ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2024
The use of perioperative Impella 5.5 support in high-risk cardiac surgery: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- How I Do It: Perioperative Use of Micro-Axial Pumps in High Risk Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: The Early Johns Hopkins Experience.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes following Impella escalation in cardiogenic shock: a single-centre case series highlighting the gap between haemodynamic improvement and survival.AME case reports · 2026Article
- Outcomes following coronary artery bypass grafting with temporary left ventricular assist device support.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
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: Although the Impella device has an established role in high-risk percutaneous intervention and cardiogenic shock, its role in open cardiac surgery remains unclear. We undertook this study to better understand the role of Impella support in cardiac surgical intervention. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent cardiac surgery with surgically placed Impella 5.5 device support from October 2020 through June 2023. Patient charts were identified and systematically reviewed for relevant information. The primary outcome for this study was patient survival to discharge. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative survival, 30-day survival and 1-year survival. Results: From 2020-2023, ten patients underwent open cardiac surgery with Impella 5.5 support. Five patients were male and the median age was 56.5 years [interquartile range (IQR), 52-63.8 years]. Three patients (30%) presented for isolated revascularization, 3 patients (30%) presented for single valve surgical intervention, 3 patients (30%) presented for revascularization and valve intervention, and 1 patient (10%) presented for multivalve intervention. The median ejection fraction (EF) of patients was 25% (IQR, 21.25-32.5%), the median Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score was 4.32% (IQR, 1.73-11.06%). Of the patients, 40% underwent axillary cannulation while 60% had central cannulation. Intraoperative survival was 100%, survival to discharge was 90% and 30-day survival was 80%. Conclusions: Our study suggests the use of surgical Impella in high-risk cardiac surgical patients is associated with acceptable survival regardless of site or timing of cannulation. However, Impella usage is associated with significant morbidity. Further investigation is warranted to better understand which patients benefit perioperative Impella support.
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.