ReviewHeart international2022
A Comprehensive Review of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.
Review in Heart international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies.Intensive care medicine · 2024Pooled it
- A potential survival benefit in coronary artery bypass grafting with micro-axial temporary pump recovery in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs · 2026Article
- Computational and Experimental Assessment of Shear-Induced Blood Trauma by HeartMate II, HeartMate 3, and BrioVAD.ASAIO journal (American Society for Artificial Internal Organs : 1992) · 2026Article
- Multidisciplinary Approach to Ventricular Arrhythmias in the CICU: Integrating Mechanical Circulatory Support, Ablation, and Emerging Therapies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Co-designing emergency communication for patients with mechanical circulatory support devices.JHLT open · 2026Article
- Short-Term Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Coronary Syndrome with Cardiogenic Shock: Which Device to Choose?Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- Contemporary Mechanical Support Devices for Temporary and Long-Term Applications.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Infections in mechanical circulatory support.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Cardiogenic Shock Management in the Modern Era: A Narrative Review of Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Cardiogenic shock: a review of contemporary approaches and ongoing challenges.Future cardiology · 2025Review
- Cardiovascular Physiology During Mechanical Circulatory Support: Implications for Management and Monitoring.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Cardiac Ischaemia-Reperfusion Injury: Pathophysiology, Therapeutic Targets and Future Interventions.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Advances in Mechanical Circulatory Support (MCS): Literature Review.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Cardiac transplantation: A review of current status and emerging innovations.World journal of transplantation · 2025Review
- Left Ventricular Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices for Cardiogenic Shock After Myocardial Infarction.Cardiology and therapy · 2025Review
- Outcomes with mechanical circulatory support devices among patients with mechanical complications of acute myocardial infarction.European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care · 2025Observational
- 2024 EACTS/EACTAIC Guidelines on patient blood management in adult cardiac surgery in collaboration with EBCP.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2025Article
- 2024 EACTS/EACTAIC Guidelines on patient blood management in adult cardiac surgery in collaboration with EBCP.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2025Article
- Bridging to orthotopic heart transplant: Reducing the risk of intra-operative blood loss.JHLT open · 2025Article
- The role of temporary mechanical circulatory support in heart failure.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Treatment strategies to combat cardiogenic shock (CS) have remained stagnant over the past decade. Mortality rates among patients who suffer CS after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remain high at 50%. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have evolved as novel treatment strategies to restore systemic perfusion to allow cardiac recovery in the short term, or as durable support devices in refractory heart failure in the long term. Haemodynamic parameters derived from right heart catheterization assist in the selection of an appropriate MCS device and escalation of mechanical support where needed. Evidence favouring the use of one MCS device over another is scant. An intra-aortic balloon pump is the most commonly used short-term MCS device, despite providing only modest haemodynamic support. Impella CP® has been increasingly used for CS in recent times and remains an important focus of research for patients with AMI-CS. Among durable devices, Heartmate® 3 is the most widely used in the USA. Adequately powered randomized controlled trials are needed to compare these MCS devices and to guide the operator for their use in CS. This article provides a brief overview of the types of currently available MCS devices and the indications for their use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.