ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022
Temporary Right-Ventricular Assist Devices: A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Navigating isolated tricuspid regurgitation: A practical guide to perioperative and periprocedural management.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- A novel technique for placement of a right ventricular assist device.JTCVS techniques · 2026Article
- Observational
- Analysis of outcomes in patients with HeartMate 3 with and without right ventricular assist device support.ESC heart failure · 2025Article
- Article
- Left ventricular unloading to facilitate ventricular remodelling in heart failure: A narrative review of mechanical circulatory support.Experimental physiology · 2024Review
- Cardioprotection in cardiovascular surgery.Basic research in cardiology · 2024Review
- The ProtekDuo Cannula: A Comprehensive Review of Efficacy and Clinical Applications in Right Ventricular Failure.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Mechanical Support in High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: Review Article.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Right ventricular dysfunction in left ventricular assist device candidates: is it time to change our prospective?Heart failure reviews · 2024Review
- HM6: greater than the sum of its parts?Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2023Article
- A primer for students regarding advanced topics in cardiothoracic surgery, part 2: Primer 7 of 7.JTCVS open · 2023Article
- Long-term assist device patients admitted to ICU: Tips and pitfalls.Journal of intensive medicine · 2023Review
- Technical considerations for percutaneous pulmonary artery cannulation for mechanical circulatory support.JTCVS techniques · 2023Article
- Right ventricular failure: Current strategies and future development.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Advances in Mechanical Support for Right Ventricular Failure.Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia · 2022Article
- Prediction, prevention, and management of right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device implantation: A comprehensive review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute right-sided heart failure (RHF) is a complex clinical syndrome, with a wide range of clinical presentations, associated with increased mortality and morbidity, but about which there is a scarcity of evidence-based literature. A temporary right-ventricular assist device (t-RVAD) is a potential treatment option for selected patients with severe right-ventricular dysfunction as a bridge-to-recovery or as a permanent solution. We sought to conduct a systematic review to determine the safety and efficacy of t-RVAD implantation. Thirty-one studies met the inclusion criteria, from which data were extracted. Successful t-RVAD weaning ranged between 23% and 100%. Moreover, 30-day survival post-temporary RAVD implantation ranged from 46% to 100%. Bleeding, acute kidney injury, stroke, and device malfunction were the most commonly reported complications. Notwithstanding this, t-RVAD is a lifesaving option for patients with severe RHF, but the evidence stems from small non-randomized heterogeneous studies utilizing a variety of devices. Both the etiology of RHF and time of intervention might play a major role in determining the t-RVAD outcome. Standardized endpoints definitions, design and methodology for t-RVAD trials is needed. Furthermore, efforts should continue in improving the technology as well as improving the timely provision of a t-RVAD.
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.