ArticleGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2023
Outcomes of continuous flow left ventricular assist device after surgical left ventricular restoration.
Article in General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to report the clinical outcomes of continuous flow left ventricular assist device implantation in end-stage chronic heart failure patients with a history of surgical left ventricular restoration.
methodsWe retrospectively identified 190 patients undergoing continuous flow left ventricular assist device implantation at our center from November 2007 to April 2020. In total, six patients underwent continuous flow left ventricular assist device implantation after various types of surgical left ventricular restoration procedures, including endoventricular circular patch plasty (n = 3), posterior restoration procedure (n = 2), and septal anterior ventricular exclusion (n = 1).
resultsContinuous flow left ventricular assist device (Jarvik 2000, n = 2; EVAHEART, n = 1; HeartMate II, n = 1; DuraHeart, n = 1; HVAD, n = 1) was successfully implanted in all patients. During a median follow-up of 48 months (interquartile range, 39-60 months; censoring heart transplantation), no death was documented, which means that overall survival after left ventricular assist device implantation was 100% at any time point. Finally, three patients received heart transplantation (waiting time: 39, 56, and 61 months, respectively) and the other three patients are still awaiting heart transplantation (waiting time: 12, 41, and 76 months, respectively).
conclusionsIn our series, continuous flow left ventricular assist device implantation after surgical left ventricular restoration was safe and feasible, even if an endoventricular patch was used, and effective for bridge to transplant strategy.
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.