ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2018
When more is not better-appropriately excluding patients from mechanical circulatory support therapy.
Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Mechanical Circulatory Support for High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Current cardiology reports · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are continually evolving and are providing greater hemodynamic support. This review was conducted to evaluate the prophylactic use of MCS in hemodynamically stable patients who were awaiting future coronary artery revascularization. A thorough review of published literature was conducted to evaluate for patients and clinical scenarios that are indicated for MCS, including hemodynamically stable and unstable patients awaiting revascularization. Although there have been several studies demonstrating the benefit of MCS use in hemodynamically unstable patients, there was limited trials in patients that were hemodynamically stable. The use of prophylactic MCS was limited to intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in "high risk" patients awaiting coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). This review article was conducted to evaluate for possible prophylactic MCS in patients awaiting revascularization. In hemodynamically stable patients, literature is limited to the use of IABP for "high-risk" patients awaiting CABG. A thorough review of literature suggest that hemodynamically stable patients likely would not benefit from prophylactic placement MCS while awaiting revascularization although further clinical trials are needed to identify the ideal patients and clinical scenarios for the use of MCS.
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.