ReviewCardiac failure review2020
Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Heart Failure.
Review in Cardiac failure review, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Use in Post-Infarction Ventricular Septal Rupture: The Impact of Timing Relative to Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Incidence and In-Hospital Mortality of Ventricular Septal Rupture Following Acute Myocardial Infarction.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Cardiogenic Shock Management in the Modern Era: A Narrative Review of Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Evolution of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: historical milestones and advanced developments.The journal of extra-corporeal technology · 2025Review
- Multicentre comparison of various microaxial pump devices as a bridge to durable assist device implantation.ESC heart failure · 2025Article
- Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia in Patients Suffering Cardiogenic Shock.Critical care explorations · 2024Article
- Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Heart Failure Complicated with Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Delayed surgical repair via right ventricular approach with Impella and extracorporeal life support in post-myocardial infarction ventricular septal defect: A case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2024Article
- Ambulatory short-term mechanical circulatory support: facilitates recovery and prepares patients for definitive therapy.Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2023Review
- The Use of Cardioprotective Devices and Strategies in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Procedures and Cardiac Surgery.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Recent advances in biological pumps as a building block for bioartificial hearts.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Review
- A Holistic View of Advanced Heart Failure.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Mechanical Circulatory Support: Primer for Consultant Specialists.Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2022Review
- The Impact of Noninvasive Ventilator Assisted Ventilation Nursing Combined with Mechanical Vibration on the Level of Heart Failure Indexes in ICU Patients with Acute Heart Failure.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2022Article
- Evaluation of a Novel Left Ventricular Assist Device for Resuscitation in an Animal Model of Ventricular Fibrillation Cardiac Arrest.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2022Article
- Racial Disparities in the Utilization and Outcomes of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support for Acute Myocardial Infarction-Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Acute Circulatory Collapse and Advanced Therapies in Patients with COVID-19 Infection.Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal · 2021Review
- Management of Post-Myocardial Infarction Right Ventricular Failure.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & InterventionsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a challenging syndrome, associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Although pharmacological therapies are successful and can successfully control this acute cardiac illness, some patients remain refractory to drugs. Therefore, a more aggressive treatment strategy is needed. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (TCS) can be used to stabilise patients with decompensated heart failure. In the last two decades, the increased use of TCS has led to several kinds of devices becoming available. However, indications for TCS and device selection are part of a complex process. It is necessary to evaluate the severity of CS, any early and prompt haemodynamic resuscitation, prior TCS, specific patient risk factors, technical limitations and adequacy of resources and training, as well as an assessment of whether care would be futile. This article examines options for commonly used TCS devices, including intra-aortic balloon pumps, a pulsatile percutaneous ventricular assist device (the iVAC), veno-arterial extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation and Impella (Abiomed) and TandemHeart (LivaNova) percutaneous ventricular assist device.
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.