SynthesisReviews in cardiovascular medicine2025
Meta-Analysis of Durable Compared to Temporary Left Ventricular Assist Devices Compared to Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Bridging to Heart Transplantation or Treatment of Primary Graft Dysfunction.
Synthesis in Reviews 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients bridged to heart transplantation (HTx) and patients with primary graft dysfunction (PGD) after HTx are typically treated with circulatory support. However, the survival of patients in both indications might depend on the type of circulatory support. Thus, this meta-analysis aimed to investigate the survival of HTx patients supported during bridging with a durable left ventricular assist device (d-LVAD), a temporary LVAD (t-LVAD), or venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). We also investigated the survival rate of patients with PGD by type of circulatory support device. Methods: We performed a random-effects meta-analysis. Results: We included four studies evaluating bridging to HTx (n = 1678 patients) and three studies for the PGD analysis (n = 35 patients). The 1-year survival after HTx was significantly higher in patients bridged with a t-LVAD (92.7%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 89.2 to 95.6%; Conclusions: Both d-LVAD and t-LVAD bridging methods appear to have comparable 1-year survival rates, which are higher than those after VA-ECMO bridging. Nonetheless, more prospective clinical studies are needed to investigate outcomes after using circulatory support devices for PGD after HTx. The PROSPERO registration: CRD420251149065, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251149065.
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.