ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2025
Hemodynamic improvement with Impella RP in acute massive pulmonary embolism: a narrative review of cardiovascular outcomes and pulmonary catheter pressure assessment.
Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Intraprocedural Management of Pulmonary Embolism Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Treatment, and Ventilatory and Cardiac Support.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Acute massive pulmonary embolism (PE) can lead to right ventricular (RV) failure and cardiogenic shock, requiring urgent treatment. Thrombolytic therapy is the standard treatment for high-risk PE in hemodynamically unstable patients. However, in cases where thrombolytics are contraindicated or ineffective, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) serves as a rescue therapy. While veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is commonly utilized, the Impella RP represents a promising advancement in MCS, offering right ventricular support in patients with PE-induced cardiogenic shock. Objective: This narrative review evaluates the role of the Impella RP in improving hemodynamic parameters in patients with PE-induced cardiogenic shock or right ventricular failure. By reviewing available case reports and case series, we assess the effectiveness of Impella RP in improving patient outcomes. Methods: A comprehensive literature review was conducted, obtaining data from clinical studies, case reports, case series, systematic review, and hemodynamic assessments of Impella RP in massive PE. Key parameters, including blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), right atrial pressure (RAP), pulmonary artery pressure (PAP), cardiac index (CI), cardiac output (CO), and overall patient outcomes, were analyzed before and after device implantation. Findings: Our review identified 10 patients from case reports and case series in which the Impella RP was used as mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in high-risk PE patients. Hemodynamic parameters showed significant improvement following Impella RP implantation. Notably the survival rate was 100%, highlighting the role of Impella RP in managing massive PE with right ventricular failure. Conclusion: The use of Impella RP in hemodynamically unstable patients with high risk PE have shown positive outcome, including improved cardiac function and hemodynamic stability. These findings suggest that Impella RP could be valuable treatment options for patients with massive PE and right heart failure. However, the limited number of reported cases highlights the need for larger-scale clinical studies and randomized trials to further assess the long-term safety, efficacy, and optimal patient selection criteria for Impella RP use.
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.