ArticleJTCVS open2026
Paying the toll: Transfusion and outcomes of patients bridged with mechanical circulatory support to heart transplantation.
Article in JTCVS 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Various mechanical circulatory support (MCS) strategies exist to bridge patients with heart failure to heart transplant. This study provides a comprehensive analysis comparing perioperative transfusion requirements and posttransplant outcomes between recipients with various pretransplant MCS types. Methods: All adult heart transplants from January 2020 to June 2025 from a single-center, minus multiorgan transplants or adult congenital heart disease cases, were included. Patients were stratified as: no MCS, pretransplant intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), Impella, durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Results: A total of 600 adult heart transplants were included, of which 263 (43.8%) had no MCS, 91 (15.2%) an IABP, 47 (7.8%) an Impella, 179 (29.8%) a durable LVAD, and 20 (3.3%) had ECMO as pretransplant support. Intraoperative transfusion requirements were greater in the Impella, LVAD, and ECMO cohorts compared with the no-MCS cohort. Postoperatively, both LVAD and ECMO groups had greater transfusions relative to those without MCS. Transfusion requirements were similar between the LVAD and ECMO cohorts. The IABP, Impella, and LVAD groups had comparable posttransplant outcomes relative to the no-MCS group. The ECMO cohort had greater 30-day and 1-year mortality rates compared with those without pretransplant MCS. Conclusions: Perioperative transfusion requirements were comparable between those with no pretransplant MCS and those with IABP or Impella and was greater in those with pretransplant LVAD or ECMO. Survival in patients with IABP, Impella, and LVAD was similar to those with no MCS and worse in patients with ECMO compared with no MCS.
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.