Advances in Mechanical Circulatory Support (MCS): Literature Review.

Jasmine K Dugal, Arpinder S Malhi, Yuvraj Singh, Rooz Razmi, Joshua Vance, Divyansh Sharma

Abstract readReview

In one paragraph

Review in Biomedicines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Co-designing emergency communication for patients with mechanical circulatory support devices.JHLT open · 2026
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.

Jasmine K DugalDepartment of Internal Medicine, Kirk Kerkorian School of Medicine, University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 89102, USA.

Arpinder S MalhiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Kirk Kerkorian School of Medicine, University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 89102, USA.

Yuvraj SinghLake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine (LECOM), Erie, PA 16509, USA.

Rooz RazmiMichigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine (MSUCOM), East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.

Joshua VanceA.T. Still University Kirksville College of Osteopathic Medicine, Kirksville, MO 63501, USA.

Divyansh SharmaDepartment of Cardiology, Kirk Kerkorian School of Medicine, University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 89102, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Heart failure is a heterogeneous disorder that can lead to cardiogenic shock. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices can replace the cardiac function in an attempt to bridge patients to transplant or they can serve as destination therapy to improve overall patient functionality and in turn quality of life. Currently utilized MCS devices include devices such as Left Ventricular Assist Devices (LVADs), Biventricular Assist Devices (BiVADs), Impella, Total Artificial Hearts (TAHs), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). This literature review examines a range of studies, case reports, and meta-analyses to present current approaches to mechanical circulatory support (MCS), along with the challenges and limitations of existing devices, common complications, and overall survival and long-term outcomes following MCS therapy.

Indexed as

Bi-ventricular assist devicebridge to transplantcardiogenic shockclinical outcomesdestination therapyextra-corporeal membrane oxygenationheart failureimpellaintra-aortic balloon pumpleft-ventricular assist deviceMCS complicationssurvival ratestotal artificial heart

Identifiers

PMID40722653

DOI10.3390/biomedicines13071580

PMCPMC12292615

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

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.