ArticleScientific reports2024
Hemodynamics with mechanical circulatory support devices using a cardiogenic shock model.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Impact of lactate levels on admission in STEMI patients with cardiogenic shock treated with IMPELLA.Heart and vessels · 2025Observational
- Comparison of changes in arterial blood pressure and cardiac output during cardiogenic shock development in a porcine model.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices, including veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and Impella, have been widely used for patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). However, hemodynamics with each device and combination therapy is not thoroughly understood. We aimed to elucidate the hemodynamics with MCS using a pulsatile flow model. Hemodynamics with Impella CP, VA-ECMO, and a combination of Impella CP and VA-ECMO were assessed based on the pressure and flow under support with each device and the pressure-volume loop of the ventricle model. The Impella CP device with CS status resulted in an increase in aortic pressure and a decrease in end-diastolic volume and end-diastolic pressure (EDP). VA-ECMO support resulted in increased afterload, leading to a significant increase in aortic pressure with an increase in end-systolic volume and EDP and decreasing venous reservoir pressure. The combination of Impella CP and VA-ECMO led to left ventricular unloading, regardless of increase in afterload. Hemodynamic support with Impella and VA-ECMO should be a promising combination for patients with severe CS.
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.