in multiple studies, but was excluded from meta-analysis due to heterogeneity in definition.
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.