ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2018
Minimally invasive surgery improves outcome of left ventricular assist device surgery in cardiogenic shock.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimally Invasive Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence on Clinical Outcomes and Surgical Approaches.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- Minimally invasive versus conventional continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation for heart failure: a meta-analysis.Heart failure reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Minimally invasive LVAD implantation for advanced heart failure: a single-center retrospective analysis and the promise of minimally invasive approaches.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Citrate-Coated Iron Oxide Nanoparticles Facilitate Endothelialization of Left Ventricular Assist Device Impeller for Improved Antithrombogenicity.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Impact of pump position on postoperative outcomes in less invasive left ventricular assist device implantation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Left ventricular assist device implants in patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: do we need cardiopulmonary bypass?Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2022Article
- Less-invasive tools and technique for fully magnetically levitated centrifugal pump implantation.Annals of cardiothoracic surgery · 2021Article
- Sex differences in outcomes following less-invasive left ventricular assist device implantation.Annals of cardiothoracic surgery · 2021Article
- Ventricular assist devices implantation: surgical assessment and technical strategies.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2021Review
- Heart Transplant and Ventricular Assist: Cardiac Surgery and Heart Failure Perspective.US cardiology · 2021Review
- Minimally invasive surgery for left ventricular assist device implantation is safe and associated with a decreased risk of right ventricular failure.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Article
- Temporary ventricular assist device implantation by sternotomy-avoiding technique for bridge-to-decision therapy: a comparison with conventional implantation.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2020Article
- Extracorporeal life support to ventricular assist device: potential benefits of sternal-sparing approach.Journal of thoracic disease · 2019Article
- The tightrope walk between temporary and permanent mechanical circulatory support.Journal of thoracic disease · 2019Article
- The evolution of mechanical circulatory support (MCS): a new wave of developments in MCS and heart failure treatment.Journal of thoracic disease · 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
14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLeft ventricular assist device (LVAD) (HVAD, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) implantation is already a widely accepted treatment option for end-stage heart failure (HF) but also still considered as a rescue therapy for patients suffering from cardiogenic shock. Standard LVAD implantation techniques are often associated with high mortality rates and can result in severe complications, like bleeding or right heart failure (RHF). The aim of our study was to assess the outcome of Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) 1 patients (so called "crash and burn" patients) undergoing a LVAD implantation by standard or less invasive surgery.
methodsWe performed a retrospective evaluation of the 1-year outcome of 32 consecutive HF patients in cardiogenic shock, who underwent LVAD implantation in our institution. A total of 32 INTERMACS 1 patients were emergently operated. Fourteen patients (group A) were operated by using the "Hannover-VAD-technique", which is widely known to be less invasive (upper hemisternotomy and a left-sided anterolateral thoracotomy). In contrast, 18 patients (group B) were implanted with LVAD by using the standard technique (full sternotomy). The primary endpoint was survival after 1 year without device-related re-operations. Secondary endpoints included combined analyses of rates of RHF, respiratory failure and bleeding during the trial period.
resultsBaseline characteristics were similar in both groups. Survival after 1 year was higher in group A (69.7%
conclusionsLVAD surgery in INTERMACS 1 patients is associated with remarkably good outcome considering the already very high mortality of those patients, and compared to previously reported surgical outcomes. Our study indicates that minimally invasive LVAD implantation in cardiogenic shock decreases mortality and the incidence of postoperative AEs.
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.