Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38520314›Full record

SynthesisESC heart failure2024

Echocardiographic haemodynamic monitoring in the context of HeartMate 3™ therapy: a systematic review.

Linus Ohlsson, Joanna-Maria Papageorgiou, Tino Ebbers, Meriam Åström Aneq, Éva Tamás, Hans Granfeldt

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in ESC heart failure, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 40% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Linus OhlssonDepartment of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8581-1050
Joanna-Maria PapageorgiouDepartment of Cardiology in Linköping, Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Tino EbbersCenter of Medical Image Science and Visualization (CMIV), Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Meriam Åström AneqDepartment of Clinical Physiology in Linköping, Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Éva TamásDepartment of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Hans GranfeldtDepartment of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Linköping University · SE

Funding

Region Östergötland RÖ-987498Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation 20210441
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsWhile echocardiography remains essential within haemodynamic monitoring of durable mechanical circulatory support, previous echocardiographic guidelines are missing scientific evidence for the novel HeartMate 3™ (HM3) system. Accordingly, this review aims to summarize available echocardiographic evidence including HM3. METHODS AND

resultsThis systematic review adhered to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Searches were conducted during August 2023 across PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar using specific echocardiographic terms combined with system identifiers. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies and Critical Appraisal Instrument (PCAI) for cross-sectional studies. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria, of which eight cohort studies and one cross-sectional study. Aortic regurgitation (AR) prevalence at approximately 12 months of support exhibited heterogenicity (33.5% (Δ 33%)) in a limited number of studies (n = 3). Several studies (n = 5) demonstrated an increasing prevalence and severity of AR during HM3 support, generating moderate to high level of evidence. One AR study showed a higher cumulative incidence of death and heart failure (HF) readmission compared with those without significant AR, hazard ratio 3.42 (95% CI 1.48-8.76). A second study showed that a worsening AR group had significantly lower survival-free from HF readmission (59% vs. 89%, P = 0.023) with a hazard ratio of 5.18 (95% CI 1.07-25.0), while a third study did not reveal any differences in cardiac-related hospitalizations in the 12 months follow-up or non-cardiac-related hospitalization. Mitral regurgitation (MR) prevalence at approximately 12 months of support exhibited good consistency 15.0% (Δ 0.8%) in both included studies, which did not reveal any significant pattern of changing prevalence over time. Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) prevalence at approximately 12 months of support exhibited fair consistency 28.5% (Δ 8.3%) in a limited number of studies (n = 2); both studies showed a statistically un-confirmed trend of increased TR prevalence over time. The evidence of general prevalence of right ventricular dysfunction (RVD) was insufficient due to lack of studies.

conclusionsThere are few methodologically consistent studies with focus on long-term haemodynamic effects. Aortic regurgitation still seems to be a prevalent and potentially significant finding. The available evidence concerning right heart function is limited despite clinical relevance and potential prognostic value. Potential interventricular and haemodynamic interplay are identified as a white field for future research.

Indexed as

EchocardiographyHeart-Assist DevicesHeart FailureHemodynamic MonitoringHemodynamicsHumansEchocardiographyHaemodynamic monitoringHeart failureHeartMate 3LVADMCS

Identifiers

PMID38520314
PMCPMC11287332
OpenAlexW4393113174

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.