ArticleJTCVS open2025
Outcomes of prolonged support on surgically implanted microaxial left ventricular assist devices for refractory cardiogenic shock.
Article in JTCVS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improvement of persistent anuria by long-term percutaneous ventricular assist device management and successful bridge to left ventricular assist device implantation in a patient with acute myocardial infarction: a case report.European heart journal. Case reports · 2026Article
- Worldwide research trends on left ventricular assist devices for heart failure: a bibliometric analysis.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Review
- Article
- The Role of Impella in Cardiogenic Shock in the Post-DanGer Shock Era.Biomedicines · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The US Food and Drug Administration approved the use of Impella 5.5 (Abiomed) for mechanical circulatory support for up to 14 days, but many patients require longer duration of support. This study sought to compare outcomes of standard versus prolonged Impella 5.5 support. Methods: A retrospective review of 257 patients implanted with the Impella 5.5 device between 2020 and 2024 for cardiogenic shock at 2 high-volume institutions was conducted. Patients were stratified by standard (≤14 days) (n = 143) versus prolonged (>14 days) (n = 114) device support. Results: At baseline, the etiology of shock was more likely to be acute decompensated heart failure (74.6% vs 52.4%; Conclusions: Extended Impella 5.5 device support beyond 14 days was not associated with increased incidence of mortality, major bleeding, or stroke in our study, and may be effective for patients requiring extended ventricular assist device support as bridge to heart transplant.
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.