ReviewIndian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2023
Pediatric mechanical circulatory support - a review.
Review in Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2023. 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.
- Material-Driven Clinical Complications in Mechanical Circulatory Support: From Blood-Material Interactions to Device-Related Adverse Events.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Efficacy of Impella Microaxial left ventricular assist device as bridge to transplant in children with end stage heart disease.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Local Infections Associated with Ventricular Assist Devices: Materials-Related Challenges and Emerging Solutions.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The history of mechanical circulatory support began in 1953, as the first heart-lung machine enabled surgeons to perform complex open heart surgery. Heart failure is more prevalent in adults than pediatric patients which has led to the development of devices for adults with end-stage heart failure at a faster pace. Pediatric mechanical circulatory support has been derived from adult durable devices and subsequently applied in the adolescent population. The application of adult devices in children is inherently problematic due to size mismatch, especially in smaller patients. There has been an increasing interest in developing durable pumps that are appropriate for children for several reasons, with the primary factor being the number of children with end-stage heart failure far exceeding the number of potential donors. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for children can be divided into short-term temporary support and long-term durable support. The goal of this review is to discuss the devices available for the pediatric population and review the options for support in complex patients including single-ventricle anatomy, biventricular support, and total artificial heart options. We will also briefly discuss the Pumps for Kids, Infants, and Neonates (PumpKIN) Trial and MCS registries, including the Advanced Cardiac Therapies Improving Outcomes Network (ACTION).
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.