Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33694065›Full record

ReviewCurrent neurology and neuroscience reports2021

Neurocritical Care of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.

Aaron Shoskes, Glenn Whitman, Sung-Min Cho

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current neurology and neuroscience reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. POCUS, how can we include the brain? An overview.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2022
    Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Aaron ShoskesDepartment of Neurology, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Glenn WhitmanDivision of Cardiac Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Sung-Min ChoDepartments of Neurology, Neurosurgery, Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Division of Neuroscience Critical Care, Johns Hopkins University, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Phipps 455, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. csungmi1@jhmi.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewMechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have demonstrated improved survival outcomes in otherwise refractory cardiopulmonary failure but are associated with significant neurologic morbidity and mortality. This review aims to characterize MCS-associated brain injury and discuss the neurocritical care of this population. RECENT

findingsWe found no practice guidelines or specific management strategies for the neurocritical care of patients with MCS devices. Acute brain injury was commonly observed in short-term and durable MCS devices. There is emerging evidence that a standardized neurological monitoring and management algorithm for MCS device-associated brain injury is feasible and potentially improves neurological outcomes. While MCS devices are associated with significant neurologic morbidity and mortality, there is scant evidence regarding optimal neuromonitoring and neurocritical care. With the increase in use of MCS devices for both short-term and durable applications, improved outcomes will depend on early identification and intervention of neurologic complications and further research into their pathophysiology.

Indexed as

Heart-Assist DevicesHeart FailureHumansBrain injuryECMOLVADMechanical circulatory supportNeurocritical careNeurologic monitoring

Identifiers

PMID33694065

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.