ArticleResuscitation2024
Resuscitation of patients with durable mechanical circulatory support with acutely altered perfusion or cardiac arrest: A scoping review.
Article in Resuscitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Updates to perioperative and anesthetic management of the left ventricular assist device patient presenting for noncardiac surgery.Current opinion in anaesthesiology · 2026Review
- Co-designing emergency communication for patients with mechanical circulatory support devices.JHLT open · 2026Article
- No Pulse, No Panic! Navigating Cardiac Arrest in LVAD-Supported Patients.Critical care clinics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is an increasing prevalence of durable mechanical circulatory supported patients in both the in-and-out of hospital communities. The scientific literature regarding the approach to patients supported by durable mechanical circulatory devices who suffer acutely impaired perfusion has not been well explored.
methodsThe International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Advanced, Basic, and Pediatric Life Support Task Forces conducted a scoping review of the literature using a population, context, and concept framework.
resultsA total of 32 publications that included patients who were receiving durable mechanical circulatory support and required acute resuscitation were identified. Most of the identified studies were case reports or small case series. Of these, 11 (34.4%) included patients who received chest compressions. A number of studies reported upon delays in the application of chest compressions resulting from complexity due to the expected pulselessness in some patients with continuous flow left-ventricular assist devices as well as from concern regarding potential dislodgement of the mechanical circulatory support device. Three observational studies identified worse outcomes in durable mechanical circulatory support receiving patients with cardiac arrest and acutely impaired perfusion who received chest compressions as compared to those who did not, however those studies were at high risk of bias. Of 226 patients across 11 studies and two published scientific abstracts who sustained cardiac arrest while supported by durable MCS and underwent chest compressions, there were no reported instances of device dislodgement and 71 (31.4%) patients had favorable outcomes.
conclusionsThere is a scarcity of evidence to inform the resuscitation of patients with durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) experiencing acute impairment in perfusion and cardiac arrest. Reports indicate that delays in resuscitation often stem from rescuers' uncertainty about the safety of administering chest compressions. Notably, no instances of device dislodgement have been documented following chest compressions, suggesting that the risk of harm from timely CPR in these patients is minimal.
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.