ArticleJHLT open2025
Induction therapy confers survival advantage in mechanically supported patients regardless of peak CPRA in heart transplantation.
Article in JHLT open, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is no consensus regarding induction therapy in patients on mechanically circulatory support (MCS) listed for heart transplantation. We sought to elucidate differences in outcomes between no induction and induction. Methods: A total of 3,987 patients were analyzed from the UNOS database from January 2018 through December 2022. Patients on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO), HeartMate 3, Impella 5.0 or 5.5, and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and receiving no induction, anti-IL2R antibodies, or T cell depleting agent (TCDA) were included. Results: Of 3,987 patients, 1,288 (32.3%) received no induction, 1,566 (39.3%) received anti-IL2R antibodies, and 1,133 (28.4%) received TCDA. A total of 1,895 (47.5%) were supported with IABP; 1,098 (27.5%) with HeartMate 3; 489 (12.3%) with Impella 5.0 or 5.5; 351 (8.8%) with ECMO; and 154 (3.9%) with combination of the above devices. Comparison of 1-year survival between no induction, anti-IL2R, and TCDA groups in all MCS patients revealed significantly worse survival among those receiving no induction (p<0.0001). Subgroup analysis of peak CPRA 0% patients revealed that no induction had significantly worse survival at 1 year (p=0.002). Analysis of acute rejection at 1 year showed a significantly decreased number of rejection episodes in the TCDA group compared to no induction (OR 0.65, CI 0.47-0.88, p=0.006). Conclusions: Patients requiring MCS prior to heart transplantation have significantly improved post-transplant survival with induction therapy, regardless of their peak CPRA. TCDA confers decreased number of acute rejection episodes at 1 year in this patient population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.