Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36751242›Full record

ReviewCureus2023

Mechanical Assist Device-Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The Use of Impella Versus Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation as an Emerging Frontier in Revascularization in Cardiogenic Shock.

Neel Vora, Rajvi Chaudhary, Hetarth Vivek Upadhyay, Ashwati Konat, Parit Zalavadia, Arif Padaniya, Parth Patel, Nihar Patel, Priyadarshi Prajjwal, Kamal Sharma

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Neel VoraDepartment of Internal Medicine, B.J. Medical College, Ahmedabad, IND.
Rajvi ChaudharyDepartment of Internal Medicine, B.J. Medical College, Ahmedabad, IND.
Hetarth Vivek UpadhyayDepartment of Internal Medicine, B.J. Medical College, Ahmedabad, IND.
Ashwati KonatDepartment of Zoology, Biomedical Technology, and Human Genetics, Gujarat University, Ahmedabad, IND.
Parit ZalavadiaDepartment of Internal Medicine, GCS (Gujarat Cancer Society) Medical College, Ahmedabad, IND.
Arif PadaniyaDepartment of Internal Medicine, B.J. Medical College, Ahmedabad, IND.
Parth PatelDepartment of Internal Medicine, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, IND.
Nihar PatelDepartment of Internal Medicine, B.J. Medical College, Ahmedabad, IND.
Priyadarshi PrajjwalDepartment of Medicine, Bharati Vidyapeeth University Medical College, Pune, IND.
Kamal SharmaDepartment of Cardiology, U.N. Mehta Institute of Cardiology & Research Centre, Ahmedabad, IND.
Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed University · INAhmedabad Civil Hospital · INB.J. Medical College · INGujarat Cancer Society · INGujarat University · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) procedure aids in the provision of prolonged cardiopulmonary support, whereas the Impella device (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) is a ventricular assist device that maintains circulation by pumping blood into the aorta from the left ventricle. Blood is circulated in parallel with the heart by Impella. It draws blood straight into the aorta from the left ventricle, hence preserving the physiological flow. ECMO bypasses the left atrium and the left ventricle, and the end consequence is a non-physiological flow. In this article, we conducted a detailed analysis of various publications in the literature and examined various modalities pertaining to the use of ECMO and Impella for cardiogenic shocks, such as efficacy, clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, device-related complications, and limitations. The Impella completely unloads the left ventricle, thereby significantly reducing the effort of the heart. Comparatively, ECMO only stabilizes a patient with cardiogenic shock for a short stretch of time and does not lessen the efforts of the left ventricle ("unload" it). In the acute setting, both devices reduced left ventricular end-diastolic pressure and provided adequate hemodynamic support. By comparing patients on Impella to those receiving ECMO, it was found that patients on Impella were associated with better clinical results, quicker recovery, limited complications, and reduced healthcare costs; however, there is a lack of conclusive studies performed demonstrating the reduction in long-term mortality rates. Considering the effectiveness of given modalities and taking into account the various studies described in the literature, Impella has reported better clinical outcomes although more clinical trials are needed for establishing the effectiveness of these interventional approaches in revascularization in cardiogenic shock.

Indexed as

cardiogenic shockecmoimpellarevascularizationventricular assist devices

Identifiers

PMID36751242
PMCPMC9898582
OpenAlexW4313498932

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 OpenQuestion graph.