ReviewHeart failure reviews2025
Atrial shunt therapy for heart failure: an update review.
Review in Heart failure reviews, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interatrial shunt devices (IASDs) and implant-free strategies have emerged as novel approaches for heart failure (HF) management by mechanically unloading the left atrium (LA) to reduce left atrial pressure (LAP), a key driver of pulmonary congestion and exercise intolerance. However, evidence from pivotal randomized trials remains mixed, and optimal patient selection is evolving. To provide an updated and balanced review of IASDs and implant-free atrial shunting therapies, integrating recent data from major clinical trials and exploring their current role, limitations, and future perspectives in HF. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to August 2025. We summarized available evidence on device designs, procedural approaches, pivotal trials, patient selection, contraindications, and safety considerations. Early feasibility studies demonstrated improvements in hemodynamics, functional capacity, and quality of life. However, REDUCE LAP-HF II failed to show an overall clinical benefit, with potential harm signals in patients with elevated pulmonary vascular resistance. RELIEVE-HF similarly reported no significant improvement in the composite endpoint; however, the HFpEF subgroups showed favorable signals. RESPONDER-HF demonstrated modest but significant quality-of-life improvements in carefully selected HFpEF patients without pulmonary vascular disease. Implant-free strategies, such as Alleviant and InterShunt, aim to minimize device-related risks but remain in early investigation. Interatrial shunt therapy holds promise for a subset of HF patients but is not universally beneficial. Precision-based patient selection, integration with guideline-directed therapy, and validation through ongoing sham-controlled trials are critical before broader clinical adoption.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41326847What 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.