Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 367

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The REMATCH trial: rationale, design, and end points

Open access
Rose, Eric A, Moskowitz, Alan J, Packer, Milton, Sollano, Josephine A, Williams, Deborah L, Tierney, Anita R, Heitjan, Daniel F, Meier, Paul, Ascheim, Deborah Davis, Levitan, Ronald G, Weinberg, Alan D, Stevenson, Lynne Warner, Shapiro, Peter A, Lazar, Ronald M, Watson, John T, Goldstein, Daniel J, Gelijns, Annetine C·1999·The Annals of Thoracic Surgery

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Because left ventricular assist devices have recently been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to support the circulation of patients with end-stage heart failure awaiting cardiac transplantation, these devices are increasingly being considered as a potential alternative to biologic cardiac replacement. The Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Assistance for the Treatment of Congestive Heart Failure (REMATCH) trial is a multicenter study supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to compare long-term implantation of left ventricular assist devices with optimal medical management for patients with end-stage heart failure who require, but do not qualify to receive cardiac transplantation. METHODS: We discuss the rationale for conducting REMATCH, the obstacles to designing this and other randomized surgical trials, the lessons learned in conducting the multicenter pilot study, and the features of the REMATCH study design (objectives, target population, treatments, end points, analysis, and trial organization). CONCLUSIONS: We consider what will be learned from REMATCH, expectations for expanding the use of left ventricular assist devices, and future directions for assessing clinical procedures.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0003-4975(99)00042-9

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 367

Metadata

Authors
Rose, E. A., Moskowitz, A. J., Packer, M., Sollano, J. A., Williams, D. L., Tierney, A. R., Heitjan, D. F., Meier, P., Ascheim, D. D., Levitan, R. G., Weinberg, A. D., Stevenson, L. W., Shapiro, P. A., Lazar, R. M., Watson, J. T., Goldstein, D. J., & Gelijns, A. C.
Venue
The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1999-03
Volume
67
Issue
3
Pages
723-730
ISSN
0003-4975 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2036444290
Cited by
367
References
3
FWCI
24.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The REMATCH trial: rationale, design, and end points. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0003-4975(99)00042-9
The paper
Rose, E. A., Moskowitz, A. J., Packer, M., Sollano, J. A., Williams, D. L., Tierney, A. R., Heitjan, D. F., Meier, P., Ascheim, D. D., Levitan, R. G., Weinberg, A. D., Stevenson, L. W., Shapiro, P. A., Lazar, R. M., Watson, J. T., Goldstein, D. J., & Gelijns, A. C. (1999). The REMATCH trial: rationale, design, and end points. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-4975(99)00042-9

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.