Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26793328›Full record

ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2015

Left ventricular assist device implantation strategies and outcomes.

LaVone A Smith, Leora T Yarboro, Jamie L W Kennedy

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2015. 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. Is Left Ventricular Assist Device Deactivation Ethically Acceptable? A Study on the Euthanasia Debate.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2021
    Article
  3. Hemodynamic Effects of Concomitant Mitral Valve Surgery and Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation.ASAIO journal (American Society for Artificial Internal Organs : 1992) · 2020
    Article
  4. Article
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

3 authors.

LaVone A Smith1 Division of Cardiology, 2 Division of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Leora T Yarboro1 Division of Cardiology, 2 Division of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Jamie L W Kennedy1 Division of Cardiology, 2 Division of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past 15 years, the field of mechanical circulatory support has developed significantly. Currently, there are a multitude of options for both short and long term cardiac support. Choosing the appropriate device for each patient depends on the amount of support needed and the goals of care. This article focuses on long term, implantable devices for both bridge to transplantation and destination therapy indications. Implantation strategies, including the appropriate concomitant surgeries are discussed as well as expected long term outcomes. As device technology continues to improve, long term mechanical circulatory support may become a viable alternative to transplantation.

Indexed as

heart failureleft ventricular assist device (LVAD)Mechanical circulatory support (MCS)

Identifiers

PMID26793328
PMCPMC4703687

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.