ArticleClinical cardiology2019
Use of Impella heart pump for management of women with peripartum cardiogenic shock.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.
- Temporary Left Ventricular Assist Device for Peripartum Cardiogenic Shock as a Bridge to Cesarean Delivery.JACC. Case reports · 2026Article
- Antepartum Temporary Heart Pump Placement to Support Delivery and Bridge to Transplant.JACC. Case reports · 2025Article
- Mechanical Circulatory Support Strategies for Cardiogenic Shock Secondary to Peripartum Cardiomyopathy.Annals of thoracic surgery short reports · 2025Article
- Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy and Peripartum Cardiomyopathy: A Meta-Analysis of Prevalence and Impact on Left Ventricular Function and Mortality.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Maternal heart failure: state-of-the-art review.Heart failure reviews · 2025Review
- Successful Impella 5.0 Catheter Removal in the Setting of Left Ventricular Thrombus With Use of the Sentinel Cerebral Protection Device.Case reports in cardiology · 2025Article
- Cardio-obstetrics in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit: An Introductory Guide.US cardiology · 2025Review
- Preemptive Use of a Left Microaxial Flow Pump in Peripartum Cardiomyopathy.JACC. Case reports · 2024Article
- Temporary mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to transplant in peripartum cardiomyopathy.JHLT open · 2024Article
- What Do We Know about Peripartum Cardiomyopathy? Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Recommendations for the Management of High-Risk Cardiac Delivery: ACC Cardiovascular Disease in Women Committee Panel.JACC. Advances · 2024Review
- Contemporary Management of Cardiomyopathy and Heart Failure in Pregnancy.Cardiology and therapy · 2024Review
- Addressing Barriers for Women with Advanced Heart Failure.Current cardiology reports · 2023Review
- Cardiovascular Complications Associated With COVID-19 During Delivery Hospitalizations in Pandemic Year 2020.JACC. Advances · 2023Article
- Peripartum Cardiogenic Shock and Mechanical Circulatory Support.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 2023Review
- Cardiovascular Complications of Pregnancy-Associated COVID-19 Infections.JACC. Advances · 2022Review
- Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Trends and Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Peripartum Cardiomyopathy.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Acute Coronary Syndrome in Pregnancy and the Post-Partum Period.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2022Review
- Heart Failure Subtypes and Cardiomyopathies in Women.Circulation research · 2022Article
- Peripartum cardiomyopathy: a review.Heart failure reviews · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS), such as the Impella heart pump is a valuable option for cardiogenic shock (CS), although the use of Impella in CS due to peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM) is limited.
objectiveTo assess outcomes in women with PPCM supported with an Impella device from the global catheter-based ventricular assist device (cVAD) Registry. METHODS AND
resultsA total of 15 women with PPCM supported with Impella devices between November 2008 and October 2015 were included. Of the 15 women, five were treated at Hannover medical school and have been reported previously, the rest were managed at various US hospitals. The mean age was 30.0 ± 7.34 years, eight women were Caucasian, and seven were African-American. The occurrence of PPCM was post-delivery in eight (53.3%), at delivery in one (6.7%), and during gestation in four women (26.7%). At admission, all women had severe heart failure with a mean ejection fraction of 14.7 ± 6% and 13 women (86.7%) presented with CS. Prior to Impella, 100% were mechanically ventilated, 79% received inotropes/vasopressors, 20% supported with IABP, and 27% received veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) during Impella support. Two women (13.3%) died, and 13 (87.7%) survived to discharge. Eight women (53.3%) had a recovery of native heart function and six (40%) were bridged to durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD).
conclusionMCS with Impella devices can be successfully used as a bridge to early improvement, heart recovery, or successful implantation of durable LVAD in women with PPCM complicated by severe LV dysfunction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.