ReviewDer Anaesthesist2018
[Mechanical circulatory support in terminal heart failure].
Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Recommendations for emergency management of patients with permanent mechanical circulatory support : Consensus statement of DGTHG, DIVI, DGIIN, DGAI, DGINA, DGfK and DGK].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2020Review
- [Recommendations for emergency management of patients with permanent mechanical circulatory support : Consensus statement of DGTHG, DIVI, DGIIN, DGAI, DGINA, DGfK and DGK].Der Anaesthesist · 2020Review
- [Percutaneous and surgical options for mechanical circulatory support in treatment of terminal heart failure].Der Anaesthesist · 2018Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAfter exhaustion of all conservative measures in the treatment of acute and chronic heart insufficiency, there is the possibility to temporarily or permanently support or replace the pump performance of the heart by mechanical circulatory support (MCS) systems.
objectivePresentation of the most important cardiac support systems for intensive care medicine, their indications and important risk factors. MATERIAL AND
methodsCritical review of device manufacturer's specifications, current research and expert opinions.
resultsThe spectrum of available MCS procedures include mechanical chest compression devices, catheter-based micropumps and complete artificial hearts. Device selection depends on the severity of heart failure (monoventricular or biventricular pump failure), the expected duration of treatment and the degree of lung function impairment. The decision between minimally invasive and open surgical procedures depends on the options established at the specific healthcare institution and whether the heart function is to be temporarily or permanently replaced. Compliance with the anticoagulation regimens defined by the manufacturer is especially important as they differ vastly between devices and are critical to avoid bleeding or thromboembolic complications.
conclusionDue to the increasing number of patients on long-term mechanical circulatory support, the chances are that physicians in the initial emergency admission are unfamiliar with these devices but need to operate them in emergency cases. Therefore, knowledge of these procedures and their complications becomes increasingly important.
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.