ReviewAnnals of biomedical engineering2026
Hemocompatibility of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices: An Integrated Review of Platelet Function Assessment in In-Vitro Blood Experiments.
Review in Annals of biomedical engineering, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDespite persistent bleeding and thrombotic adverse events in patients supported with blood pumps, standardized preclinical assessment of hemocompatibility remains largely restricted to hemolysis testing. To advance the field, robust and comparable in vitro platelet function testing within mock-loop mechanical circulatory support (MCS) studies is needed. This review systematically summarizes current methodologies for platelet function assessment in MCS devices and critically examines their advantages and limitations to inform the development of a unified, evidence-based testing framework.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and free-text terms in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Articles were screened according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
resultsThirty-nine studies met the eligibility criteria. Study designs varied substantially with respect to experiment duration, sampling strategies, mock-circulation loop configurations, and pump types. Human whole blood was the predominant test medium (n = 27). Anticoagulation strategies differed widely, with citrate-based formulations (n = 22) and heparin (n = 15) most frequently employed. Flow cytometry was the predominant analytical method (n = 25), primarily assessing platelet function through changes in surface receptor expression or shedding.
conclusionFlow cytometry offers a highly informative and direct approach for assessing platelet state in MCS research compared to other methods. However, substantial methodological heterogeneity continues to hinder data interpretation and cross-study comparability. Beyond standardizing experimental setups and protocols, future investigations should incorporate multiple complementary biomarkers and clarify their relationships to clinically relevant outcomes to more comprehensively characterize shear-induced platelet responses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42243564What 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.