ArticleJHLT open2025
Outcomes following isolated right ventricular assist device as durable support for primary right heart failure: An INTERMACS analysis.
Article in JHLT open, 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Outcomes with isolated right ventricular assist devices (iRVAD) using pumps designed for the left ventricle are not well described. This study compares the clinical characteristics and outcomes of iRVAD patients to those patients treated with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and biventricular assist devices (BiVAD). This study consisted of patients who received iRVAD from the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) registry (2006-2017). The primary outcome was 2-year survival. Of 20,789 patients, 26 (0.13%) received iRVAD, 17 with pulsatile flow and 9 with continuous-flow devices. Device strategy was bridge to recovery/rescue therapy in 9 (35%), bridge to transplant/decision in 14 (52%), and destination therapy in 3 (12%). Twelve (46%) patients were INTERMACS profile 1, 5 patients (19%) required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and 13 (50%) needed mechanical ventilation. Two-year survival for patients with iRVAD (41.3%) was similar to BiVAD (45.2%) and significantly lower than LVAD (69.0%). In patients with isolated right-sided failure, long-term iRVAD support is feasible.
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.