Temporary Right Ventricular Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Acute Right Ventricular Failure and Cardiogenic Shock: A Cross-Device Systematic Review and Single-Arm Meta-Analysis.
Hussein Elghazaly, Omar Naeim, Anna Collins, Mohamed Abouegla, Omar Elsiraffy, Syed Yusuf Maududi
{"title":"Temporary Right Ventricular Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Acute Right Ventricular Failure and Cardiogenic Shock: A Cross-Device Systematic Review and Single-Arm Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Hussein Elghazaly, Omar Naeim, Anna Collins, Mohamed Abouegla, Omar Elsiraffy, Syed Yusuf Maududi","doi":"10.1111/aor.70256","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Evidence for temporary right ventricular assist devices (tRVADs) is fragmented. We characterized outcomes among adults receiving temporary support for acute right ventricular (RV) failure or RV-predominant cardiogenic shock.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to June 2026. Arm-level outcome proportions were pooled on the logit scale using three-level random-effects models, with arms nested within studies. Device-stratified estimates, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses were examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 106 studies (119 device arms; 4653 patients), including 57 conference-abstract studies (53.8%). Concurrent left-sided support was reported in 85.8% of patients with available data; post-LVAD RV failure predominated in 47.5% of arms. Separately pooled survival to discharge was 60.4% (95% CI 56.0-64.7; 63 arms), successful weaning 60.6% (54.8-66.2; 68 arms), and 30-day mortality 30.1% (24.1-36.9; 31 arms). The survival prediction interval was wide (34.4%-81.6%). Pooled bleeding, renal complications (acute kidney injury and/or renal replacement therapy, as reported), and stroke were 36.5%, 46.6%, and 14.5%, respectively. Device-stratified estimates were vulnerable to confounding. No meta-regression association remained significant after multiplicity correction.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These descriptive estimates characterize selected, heterogeneous treated cohorts, predominantly receiving left-sided or biventricular support; they do not establish treatment benefit or comparative device effectiveness. Complication rates were high. Applicability to isolated primary RV shock is limited. Standardized prospective data are needed to inform patient selection, timing, and device strategy.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO registration number: CRD420261406088.</p>","PeriodicalId":8450,"journal":{"name":"Artificial organs","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Artificial organs","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aor.70256","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Evidence for temporary right ventricular assist devices (tRVADs) is fragmented. We characterized outcomes among adults receiving temporary support for acute right ventricular (RV) failure or RV-predominant cardiogenic shock.
Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to June 2026. Arm-level outcome proportions were pooled on the logit scale using three-level random-effects models, with arms nested within studies. Device-stratified estimates, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses were examined.
Results: We included 106 studies (119 device arms; 4653 patients), including 57 conference-abstract studies (53.8%). Concurrent left-sided support was reported in 85.8% of patients with available data; post-LVAD RV failure predominated in 47.5% of arms. Separately pooled survival to discharge was 60.4% (95% CI 56.0-64.7; 63 arms), successful weaning 60.6% (54.8-66.2; 68 arms), and 30-day mortality 30.1% (24.1-36.9; 31 arms). The survival prediction interval was wide (34.4%-81.6%). Pooled bleeding, renal complications (acute kidney injury and/or renal replacement therapy, as reported), and stroke were 36.5%, 46.6%, and 14.5%, respectively. Device-stratified estimates were vulnerable to confounding. No meta-regression association remained significant after multiplicity correction.
Conclusions: These descriptive estimates characterize selected, heterogeneous treated cohorts, predominantly receiving left-sided or biventricular support; they do not establish treatment benefit or comparative device effectiveness. Complication rates were high. Applicability to isolated primary RV shock is limited. Standardized prospective data are needed to inform patient selection, timing, and device strategy.
期刊介绍：
Artificial Organs is the official peer reviewed journal of The International Federation for Artificial Organs (Members of the Federation are: The American Society for Artificial Internal Organs, The European Society for Artificial Organs, and The Japanese Society for Artificial Organs), The International Faculty for Artificial Organs, the International Society for Rotary Blood Pumps, The International Society for Pediatric Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Support, and the Vienna International Workshop on Functional Electrical Stimulation. Artificial Organs publishes original research articles dealing with developments in artificial organs applications and treatment modalities and their clinical applications worldwide. Membership in the Societies listed above is not a prerequisite for publication. Articles are published without charge to the author except for color figures and excess page charges as noted.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
