ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Early temporary ventricular assist device intervention improves survival in fulminant myocarditis with cardiogenic shock: experience from a single centre and national cohort.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Acute fulminant myocarditis (AFM) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) often leads to rapid multi-organ failure. While extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is commonly used as an initial stabilizing measure, mortality remains high, particularly in patients requiring extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR). Temporary ventricular assist devices (VADs) offer superior organ perfusion and more physiological hemodynamics compared to ECLS. Method: This retrospective study analyzed 16 AFM patients with CS who underwent VAD implantation following ECPR between December 2015 and February 2024. Clinical data, including laboratory profiles, vasopressor use, echocardiographic findings, and neurological status, were assessed. In parallel, survival outcomes from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) were compared among AFM patients treated with ECMO, VAD, or no mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Result: Of the 16 patients, 12 survived (75%) and 10 achieved cardiac recovery. Pre-VAD pulmonary artery pressure >40 mmHg and failure to wean from epinephrine by postoperative day 1 were associated with mortality. NHIRD analysis of 1,731 myocarditis patients showed the highest 30-day survival in the VAD group (88%) compared to ECMO (52%) or no MCS (71%; Conclusion: AFM with CS often rapidly progresses to multi-organ failure. While ECMO provides initial circulatory support, survival remains poor once initiated. Early transition from ECMO to VAD is critical in improving survival for AFM patients with CS, particularly those receiving ECPR.
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.