SynthesisMedical sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Minimally Invasive Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence on Clinical Outcomes and Surgical Approaches.
Synthesis in Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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.
- Perioperative outcomes and quality of life after minimally invasive versus median sternotomy left ventricular assist device implantation: a single-center retrospective cohort study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Minimally invasive LVAD implantation for advanced heart failure: a single-center retrospective analysis and the promise of minimally invasive approaches.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Article
- The mediterranean diet and acne vulgaris: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Nutrition & metabolism · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesMinimally invasive cardiac surgical (MICS) approaches to the implantation of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have gained increasing interest as alternatives to full median sternotomy (FS), particularly in patients with prior cardiac surgeries or elevated surgical risk. However, evidence regarding their safety, feasibility, and clinical outcomes remains fragmented. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive techniques for LVAD implantation in comparison to standard sternotomy, with a focus on mortality, perioperative complications, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and infection rates.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar up to 1 January 2025. Studies were included if they reported on adult patients undergoing LVAD implantation via minimally invasive thoracotomy or sternotomy-sparing approaches, with or without comparator groups. Data were extracted and synthesized qualitatively; the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was applied to assess the methodological quality of the included cohort and retrospective comparative studies.
resultsA total of 12 studies involving 1448 patients were included (584 received MICS and 862 received FS). MICS techniques have demonstrated comparable short and mid-term survival outcomes, with trends toward reduced ICU stay, fewer reoperations for bleeding, and lower incidence of driveline infections. Some studies reported longer operative and cardiopulmonary bypass times in the MICS group. Among high-risk cohorts, such as patients with prior sternotomies or significant comorbidities, MICS was associated with lower morbidity and acceptable safety profiles. However, heterogeneity in patient selection, surgical protocols, and outcome definitions limited quantitative synthesis.
conclusionsMinimally invasive LVAD implantation is a viable alternative to conventional sternotomy in selected patient populations. While current data suggest favorable perioperative outcomes and equivalent survival, high-quality prospective studies are needed to confirm long-term benefits and to guide patient selection. MICS approaches should be considered within multidisciplinary teams experienced in advanced heart failure surgery.
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.