ArticleAnnals of cardiac anaesthesia2026
Anesthetic Management in Patients with Impella Devices: A Retrospective Review and Clinical Guide.
Article in Annals of cardiac anaesthesia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Impella family of percutaneous a left ventricular assist devices are increasingly used for hemodynamic support in patients with cardiogenic shock or advanced heart failure. However, guidance on anesthetic management for patients with Impella support undergoing noncardiac procedures remains sparse. This study reviews perioperative practices and outcomes to inform clinical management.
methodsFollowing institutional review board approval, a retrospective analysis was performed of adult patients receiving an Impella device (2.5, CP, 5.0, or 5.5) at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, USA, between December 2017 and October 2024. Patients, who subsequently underwent procedures involving anesthesia care were included. Demographics, procedure type, anesthetic technique, pharmacologic management, hemodynamic support, and intraoperative outcomes were analyzed descriptively.
resultsAmong 165 Impella recipients, 41 underwent anesthesia requiring procedures: Eight gastrointestinal (GI) and 33 non-GI interventions. All GI cases involved Impella 5.5 devices, commonly for urgent endoscopy in gastrointestinal bleeding. General anesthesia was used in 50% of GI and 94% of non-GI cases. Propofol and etomidate were predominant induction agents; fentanyl and rocuronium were widely utilized. Phenylephrine and norepinephrine were the most frequent vasopressors, with adjunctive use of dobutamine or epinephrine. No intraoperative device malfunctions, dislodgements, or arrests occurred.
conclusionsWith individualized anesthetic planning and vigilant hemodynamic control, Impella-supported patients can safely undergo diverse procedures. Deep sedation may suffice for select endoscopic interventions, whereas complex non-GI operations generally require general anesthesia. These findings provide a foundation for developing standardized perioperative management protocols for this growing patient population.
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.