ArticleAnnals of cardiothoracic surgery2019
Temporary mechanical circulatory support for refractory heart failure: the German Heart Center Berlin experience.
Article in Annals of cardiothoracic surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of VA-ECMO with and without Left Centricular (LV) Decompression Using Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping (IABP) versus Other LV Decompression Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2020Pooled it
- Percutaneous extracorporeal ventricular assist device as a successful bridge strategy to durable left ventricular assist device in refractory cardiogenic shock: a case report.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting on Microaxial Flow Pump Support in Patients With Severely Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction.Artificial organs · 2025Article
- Temporary extracorporeal life support: single-centre experience with a new concept.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2024Article
- Dynamic load modulation predicts right heart tolerance of left ventricular cardiovascular assist in a porcine model of cardiogenic shock.Science translational medicine · 2024Article
- Mechanical Circulatory Support Strategies in Takotsubo Syndrome with Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Successful treatment of cardiogenic shock due to Takotsubo syndrome with implantation of a temporary microaxial left ventricular assist device in transaxillary approach.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2023Article
- Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock Patients after Cardiac Procedures: Selection Algorithm and Weaning Strategies.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Severe pulmonary valve insufficiency caused by transjugular cannulation of pulmonary artery for right ventricular assist device: diagnosis and surgical solution-a case report.Journal of surgical case reports · 2023Article
- Transaxillary implantation of a temporary microaxial left ventricular assist device in a patient with a rectangular kinked subclavian artery.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2023Article
- Clinical outcomes and predictors of success with Impella weaning in cardiogenic shock: a single-center experience.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Forensic, legal, and clinical aspects of deaths associated with implanted cardiac devices.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Review
- Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation in Cancer-Therapy-Related Heart Failure.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Extracorporeal Life Support and Temporary CentriMag Ventricular Assist Device to Salvage Cardiogenic-Shock Patients Suffering from Prolonged Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Initial experience covering 50 consecutive cases of large Impella implantation at a single heart centre.ESC heart failure · 2021Article
- Risk of Thrombus Formation in Patients on Mechanical Circulatory Support with POLVAD-MEV.Annals of transplantation · 2021Article
- The "TIDE"-Algorithm for the Weaning of Patients With Cardiogenic Shock and Temporarily Mechanical Left Ventricular Support With Impella Devices. A Cardiovascular Physiology-Based Approach.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
- Current Landscape of Temporary Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Technology.US cardiology · 2021Review
- Temporary right ventricular circulatory support following right ventricular infarction: results of a groin-free approach.ESC heart failure · 2020Article
- Advanced heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTemporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) offers a valuable option for treatment of refractory heart failure. We present our experience with selected MCS devices in cardiogenic shock of different etiologies.
methodsWe retrospectively studied patients who were treated in our institution between 01/2016 and 07/2018. Patients receiving only veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) support were excluded. Left ventricular support patients received Impella; right ventricular support was conducted using Levitronix CentriMag.
resultsThirty-seven patients received an Impella left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Etiology was: acute on chronic ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICMP; n=12), acute myocardial infarction (AMI; n=11), dilated cardiomyopathy (DCMP; n=7) and toxic cardiomyopathy (TCMP; n=2). Two patients presented with postcardiotomy shock and acute myocarditis, respectively. In one case, Takotsubo cardiomyopathy was diagnosed. Impella was used solely in 28 patients (Impella group) with an in-hospital survival of 37%. In nine patients, Impella was used in combination with extracorporeal life support (ECLS) implantation (ECMELLA group)-in-hospital survival was 33%. In the Impella group six patients recovered, six received a long-term VAD and 16 died on device. In the ECMELLA group one patient recovered, three received a long-term VAD and five died. The majority of CentriMag implantations as a right ventricular assist device (RVAD) were necessary after LVAD implantation (n=52); of these patients, 14 recovered, eight received long-term VAD and 30 died. The remaining 17 patients were supported by RVAD due to AMI (n=7); postcardiotomy (n=7); right heart failure after heart transplantation (n=2) and ICMP (n=1). Six of these patients recovered, two required long-term VAD and nine died.
conclusionsSurvival after MCS implantation for left as well as right heart failure in cardiogenic shock remains low, but is superior to that of patients without mechanical support. Short-term MCS remains an option of choice if right, left or biventricular support is needed.
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.