ReviewCurrent heart failure reports2022
Right-Sided Mechanical Circulatory Support - A Hemodynamic Perspective.
Review in Current heart failure reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biventricular Impella Support for Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation in a Patient With Severe Dilated Cardiomyopathy.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Cardiovascular Physiology During Mechanical Circulatory Support: Implications for Management and Monitoring.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Right Heart Failure in Critical and Chronic Care: Current Concepts, Challenges and Mechanical Support Strategies.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The Management of Cardiogenic Shock From Diagnosis to Devices: A Narrative Review.CHEST critical care · 2024Article
- Medical and Mechanical Circulatory Support of the Failing Right Ventricle.Current cardiology reports · 2024Review
- Ambulatory 7-day mechanical circulatory support in sheep model of pulmonary hypertension and right heart failure.The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation · 2024Article
- Sepsis Management in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewRight ventricular (RV) failure is increasingly recognized as a major cause of morbidity and mortality. When RV failure is refractory to medical therapy, escalation to right-sided mechanical circulatory support (MCS) should be considered. In this review, we begin by recapitulating the hemodynamics of RV failure, then we delve into current and future right-sided MCS devices and describe their hemodynamic profiles. RECENT
findingsThe field of temporary right-sided MCS continues to expand, with evolving strategies and new devices actively under development. All right-sided MCS devices bypass the RV, with each bypass configuration conferring a unique hemodynamic profile. Devices that aspirate blood directly from the RV, as opposed to the RA or the IVC, have more favorable hemodynamics and more effective RV unloading. There has been a growing interest in single-access MCS devices which do not restrict patient mobility. Additionally, a first-of-its-kind percutaneous, pulsatile, right-sided MCS device (PERKAT RV) is currently undergoing investigation in humans. Prompt recognition of refractory RV failure and deployment of right-sided MCS can improve outcomes. The field of right-sided MCS is rapidly evolving, with ongoing efforts dedicated towards developing novel temporary devices that are single access, allow for patient mobility, and directly unload the RV, as well as more durable 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.