ReviewBiomedicines2025
The Role of Impella in Cardiogenic Shock in the Post-DanGer Shock Era.
Review in Biomedicines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- CVIT expert consensus document on primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in 2026.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Axillary Versus Subclavian Venous Access for Permanent Pacemaker Implantation: Complications, Evolving Techniques and Practical Recommendations.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The microaxial flow pump (mAFP) is a mechanical circulatory support device designed to directly unload the left ventricle, restore cardiac output, and improve systemic perfusion in the setting of cardiogenic shock (CS). CS is a devastating complication of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and advanced heart failure, characterized by systemic hypoperfusion and myocardial dysfunction, carrying an in-hospital mortality of 30-50%. However, there has been controversy about whether these theoretical physiological mechanisms behind mAFP translate into actual survival or recovery in this patient population that has historically been difficult to study in prospective trials. The lack of consensus has resulted in differing national guidelines, resource allocation, and clinical decision-making in time-sensitive clinical scenarios. Earlier studies were limited to retrospective analyses and a single small, underpowered randomized trial, none of which showed a mortality benefit. In 2024, the DanGer Shock trial emerged as the first multi-center trial to demonstrate mortality benefit in patients with STEMI complicated by CS treated with Impella CP, albeit at the cost of increased risk of major bleeding, hemolysis, and vascular complications, an effect sustained in the 10 year outcomes published in 2025. In this review, we examine reasons for the differing results of preceding studies and compare how multinational guidelines have reacted to this new evidence. Finally, we provide practical considerations regarding the use, complications, and troubleshooting of this technology, and identify gaps in evidence regarding patient selection and timing of placement.
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.