ArticleHeart and vessels2025
Efficacy of a 16 Fr sheath strategy during Impella support to reduce access site bleeding in patients with cardiogenic shock.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Implementation of a standardized Impella-specific management pathway in cardiogenic shock.Journal of intensive care · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Access site bleeding is a complication which may occur during Impella support (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA), possibly due to unstable fixation of the device in the groin. Using a large-bore sheath for Impella insertion may reduce this complication. However, the efficacy and safety of this strategy are still unknown. The main aim of this study was to assess whether employing a large-bore sheath during Impella insertion mitigates access site bleeding without increasing limb ischemia. All consecutive patients who received either the Impella 2.5 or CP for cardiogenic shock from September 2019 to February 2023 were included in this study. We compared patients who underwent Impella insertion using the conventional peel-away introducer and the attached sheath (repositioning sheath) and patients in whom the Impella was inserted using a 16 Fr sheath. All patients received antegrade perfusion with a 4Fr sheath to prevent limb ischemia at the Impella site. The primary outcome was access site major bleeding: 36 patients were treated with a 16 Fr sheath and 39 were treated with a conventional sheath. The use of a 16 Fr sheath was associated with a significant reduction in major bleeding (33.0% vs. 64.0%, p = 0.01) in comparison to the conventional sheath. After adjusting for covariates, the risk of major bleeding at the access site in the 16 Fr sheath group was significantly lower than that in the conventional sheath group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.294; 95% confidence interval 0.087-0.991; p = 0.048). The insertion of Impella through a 16 Fr sheath significantly reduced the risk of major bleeding at the access site in comparison to the conventional sheath.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39907760What 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.