ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2020
Device-related epistaxis risk: continuous-flow left ventricular assist device-supported patients.
Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to analyze the effect of device-dependent factors on epistaxis episodes comparing patients supported with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) to patients under the same antithrombotic therapy.
methodsPatients who underwent CF-LVAD between 2012 and 2018 were reviewed retrospectively from the institutionally adopted electronic database. Patients who underwent mitral valve replacement (MVR) surgery receiving the same anticoagulant and antiaggregant therapy were included as a control group. Demographics, epistaxis episodes, and nonepistaxis bleeding between the two groups were compared.
resultsA total of 179 patients met the inclusion criteria (61 patients CF-LVAD group, 118 patients MVR group). The median (range) follow-up periods for the study (CF-LVAD) and control (MVR) groups were 370 (2819) and 545.70 (2356) days, respectively. There was a significant difference for frequency of bleeding episodes per month between CF-LVAD and MVR groups (p = 0.003 < 0.05). The most common site of bleeding was the anterior septum in both groups (90.9% for the CF-MVR group and 100% for the MVR group). While 14 patients (23%) had nonepistaxis bleeding in the CF-LVAD group, only two patients (1.7%) had nonepistaxis bleeding in the MVR group. There were significant differences in nonepistaxis bleeding rates between the CF-LVAD and MVR groups (χ
conclusionBoth epistaxis and nonepistaxis bleeding rates were higher in the CF-LVAD group than in the MVR group. This suggests that the use of CF-LVAD support could directly increase the risk of hemorrhagic complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2A (Etiology/Harm).
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.