ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024
Mechanical Circulatory Support with Impella: Principles, Evidence, and Daily Practice.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Axial Flow Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices: Physiology, Procedural Considerations, and Clinical Applications-A State-of-the-Art Review.Structural heart : the journal of the Heart Team · 2026Review
- Equity at the Intersection of Heart Failure and Interventions: A Review of the Spectrum From Ambulatory Care to Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Review
- Clinical outcomes following Impella escalation in cardiogenic shock: a single-centre case series highlighting the gap between haemodynamic improvement and survival.AME case reports · 2026Article
- Cardiovascular Physiology During Mechanical Circulatory Support: Implications for Management and Monitoring.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Advances in Mechanical Circulatory Support (MCS): Literature Review.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support for Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock.Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal · 2025Review
- Fluoroscopy-free Impella repositioning after coronary artery bypass grafting: case report of a novel echocardiographic-guided technique.Journal of visualized surgery · 2025Article
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
The Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA) microaxial pump is a percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) that has been shown to increase coronary perfusion, reduce myocardial oxygen demand, and improve peripheral organ perfusion. Therefore, indications for the Impella device include emergency use for cardiogenic shock (CS) and pre-emptive implantation during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR-PCI). However, despite their exponential use in cardiovascular practice over the past decade, there is limited randomized evidence to support the benefits of this therapy and growing concern regarding complication rates. In this review, we summarize the principles, evidence, and practical considerations of the most widely used Impella CP percutaneous left ventricular support in both CS and HR-PCI settings, moving from the historical background to current issues and future expectations for this device.
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.