ReviewESC heart failure2023
Roadmap towards an institutional Impella programme for high-risk coronary interventions.
Review in ESC heart failure, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impella malrotation affects left ventricle unloading in cardiogenic shock patients.ESC heart failure · 2025Article
- AI driven mechanical circulatory support: Can AI and Impella team up to beat cardiogenic shock.ESC heart failure · 2024Article
- Role of Mechanical Circulatory Support in Complex High-Risk and Indicated Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Current Indications, Device Options, and Potential Complications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Mechanical Circulatory Support with Impella: Principles, Evidence, and Daily Practice.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Roadmap towards an institutional Impella programme for high-risk coronary interventions.ESC heart failure · 2023Review
- Differential characteristics and outcomes of women and men undergoing Impella-supported high-risk PCI: IMPELLA-PL registry.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary artery disease (CAD) and its complications remain the main cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Patients with extensive CAD and multiple comorbidities who require complex, high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR-PCI) are at risk of haemodynamic instability and may require short-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS) during the procedure to maintain sufficient perfusion and prevent ischaemia. Impella is a microaxial continuous blood flow pump used for percutaneous support of the left ventricle in patients undergoing HR-PCI. Data from randomized controlled trials and registries suggested an advantage for Impella devices in patients undergoing HR-PCI, compared with other types of MCS. As a thorough understanding of the benefits and drawbacks of the Impella technology is crucial for patient outcomes, we provide a technological overview of Impella and share our experiences gathered during the implementation of institutional Impella programmes in Poland as a roadmap of selection and periprocedural care for patients treated with Impella in the setting of HR-PCI. We propose 10 steps for implementation of an institutional Impella programme for HR-PCI, including (i) dedicated staff training; (ii) standard operating procedure and troubleshooting algorithms prior to the first intervention; (iii) patient selection by the multidisciplinary Heart Team; (iv) patient preparation using multimodality imaging; (v) procedure planning in terms of large-bore access, equipment, and complete revascularization; (vi) starting with HR-PCI support; (vii) starting with femoral artery access in a patient without extensive peripheral artery disease; (viii) multidisciplinary care after the procedure; (ix) haemodynamic and laboratory monitoring to ensure immediate diagnosis of access-site complications, bleeding, haemolysis, acute kidney injury, and infections; and (x) careful revision of every HR-PCI case with the team.
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.