ReviewHeart international2020
A Review of Bleeding Risk with Impella-supported High-risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.
Review in Heart international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimizing protected PCI strategies in the setting of chronic kidney disease and advanced coronary artery disease: a clinical case-based discussion.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Article
- Impella vs. IABP in Non-emergent High-Risk PCI: Outcomes and LVEF Recovery from a Large US EHR Study.Cardiology and therapy · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes of Impella 5+ in acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock: a retrospective single-center study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Safety and Feasibility of Transcaval Access for the Delivery of Impella Microaxial Flow Pump.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Article
- The Role of Impella in Cardiogenic Shock in the Post-DanGer Shock Era.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Safety and Efficacy of a Plug-Based Vascular Closure Device After Percutaneous Microaxial Flow Pump in the Treatment of Complex and High-Risk Indicated Patients.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2025Observational
- Optimizing Revascularization in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: Comparative Evidence on the Benefits and Indications of CABG and PCI.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Rapid-onset postoperative acute kidney injury is associated with mortality in patients with postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Prevalence of bleeding events in real-world Japanese registry for Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device.Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs · 2024Article
- Percutaneous Left Ventricular Unloading During High-Risk Coronary Intervention: Rationale and Design of the CHIP-BCIS3 Randomized Controlled Trial.Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions · 2024Article
- Association between Impella device support and elevated rates of gout flares: a retrospective propensity-matched study.BMC rheumatology · 2024Article
- Review
- Strategies for Reducing Vascular and Bleeding Risk for Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Device-supported High-risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Heart international · 2022Review
- A Review of the Impella Devices.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 2022Review
- [¿Es realmente protectora la PCI protegida? Reflexiones críticas a partir de CHIP-BCIS3 y la evidencia previa].Archivos peruanos de cardiologia y cirugia cardiovascularArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Complex, high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR-PCI) is increasingly being performed, often with mechanical circulatory support (MCS), though to date, there are limited randomised data on the efficacy of MCS for HR-PCI. The majority of MCS is provided by intra-aortic balloon pumps, but increasingly Impella® (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA) heart pumps are being used. While the Impella pumps provide greater increases in cardiac output, these devices require large bore access, which has been associated with an increased risk of bleeding and vascular complications. Decisions regarding the use of Impella are often based on risk-benefit considerations, with Impella-related bleeding risk being a major factor that can impact decisions for planned use. While bleeding risk related to large bore access is a concern, published data on the risk have been quite variable. Thus, the goal of this article is to provide a comprehensive review of reports describing bleeding and vascular complications for Impella-supported HR-PCI.
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.