Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42005564›Full record

ArticleJHLT open2026

Impact of Impella 5.5 duration support and clinical outcomes in cardiogenic shock: Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Mrunalini Dandamudi, Srinivas Vunnam, Tooba Rehman, Muhammad Aqib Faizan, Miguel A Samaniego-Laguna, John Cedric Mojica, Juliana Giorgi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JHLT open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Mrunalini DandamudiMontefiore Einstein Medical Center, Bronx, New York.
Srinivas VunnamUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska.
Tooba RehmanGomal Medical College, Khyber Medical University, Peshawar, Pakistan.
Muhammad Aqib FaizanGomal Medical College, Khyber Medical University, Peshawar, Pakistan.
Miguel A Samaniego-LagunaUniversidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Ciudad de México, Mexico.
John Cedric MojicaUniversity of the East Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Medical Center, Quezon City, Philippines.
Juliana GiorgiHospital Sirio Libanes, São Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The Impella 5.5 is FDA-approved for up to 14 days of support in patients with cardiogenic shock, however, its extended use is increasingly employed as a bridge to advanced therapies. Aim: To compare outcomes with short-term (≤14 days) vs prolonged (>14 days) Impella 5.5 support in patients with cardiogenic shock. Methods: Multiple databases were searched through September 2025 to identify relevant studies, and 5 studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing total of 1,440 patients. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis in R-software. Results: Prolonged Impella 5.5 support (>14 days) was associated with a higher likelihood of successful bridging to heart transplantation (RR: 1.96, 95% CI: 1.01-3.83; Conclusions: Extending Impella 5.5 support beyond 14 days in patients with cardiogenic shock appears advantageous for select patients, conferring improved survival and higher likelihood of successful bridging to heart transplantation. However, significantly higher risk of implant-site hematoma and infection necessitates meticulous vascular management, infection-prevention strategies and close clinical surveillance.

Indexed as

cardiogenic shockdecompensated heart failureheart transplantImpella 5.5left ventricular assist devicenative-heart survival

Identifiers

PMID42005564
PMCPMC13089130

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.