ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
From innovation to implementation: expanding global access to mechanical circulatory support and heart transplantation.
Review 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) and heart transplantation are established therapies for advanced heart failure and cardiogenic shock. Technological advances have improved outcomes, including randomized evidence supporting the use of temporary MCS, such as percutaneous ventricular assist devices, in selected patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock, alongside substantial gains in survival with contemporary durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). Despite this progress, access remains highly inequitable. Although global transplant activity has increased in recent years, heart transplantation remains concentrated in a small number of regions; historically, approximately 90% of procedures have been performed in North America and Western Europe. Similarly, temporary MCS use is largely limited to tertiary care centers, while durable LVAD use is concentrated in high-income settings. These disparities reflect differences in health system capacity across infrastructure, workforce, regulation, financing, culture, ethics, longitudinal follow-up, and data systems, as well as variation in health-system investment, language access, health literacy, and the completeness of registry-based data capture. In many resource-limited settings, fragmented care pathways lead to a "bridge to nowhere," where temporary support is initiated without access to definitive therapy. In this narrative review with scoping methods, we examine global variation in access to MCS and heart transplantation, map patient care pathways, and organize barriers into key system domains. We further synthesize potential solutions and propose a practical implementation roadmap spanning regionalized shock systems, durable MCS referral and follow-up networks, donor management infrastructure, workforce development, health financing strategies, and registry-based quality improvement.
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.