Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35754438›Full record

ReviewCureus2022

Evolution of Xenotransplantation as an Alternative to Shortage of Donors in Heart Transplantation.

Ishaq J Wadiwala, Pankaj Garg, John H Yazji, Emad Alamouti-Fard, Mohammad Alomari, Md Walid Akram Hussain, Mohamed S Elawady, Samuel Jacob

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Ethical frontiers in liver transplantation.World journal of transplantation · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Cardiac Xenotransplantation: A Narrative Review.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Ishaq J WadiwalaCardiothoracic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, USA.
Pankaj GargCardiothoracic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, USA.
John H YazjiCardiothoracic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, USA.
Emad Alamouti-FardCardiothoracic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, USA.
Mohammad AlomariCardiothoracic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, USA.
Md Walid Akram HussainCardiothoracic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, USA.
Mohamed S ElawadyColorectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, USA.
Samuel JacobCardiothoracic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review aims to show and illustrate the history, current, ethical considerations, and limitations concerning xenotransplantation. Due to the current shortage of available donor organs for transplantation, many alternative sources are being examined to solve the donor shortage. One of them is xenotransplantation which refers to the transplantation of organs from one species to another. Compared to other nonhuman primates (NHP), pigs are ideal species for organ harvesting as they rapidly grow to human size in a handful of months. There is much advancement in the genetic engineering of pigs, which have hearts structurally and functionally similar to the human heart. The role of genetic engineering is to overcome the immune barriers in xenotransplantation and can be used in hyperacute rejection and T cell-mediated rejection. It is technically difficult to use large animal models for orthotopic, life-sustaining heart transplantation. Despite the fact that some religious traditions, such as Jewish and Muslim, prohibit the ingestion of pork products, few religious leaders consider that donating porcine organs is ethical because it saves human life. Although recent technologies have lowered the risk of a xenograft producing a novel virus that causes an epidemic, the risk still exists. It has major implications for the informed consent procedure connected with clinical research on heart xenotransplantation.

Indexed as

genetic engineeringimmune rejectionporcine endogenous retroviruses (perv)potential animalsreligious perspectivexenotransplantation

Identifiers

PMID35754438
PMCPMC9230910

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.