ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Mechanical circulatory support as a cornerstone in advanced heart failure and transplantation.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. 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
Orthotopic heart transplantation remains the gold standard for managing selected patients with end-stage heart failure (HF) who are unresponsive to conventional therapies. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS), encompassing durable (dMCS) and temporary (tMCS) devices, has become a cornerstone in bridging patients to transplant (BTT) and also addressing the increasing burden of advanced HF with dMCS destination therapy. Each type of MCS offers distinct advantages tailored to specific patient needs and clinical scenarios. This review summarizes the features of MCS devices, their implications in clinical practice, and their impact on patient outcomes. Evidence demonstrates that dMCS, including the widely used durable left ventricular assist device HeartMate 3, significantly improves the prognosis of waitlisted patients and is associated with better post-transplant outcomes compared to tMCS when used as a BTT strategy. However, recent trends in allocation systems favor prioritizing tMCS-supported patients to improve outcomes for sicker individuals, underscoring the complexity of resource allocation. In this context, recent tMCs devices such as the Impella 5.5 have demonstrated promising early results as BTT, and ongoing larger studies with long-term follow-up will be crucial to better define their optimal indications and patient selection. Additional research is required to ascertain whether urgency-based models provide the most equitable distribution of resources while optimizing both pre- and post-transplant outcomes. Continued innovation in MCS technology, alongside the development of personalized treatment strategies, is vital to address the evolving needs of the growing advanced HF population. Future advancements should prioritize creating devices that are easier to implant, feature wireless power sources, and provide more physiological support, ultimately enhancing the care and outcomes of patients with advanced HF.
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.