Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41007760›Full record

ReviewBiomedicines2025

The Role of Impella in Cardiogenic Shock in the Post-DanGer Shock Era.

Kassem Farhat, Sara Pollanen, Rongras Damrongwatanasuk, Laura DiChiacchio, Colby Salerno, Nikhil Sikand, Wissam I Khalife, Jiun-Ruey Hu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Kassem FarhatDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06510, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4749-0193
Sara PollanenTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3K3, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4953-2414
Rongras DamrongwatanasukDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40290, USA.
Laura DiChiacchioDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA 90048, USA.
Colby SalernoDepartment of Cardiology, UMass Chan-Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA 01199, USA.
Nikhil SikandSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06510, USA.
Wissam I KhalifeDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX 77555, USA.
Jiun-Ruey HuDepartment of Cardiology, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA 90048, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

cardiogenic shockImpellamechanical circulatory supportmicroaxial flow pumpmyocardial infarction

Identifiers

PMID41007760
PMCPMC12467919

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.