ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2023
Clinical indications and outcomes of Impella devices for severe cardiogenic shock in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review.
Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Successful Treatment of Left Ventricle Inferior Wall Perforation and Rupture Associated with an Impella 5.5: A Case Report.Reports (MDPI) · 2025Article
- Cardiovascular Comorbidities in COVID-19: Comprehensive Analysis of Key Topics.Interactive journal of medical research · 2024Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can present with significant cardiac dysfunction, including cardiogenic shock. Mechanical circulatory support with an Impella device may be utilized in these patients to support and offload native right ventricle (RV) and left ventricle (LV) functions. This systematic review aims to describe clinical indications, management, laboratory data, and outcomes in patients with severe cardiogenic shock from COVID-19 treated with an Impella device. Methods: A PRISMA-directed systematic review was performed and prospectively registered in PROSPERO. The databases accessed included PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and ScienceDirect. Quality and risk of bias assessments were completed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for case reports. Results: A total of 16 records were included in the qualitative synthesis; 8/16 (50%) of the patients were men. The average age was 39 years (SD: 14.7). The biventricular Impella (BiPella) approach was recorded in 3/16 (18.75%) patients. A total of 4/16 (25%) individuals required renal replacement therapy (RRT). Single-device usage was observed in three cases: 2/16 Impella CP (12.5%) and 1/16 Impella RP (6.25%). Treatment of COVID-19 myocarditis included a wide range of antivirals and immunomodulators; 8/16 (50%) cases needed ECMO (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) support. Overall, only 2/16 (11.7%) individuals died. Conclusions: Sixteen reported individuals have received an Impella implanted with a mortality rate of 11.7%. Concurrent use of RRT and ECMO implantation was often observed. Overall, the Impella device is an effective and safe strategy in the management of COVID-19-related cardiogenic shock. Future studies should include long-term results.
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.