ArticleCell and tissue banking2026
20-year analysis of protocol-driven quality improvement in cardiac homograft banking.
Article in Cell and tissue banking, 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
Cardiac homografts are indispensable in complex cardiac surgery, particularly in the paediatric population. Optimising procurement and minimising discard rates are important for maintaining graft availability, especially in resource-limited settings. This study evaluated 20 years of cardiac homograft procurement at a tertiary cardiovascular centre, focusing on discard rates, causes of discard, microbiological profiles, and the impact of protocol refinements. A retrospective analysis was conducted using procurement records from the Cardiac Homograft Tissue Bank at the Institut Jantung Negara, Malaysia, between January 2004 and December 2024. The data collected included annual procurement volume, reasons for discarding, and microbiological culture results. In 2015, a revised procurement protocol was introduced, which incorporated instrument and operative field segregation, aseptic redraping, and enhanced donor screening. A total of 190 hearts were procured (mean 9.05 ± 4.18 hearts/year), with an overall discard rate of 13.7% (of 26/190). Prior to 2015, the discard rate was 17.2% (20/116), with environmental contamination accounting for the majority of the discards (75%; n=15). Fifteen microbial isolates were identified in the pre-revision period: Candida (n=6), Klebsiella (n=4), Acinetobacter (n=2), Streptococcus spp. (n=1), Streptococcus viridans (n=1), and Pseudomonas spp. (n=1). Following the 2015 protocol revision, the overall discard rate decreased to 8.1% (6/74), representing a 53% reduction, although this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.074). Environmental contamination-related discards decreased significantly from 12.9% (15/116) to 1.4% (1/74) (89% reduction; p=0.005), with only one Candida isolate identified post-revision. Protocol refinement has therefore produced a statistically significant reduction in contamination-related discards and a shift in the microbiological spectrum.
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.