ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2022
Protective effect of the Impella on the left ventricular function after acute broad anterior wall ST elevation myocardial infarctions with cardiogenic shock: cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging strain analysis.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- DanGer shock criteria and outcomes in acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock treated with Impella: the J-PVAD registry.European heart journal · 2026Article
- Mechanical circulatory support reduces renal sympathetic nerve activity in an ovine model of acute myocardial infarction.Clinical autonomic research : official journal of the Clinical Autonomic Research Society · 2025Article
- Article
- Left ventricular dyssynchrony measured by cardiovascular magnetic resonance-feature tracking in anterior ST-elevation myocardial infarction: relationship with microvascular occlusion myocardial damage.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe clinical efficacy of the Impella for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and cardiogenic shock remains under debate. We thus sought to investigate the protective effects on the heart with the Impella's early use pre-PCI using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI).
methodsWe retrospectively evaluated the difference in the subacute phase CMR imaging results (19 ± 9 days after admission) between patients undergoing an Impella (n = 7) or not (non-Impella group: n = 18 [12 intra-aortic balloon pumps (1 plus veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) and 6 no mechanical circulation systems]) in broad anterior ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) cases. A mechanical circulation system was implanted pre-PCI.
resultsNo differences were found in the door-to-balloon time, peak creatine kinase, and hospital admission days between the Impella and non-Impella groups; however, the CMRI-derived left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly greater (45 ± 13% vs. 34 ± 7.6%, P = 0.034) and end-diastolic and systolic volumes smaller in the Impella group (149 ± 29 vs. 187 ± 41 mL, P = 0.006: 80 ± 29 vs. 121 ± 40 mL, P = 0.012). Although the global longitudinal peak strain did not differ, the global radial (GRS) and circumferential peak strain (GCS) were significantly higher in the IMPELLA than non-IMPELLA group. Greater systolic and diastolic strain rates (SRs) in the Impella than non-Impella group were observed in non-infarcted rather than infarcted areas.
conclusionsEarly implantation of an Impella before PCIs for STEMIs sub-acutely prevented cardiac dysfunction through preserving the GRS, GCS, and systolic and diastolic SRs in the remote myocardium. This study provided mechanistic insight into understanding the usefulness of the Impella to prevent future heart failure.
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.