ArticleTurk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi2026
The impact of position changes of the inflow cannula in LVAD patients.
Article in Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Left ventricular assist device inflow cannula malposition can contribute to numerous negative outcomes after device implantation. We analyzed the impact of position changes in the inflow cannula angle in HeartMate II (HM II) and HeartMate 3 (HM 3) patients. Methods: Between January 2012 and December 2023, patients who underwent HM II and HM 3 implantation were reviewed. Among them, patients with suitable chest X-rays for angle calculation at both 1-2 months and 6-12 months post-implantation were identified. Results: The study cohort consisted of 66 (82.5%) HM 3 and 14 (17.5%) HM II patients. The median age of the cohort was 57.6 years (Interquartile range [IQR], 47.4-63.2), and the majority were males (n=73, 91.2%). Operative data and demographics were similar between the groups except for the body surface area (p<0.01), body mass index (p=0.01) and hypertension (p=0.02). A significant increase in the inflow cannula coronal angle was observed in the HM 3 group (p=0.03), while the pump depth distance remained similar (p=0.37). In contrast, the HM II group showed no significant changes in the inflow cannula angle (p=0.39) or the pump body angle (p=0.32). The HM 3 group exhibited a significant increase in pump power and pulstility index over time (p<0.01 and p=0.02, respectively). Conclusion: A significant increase in the coronal angle of the inflow cannula over time was observed in HM 3 patients. Proper assessment of pump positioning at implantation is important, especially in hypertensive and overweight patients, as changes in pump angle over time may influence pump parameters.
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.