ArticleJHLT open2026
Recent change in bridging strategy and improved clinical outcomes following durable left ventricular assist device implantation in Japan.
Article in JHLT open, 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: Destination therapy (DT) was approved in Japan in May 2021. Use of Impella device as a bridge to left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation has been increasing. The difference of clinical outcomes between Impella-bridge (a conversion from Impella to durable left ventricular assist device [LVAD]), bridge-to-bridge (BTB) (a conversion from extracorporeal LVAD to durable LVAD), and primary LVAD remains unclear especially in Japanese. Methods: Patients who underwent durable LVAD implantation between October 2017 and March 2025 and were prospectively registered in the Japanese Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (J-MACS) were included. The baseline characteristics, cumulative mortality, and adverse events following durable LVAD implantation were retrospectively compared between 2 bridging strategies and primary LVAD cohort. Results: A total of 964 patients who received durable LVAD implantation (median age: 49 years; primary LVAD: 77.4%; Impella-bridge: 11.6%; BTB: 11.0%) were analyzed. The prevalence of Impella-bridge strategy increased especially after DT approval and the introduction of Impella 5.5. The cumulative mortality during durable LVAD support was lowest in Impella-bridge cohort and highest in BTB cohort during a median follow-up of 1053 days (8.0% vs 21.0%). Among the total cohort, an Impella-bridge strategy tended to be associated with a lower mortality following durable LVAD implantation with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.316 (95% confidence interval 0.095-1.048, Conclusions: Impella-bridge strategy increased after the introduction of Impella 5.5 in the era of DT and tended to be associated with a lower mortality following durable LVAD implantation. Further studies are warranted to validate the hypothesis.
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.