ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024
Case Report: Unmasking sustainable left ventricular recovery in chronic heart failure with axillary temporary mechanical circulatory support.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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.
- Empowering Early Recovery: The Role of Impella 5.5 in Takotsubo Cardiomyopathy Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Recognizing Post-Cardiac Injury Syndrome After Impella 5.5 Insertion in Cardiogenic Shock: A Case-Based Discussion.Biomedicines · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mechanical circulatory support (MCS), temporary or durable, is essential in patients with acute heart failure presenting in cardiogenic shock (CS). MCS is fundamental in patients with advanced heart failure when used as a bridge to decision, transplant or left ventricular recovery. Limited data on acute-on-chronic heart failure (HF) patients exists in the era of axillary mechanical circulatory support with the Impella 5.5. We describe a case of chronic ischemic cardiomyopathy, HF-CS, in a patient who underwent Impella placement, medical optimization, and explant, now with sustained normalization in ejection fraction. Case summary: A Caucasian female in her 50 s was referred to our center for evaluation for advanced therapies, including transplantation or durable left ventricular assist device placement. Her initial ejection fraction was 30% with comorbidities including multivessel coronary artery disease revascularized with 3 vessel bypass grafting ten years prior, type 2 diabetes (A1c 8.6%), and peripheral vascular disease. During her evaluation, she had acute decompensation leading to cardiogenic shock and required hospitalization with inotrope initiation, which was unable to be weaned. She was approved for organ transplant and listed; however, she required escalation of support and eventual placement of right axillary Impella 5.5. While on Impella support, her vasoactive needs reduced, and she was found to have left ventricular recovery and tolerated the initiation of guideline medical therapy. After three weeks of support, the Impella was weaned and explanted, and the patient was discharged. She remains stable with a sustained ejection fraction of greater than 50% with NYHA class 1 functional status at follow-up. One year later, the patient showed sustained myocardial recovery with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). Conclusion: Our case highlights a unique approach in patients with long-standing (>5 years) heart failure who may benefit from early consideration for axillary support and concomitant optimization with guideline-directed medical therapy to assess for explant and native heart recovery.
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.