ArticleJournal of cardiovascular translational research2026
Impact of Microaxial Flow Pump on Coronary Flow Dynamics in Normal Hearts: An Experimental Evaluation.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular translational research, 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The effects of microaxial flow pump (mAFP) support on coronary flow (CF) are well characterized in failing hearts, but its impact on CF in normal hearts under different levels of left ventricular (LV) unloading remains unclear. Seven anesthetized Saanen goats underwent left thoracotomy, and an Impella 5.5 device was implanted via the left common carotid artery and operated at incremental support levels: Control (P1-2), Partial (P4-6), and Total (P7-9). Coronary perfusion pressure (CPP), coronary vascular resistance (CVR), myocardial oxygen consumption (MVO₂), and diastolic LV wall stress were calculated at each level. With increasing mAFP support, CPP increased whereas CF decreased by 32.1% from Control to Total support (69.6 ± 19.8 vs. 48.4 ± 21.1 mL/min), and CVR increased 260% (0.5 ± 0.2 vs. 1.8 ± 1.3 mmHg·min/mL). In normal hearts, mAFP elevates CPP but paradoxically reduces CF due to increased CVR associated with LV unloading.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42474903What 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.