SynthesisHeart failure reviews2022
Outcomes of percutaneous temporary biventricular mechanical support: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Heart failure reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Special topics: heart failure-related cardiogenic shock, valvular heart disease and end-stage renal disease. Part 4 of the International Expert Opinion Series on Acute Heart Failure Management.Heart failure reviews · 2025Review
- Cardiovascular Physiology During Mechanical Circulatory Support: Implications for Management and Monitoring.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Percutaneous biventricular assist devices (BiVAD) are a recently developed treatment option for severe cardiogenic shock. This systematic review sought to identify indications and outcomes of patients placed on percutaneous BiVAD support. An electronic search was performed to identify all appropriate studies utilizing a percutaneous BiVAD configuration. Fifteen studies comprising of 20 patients were identified. Individual patient survival and outcomes data were combined for statistical analysis. All 20 patients were supported with a microaxial LVAD, 12/20 (60%) of those patients were supported with a microaxial (RMA) right ventricular assist device (RVAD), and the remaining 8/20 (40%) patients were supported with a centrifugal extracorporeal RVAD (RCF). All patients presented with cardiogenic shock, and of these, 12/20 (60%) presented with a non-ischemic etiology vs 8/20 (40%) with ischemic disease. For the RMA group, RVAD support was significantly longer [RMA 5 (IQR 4-7) days vs RCF 1 (IQR 1-2) days, p = 0.03]. Intravascular hemolysis post-BiVAD occurred in three patients (27.3%) [RMA 3 (33.3%) vs RCF 0 (0%), p = 0.94]. Five patients received a durable left ventricular assist device, one patient received a total artificial heart, and one patient underwent a heart transplantation. Estimated 30-day mortality was 15.0%, and 78.6% were discharged alive. Both strategies for percutaneous BiVAD support appear to be viable options for severe cardiogenic shock.
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.