ArticleJournal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs2021
Temporary surgical ventricular assist device for treatment of acute myocardial infarction and refractory cardiogenic shock in the percutaneous device era.
Article in Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contemporary Mechanical Support Devices for Temporary and Long-Term Applications.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute myocardial infarction with refractory cardiogenic shock (AMI-RCS) is associated with poor outcomes. Several percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices exist; however, limitations exist regarding long-term use. Herein, we describe our experience with the temporary surgical CentriMag VAD.
methodsWe reviewed 74 patients with AMI-RCS who underwent CentriMag VAD insertion as bridge-to-decision device from 2007 to 2020. Patients were divided into groups based on introduction of the "shock team" model: Era 1 (2007-2014, n = 51) and Era 2 (2015-2020, n = 23).
resultsEra 2 had higher proportion of patients with INTERMACS Profile I. The use of percutaneous MCS as bridge to VAD and the use of minimally invasive VAD were higher in Era 2. There were fewer postoperative bleeding events in Era 2 (80% vs 61%, p = .07). Thirty-day mortality was 23% and 1-year survival was 55%, which were no differences between eras. Destinations after CentriMag VAD included myocardial recovery (39%), durable LVAD (27%), and transplantation (5%).
conclusionCentriMag VAD device represents a viable bridge-to-decision device with acceptable short- and long-term outcomes for patients with AMI-RCS. Stable outcomes in a progressively sicker population may be related to changes in practice patterns as well as introduction of the "shock team" concept.
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.