ArticleCirculation reports2026
Long-Term Implantable Biventricular Assist Device Support - Experience of 6 Cases.
Article in Circulation reports, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Managing heart failure complicated by severe right heart failure with implantable mechanical circulatory support remains a significant challenge. One therapeutic strategy is biventricular assist device (BiVAD) support, typically involving the off-label use of 2 implantable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). Because the available data of implantable BiVAD support remain limited, we reviewed the data for 6 patients on implantable BiVAD support. Methods and Results: Between January 2010 and March 2019, 6 patients underwent BiVAD implantation at Osaka University Hospital. Their mean age was 31±11 years, and 2 (33%) were male. The right ventricular assist devices (RVADs) utilized were Jarvik2000 (Jarvik Heart, NY, USA) in 4 patients (67%), and HVAD (HeartWare, Framingham, MA, USA) in 2 patients (33%). The survival rates at 1 and 3 years after BiVAD implantation were 83% and 67%, respectively. Of the 6 patients, 4 underwent heart transplantation at 553, 709, 791, and 1,245 days, respectively, following RVAD implantation; 2 patients died during follow-up at 280 and 511 days, respectively, after RVAD implantation. Stroke occurred in 3 patients. Hemolysis or pump thrombosis occurred in 3 patients. Heart failure occurred in 3 patients. Device-related infection occurred in 1 patient. Conclusions: Although implantable BiVAD support provided a feasible bridge to transplantation with favorable survival, the high incidence of complications indicates that significant challenges remain in optimizing patient outcomes and emphasizes the necessity for RV-specific device development.
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.