ArticleEuropean heart journal. Case reports2025
Sheathless delivery of a transfemoral pulsatile left ventricular assist device for high-risk percutaneous interventions: a case series.
Article in European heart journal. Case reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) can reduce adverse events in patients with severely impaired left ventricular (LV) function and precarious haemodynamics during complex cardiovascular procedures. Despite numerous benefits, MCS requires large-bore access, which increases the risks of vascular complications. The iVAC2L (PulseCath BV, Arnhem, The Netherlands) provides up to 2.0 L/min output using pulsatile flow and is an effective tool for LV unloading, but requires a large-bore sheath (18 Fr). Case summary: We describe four cases of sheathless insertion of iVAC2L during high-risk cardiovascular interventions. Two cases consisted in high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions, and two other cases were transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair. All cases were successful, and no adverse events could be observed. Discussion: The sheathless approach requires an 11% smaller arteriotomy. This case series aims to display how the iVAC2L catheter can be deployed without a sheath to minimize access size in a safe and feasible manner and proposes a structured approach to its deployment. When performed in selected patients, this strategy may reduce vascular complications. Conclusion: Sheathless introduction of iVAC2L was feasible and safe safely deployed in selected cases of coronary and structural interventions. Larger studies are necessary to further define its impact on event rates.
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.