ReviewCardiovascular engineering and technology2025
The Impact of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices on White Blood Cell Phenotype and Function.
Review in Cardiovascular engineering and technology, 2025. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMechanical circulatory support devices (MCSDs) have gradually become an effective treatment of end-stage heart failure (HF). However, the introduction of foreign surfaces and non-physiological shear stress (NPSS) can cause severe damage to various blood cells, leading to impaired function of immune system and increased risk of complications such as inflammation and thrombosis. The effect of mechanical injury on white blood cell (WBC) has been largely neglected compared to that on red blood cell (RBC) and platelet (PLT).
methodTo better understand the impact of MCSDs on WBCs and emphasize the importance of investigating WBC damage to avoid adverse events during mechanical circulatory support, this review elaborated the induction of WBC phenotypic and functional injury by MCSD-related factors, and the relationship between injury and clinical complications. Furthermore, this article provided a detailed review and comparative analysis of in vitro blood-shearing devices (BSDs) and detection methods used in WBC damage investigation.
resultsNPSS, biomaterials and other related factors can activate WBC, decrease WBC function, and promote the release of pro-inflammatory and pro-thrombotic microparticles, increasing the risk of inflammation and thrombotic complications. The evaluation of WBC damage typically involves measuring cell viability and dysfunction using in vitro BSDs (e.g. concentric cylinder devices) and injury detection methods (e.g. flow cytometry).
conclusionsWBCs with normal morphology may also experience functional failure due to NPSS from MCSDs, leading to sublethal mechanical cell injury. Therefore, the effect of MCSDs on WBCs can be more comprehensively evaluated by a combination of measuring cell functional capacity and cell counting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40251454What 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.