ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2015
Coagulopathy in Mechanical Circulatory Support: A Fine Balance.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- The Use of Factor Eight Inhibitor Bypass Activity (FEIBA) for the Treatment of Perioperative Hemorrhage in Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation.Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia · 2021Article
- Risk of Thrombus Formation in Patients on Mechanical Circulatory Support with POLVAD-MEV.Annals of transplantation · 2021Article
- Postimplant Phosphodiesterase Type 5 Inhibitors Use Is Associated With Lower Rates of Thrombotic Events After Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2020Article
- Monitoring hemostasis parameters in left ventricular assist device recipients - a preliminary report.Kardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska = Polish journal of cardio-thoracic surgery · 2016Article
- Mechanical blood trauma in assisted circulation: sublethal RBC damage preceding hemolysis.The International journal of artificial organs · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Therapeutic intervention with mechanical circulatory support has revolutionized the medical care of individuals living with advanced heart failure. Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have enabled patients to live longer while providing improved quality of life and functional status. However, intervention is not without risk. Over the last decade, clinicians have identified common mechanical assist device-associated complications. This appears to be multi-factorial with relation to patient variables, inherent device technology, and nuances of concurrent medical management. This review will discuss the impact of adverse hematologic complications: bleeding, pump thrombosis, and hemolysis in continuous flow LVAD patients. These obstacles continue to pose a clinical challenge with regard to both diagnosis and optimal management. Heightened awareness and understanding of heterogeneous clinical presentations is essential for preventive management and early detection with intervention.
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.