ArticleAdvances in therapy2022
Budget Impact Analysis of Impella CP
Article in Advances in therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hospital Costs Associated With Mechanical Left Ventricular Unloading Devices During VA ECMO for Adult Cardiogenic Shock.Artificial organs · 2026Article
- Cardiogenic Shock Management in the Modern Era: A Narrative Review of Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Beating Heart Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting with Preemptive ImpellaBiomedicines · 2025Article
- Changing Trends in Mechanical Circulatory Support Use and Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Interventions for Acute Coronary Syndrome Complicated With Cardiogenic Shock: Insights From a Nationwide Registry in Japan.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2023Article
- Review
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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEarly detection and treatment of cardiogenic shock (CS) is crucial to avoid irreparable multiorgan damage and mortality. Impella CP
methodsA budget impact model was developed to compare the cost of introducing Impella CP with continuing IABP and VA-ECMO treatment from a Mandatory Health Insurance (MHI) perspective in France over a 5-year time horizon, with 700 patients with refractory CS assumed to be eligible for treatment per year. Costs associated with Impella CP and device-related complications for all interventions were captured and clinical input data were based on published sources. Scenario analyses were performed around key parameters.
resultsIntroducing Impella CP was associated with cumulative cost savings of EUR 2.7 million over 5 years, versus continuing current clinical practice with IABP and VA-ECMO. Cost savings were achieved in every year of the analysis and driven by the lower incidence of device-related complications with Impella CP, with estimated 5-year cost savings of EUR 22.4 million due to avoidance of complications. Total cost savings of more than EUR 250,000 were projected in the first year of the analysis, which increased as the market share of Impella CP was increased. Scenario analyses indicated that the findings of the analysis were robust.
conclusionTreatment with Impella CP in adult patients aged less than 75 years in a state of refractory CS following an MI was projected to lead to substantial cost savings from an MHI perspective in France, compared with continuing current clinical practice.
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.