ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Mechanical circulatory support devices in heart failure: a narrative review of current evidence, clinical applications, complications, and future directions.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mechanical circulatory support devices (MCSDs) have evolved from rescue therapy for refractory cardiogenic shock (CS) to an essential component of advanced heart failure management, spanning temporary support, bridge strategies, durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD), and total artificial heart (TAH). This structured narrative review summarizes the historical evolution, current indications, device classification, major short-term and long-term platforms, adverse events, and future directions of MCSDs. Literature was selected in a structured narrative manner with emphasis on contemporary guidelines, randomized or comparative studies, major registries, and representative Chinese experience. Available evidence shows that MCSDs can improve hemodynamics and, in selected populations, survival and quality of life; however, these benefits must be balanced against bleeding, stroke, infection, right heart failure, device malfunction, cost, and major ethical and access constraints. Current practice thus necessitates careful patient selection, stage-based therapeutic escalation, and rigorous evaluation of mixed evidence pertaining to temporary MCSDs, LVAD and TAH, instead of merely describing individual devices.
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.