Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30136091›Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2018

Circulatory Mechanotherapeutics: Moving with the Force.

Pablo Huang Zhang, J Yasha Kresh

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current cardiology reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 47% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Physiologic effects of different hemodynamic patterns of LVAD.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025
    Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Pablo Huang ZhangDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Drexel University College of Medicine, 245 N. 15th Street, Room 6320, MS 111, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, USA.
J Yasha KreshDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Drexel University College of Medicine, 245 N. 15th Street, Room 6320, MS 111, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, USA. jk45@drexel.edu.
Drexel University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis review describes the current state of advancements in mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices with significantly improved hemodynamic performance and decreased adverse events. Novel considerations for future MCS designs that impart spiral flow regimes will be detailed. RECENT

findingsSignificant challenges in MCS device use have included size reduction, premature pump mechanical bearing failure, acquired bleeding disorders, and vascular complications related to high shear forces and jetting. Some of these problems have been improved upon, such as the use of magnetically levitated impellers and hydrodynamic bearings. The relative simplicity of continuous flow pumps has also enabled their miniaturization, portability, and reduced energy consumption. Recent studies by our group demonstrated that spiral forms of flow possess hemodynamically beneficial attributes at the MCS outflow cannula and aorta interface, reducing jet impact, organizing streamlines, and thereby improving endothelial function through wall shear stress modulation. Despite MCS design improvements, they are far from perfect. Induced spiral fluid modulation may help address the known flow-mediated disturbances in vascular mechanobiology.

Indexed as

Heart-Assist DevicesPulsatile FlowAssisted CirculationHeartHeart FailureHemodynamicsHumansModels, CardiovascularProsthesis DesignMechanical circulatory support (MCS)MechanobiologyMechanotransductionOutflow cannulaPulsatilitySpiral blood flow

Identifiers

PMID30136091
OpenAlexW2888542092

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.