ArticleScientific reports2022
Comparison of device-based therapy options for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a simulation study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Device-driven cyclic compression of the superior vena cava as a preload reduction strategy to improve cardiac function in heart failure: a pilot feasibility study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Pre-Clinical Models of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: Advancing Knowledge for Device Based Therapies.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2025Review
- Anatomical compatibility of a novel total artificial heart: An in-silico study.Artificial organs · 2025Article
- A numerical study of a left ventricular expander for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Framework for patient-specific simulation of hemodynamics in heart failure with counterpulsation support.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Successful therapy of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains a major unmet clinical need. Device-based treatment approaches include the interatrial shunt device (IASD), conventional assist devices pumping blood from the left ventricle (LV-VAD) or the left atrium (LA-VAD) towards the aorta, and a valveless pulsatile assist device with a single cannula operating in co-pulsation with the native heart (CoPulse). Hemodynamics of two HFpEF subgroups during rest and exercise condition were translated into a lumped parameter model of the cardiovascular system. The numerical model was applied to assess the hemodynamic effect of each of the four device-based therapies. All four therapy options show a reduction in left atrial pressure during rest and exercise and in both subgroups (> 20%). IASDs concomitantly reduce cardiac output (CO) and shift the hemodynamic overload towards the pulmonary circulation. All three mechanical assist devices increase CO while reducing sympathetic activity. LV-VADs reduce end-systolic volume, indicating a high risk for suction events. The heterogeneity of the HFpEF population requires an individualized therapy approach based on the underlying hemodynamics. Whereas phenotypes with preserved CO may benefit most from an IASD device, HFpEF patients with reduced CO may be candidates for mechanical assist devices.
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.