Special Issue

Interventions for the failing left ventricle

Submission Deadline: 30 Oct 2021

Guest Editors

  • Portrait of Guest Editor John  Elefteriades

    John Elefteriades MD

    Aortic Institute at Yale-New Haven, Yale Medicine Department of Surgery, New Haven, CT, USA

    Interests: Coronary artery bypass; Genetics; Heart aneurysm; Aortic aneurysm; Thoracic

  • Portrait of Guest Editor Bulat Ayratovich  Ziganshin

    Bulat Ayratovich Ziganshin MD

    Department of Surgery, Section of Cardiac Surgery, Yale University, USA

    Interests: Aorta; Aneurysm; Aortic diseases; Cardiac surgery; Vascular medicine; Phlebology; Cardiovascular surgery; Aortic aneurysm; Aortic dissection; Global health

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Up to the first half of the 1980s, it was considered unwise to operate on a patient with a severely impaired left ventricle (EF < 30%). Surgeons who did so were widely and severely criticized. The concerns were (1) that the risk of surgery would be extremely high, often taking the patient’s life in the process of surgery, and (2) that the patient would manifest an inexorable deterioration toward death regardless of the surgery performed. Courageous surgical efforts in that era led to the safe and commonplace performance of surgical interventions for the failing left ventricle in the present era. This Special Issue takes specific aim at the current status of surgery for patients with severely impaired left ventricles—exploring current indications, current levels of safety, and advanced surgical options.

Dr. John Elefteriades and Dr. Bulat Ziganshin

Guest Editors

Keywords

  • Low EF
  • Failing left ventricle
  • CABG
  • MVR
  • Mechanical cardiac assistance
  • Heart transplantation

Published Papers (12)

Open Access Original Research
1348
167
2
Open Access Review
1035
266
5
Open Access Review
224
127
Open Access Review
740
500
13
Open Access Review
823
608
11
Open Access Review
626
271
1
Open Access Review
1610
1406
13
Open Access Review
3181
2445
67
Open Access Review
418
242
1
Open Access Review
812
366
3
Open Access Review
1636
949
6

Share