ReviewThe Canadian journal of cardiology2020
Physiology of the Assisted Circulation in Cardiogenic Shock: A State-of-the-Art Perspective.
Review in The Canadian journal of cardiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiovascular Physiology During Mechanical Circulatory Support: Implications for Management and Monitoring.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- The association between introduction of the micro-axial flow pump Impella in hospitals and in-hospital mortality in patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: interrupted time-series analyses.Annals of intensive care · 2024Article
- Non-invasive assessment of left ventricular contractility by myocardial work index in veno-arterial membrane oxygenation patients: rationale and design of the MIX-ECMO multicentre observational study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Watershed phenomena during extracorporeal life support and their clinical impact: a systematic in vitro investigation.ESC heart failure · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has made rapid progress over the last 3 decades. This was driven by the need to develop acute and chronic circulatory support as well as by the limited organ availability for heart transplantation. The growth of MCS was also driven by the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) after the worldwide H1N1 influenza outbreak of 2009. The majority of mechanical pumps (ECMO and left ventricular assist devices) are currently based on continuous flow pump design. It is interesting to note that in the current era, we have reverted from the mammalian pulsatile heart back to the continuous flow pumps seen in our simple multicellular ancestors. This review will highlight key physiological concepts of the assisted circulation from its effects on cardiac dynamic to principles of cardiopulmonary fitness. We will also examine the physiological principles of the ECMO-assisted circulation, anticoagulation, and the haemocompatibility challenges that arise when the blood is exposed to a foreign mechanical circuit. Finally, we conclude with a perspective on smart design for future development of devices used for 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.