ReviewJournal of stroke2026
Microcirculation and Cerebrovascular Autoregulation in Patients With Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.
Review in Journal of stroke, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute brain injury (ABI) affects up to one-third of patients using mechanical circulatory support (MCS). In venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO), ABI incidence (11%-40%) has not improved in two decades. Conversely, improvements in left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have reduced the incidence of stroke, although it remains a major complication (10%-30%). The failure of MCS to ensure adequate cerebral protection may impair cerebrovascular autoregulation (CVAR) and disrupt microcirculatory function affected by reduced pulsatility, endothelial injury, acute perturbations in partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO2), and cerebral venous congestion. Here, we review evidence demonstrating that these factors alter microcirculatory dynamics and CVAR, thereby contributing to ABI through shared mechanistic pathways. Current methods for assessing CVAR are reviewed, including invasive indices such as the pressure reactivity index (PRx) from intracranial pressure monitoring and noninvasive metrics such as the cerebral oximetry index (COx) from near-infrared spectroscopy or flow-velocity correlations from transcranial Doppler. Each method is limited by feasibility, signal artifacts, and inter-modality variability. Our review identifies three priority areas for cerebral protection in MCS: preservation of pulse pressure, cautious titration of PaCO2, and integration of CVAR-informed blood pressure management. Preliminary evidence suggests that very low pulse pressure, rapid carbon dioxide correction, and persistent microcirculatory impairment are each associated with ABI risk. Future investigations should focus on validating bedside tools to assess CVAR and microcirculatory integrity, and on determining whether physiological targets derived from these measures can improve neurological outcomes in patients using MCS.
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.