ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
Reperfusion Strategies in Donation After Circulatory Death Heart Transplantation: An Up-to-Date Narrative Review.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Donation after circulatory death has emerged worldwide as a safe and effective alternative pathway to increase the donor pool. However, organs undergo a variable period of warm ischemia during the agonal phase and the cardiac arrest before graft procurement, and the heart is particularly vulnerable to injury provoked by warm ischemia and subsequent reperfusion. Several reperfusion strategies are currently available for the recovery and assessment of heart function in these donors, with promising early and long-term results. Nevertheless, each technique implies specific financial, logistical and ethical challenges, translating into a heterogeneous landscape of protocols across European and non-European countries. Additionally, no randomized clinical trials have been published to assess the superiority of one technique over the other, and current clinical evidence is based on retrospective registry data and single-center observational studies.
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.