ArticleJTCVS open2021
Mechanical circulatory support in pediatric patients with biventricular and univentricular hearts.
Article in JTCVS open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanical and Hemocompatibility Assessment of Selected Technologies for Prosthesis Connection with the Outflow Cannula Graft of the RH PEDJournal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in pediatric patients remains challenging because of small body size, limited availability of approved devices, and the variety of etiologies, including biventricular and univentricular physiologies. We report our single-center experience with MCS in pediatric patients in terms of survival and adverse events. Methods: Outcome, etiologic, and demographic data of pediatric patients implanted with a long-term MCS device between 2011 and 2019 at the Medical University of Vienna were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Overall survival and freedom of treatment-related adverse events at 1 year were investigated by Kaplan-Meier analyses and stratified for circulation (biventricular vs univentricular), age group (<6 years vs >6 years), and pump technology (pulsatile ventricular assist device [p-VAD] vs continuous flow pump [cf-VAD]). Results: One-year survival of all 33 pediatric patients (median, 4 years; interquartile range, 0-13 years) was 73%, with a tendency toward better outcomes in patients with biventricular circulation than in those with univentricular circulation (80%; n = 25 vs 50%; n = 8; Conclusions: MCS is a promising therapy for a broad spectrum of pediatric patients, irrespective of heart failure etiology, age, and pump type. With increasing experience, improved devices, and patient selection, MCS may become a valuable treatment option for patients with univentricular hearts.
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.