ArticleJHLT open2026
Everyone deserves a second chance: The importance of second opinions for left ventricular assist device candidacy.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Although left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy improves survival and quality of life in patients with end-stage heart failure, appropriate patient selection is complex, with many patients being turned down for implantation because of perceived medical, surgical, or social barriers. However, some patients turned down for an implant at one center will go on to be successfully implanted elsewhere. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of all primary LVAD implantations at our center. Primary stratification was by prior turndown status. Primary outcome was survival as assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression modeling. Secondary outcomes included length of stay and commonly encountered postoperative complications. Results: From 2017 to 2025, 237 patients underwent primary LVAD implantation, 28 (11.81%) of whom were turned down for implantation at another center. When stratified by turndown status, there was no difference in operative mortality (17/209, 8.13% vs 2/28, 7.14%, Conclusions: Patients turned down for LVAD implantation at another center prior to referral to our center had similar short-term morbidity and mortality compared to patients not previously turned down for surgery. These findings suggest that patients with end-stage heart failure who are turned down for LVAD therapy at one center should seek or be referred for a second opinion at another center.
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.