ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparison of mechanical resuscitation by an LV Impella device to extracorporeal resuscitation using VAECMO in a large animal model.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Hemodynamic improvement with Impella RP in acute massive pulmonary embolism: a narrative review of cardiovascular outcomes and pulmonary catheter pressure assessment.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is an effective treatment for cardiac arrest (CA). Percutaneous left ventricular (LV) assist devices such as the Impella ECP (intravascular CPR [ICPR]) have been proposed as a less invasive alternative. The aim of this study was to explore the haemodynamic differences between ECPR and ICPR using a large animal model of electrically induced CA. Fourteen juvenile female German landrace pigs (72.4 ± 9.8 kg) were subjected to electrically induced CA for 5 mins followed by either ECPR (veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [VA-ECMO]) or ICPR (Impella ECP). Haemodynamic parameters and echocardiographic ventricular function indicators were monitored. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) was continued until five hours after the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), when the devices were removed. Resuscitation outcomes and the haemodynamic effects of ECPR and ICPR were compared. The cannulation time for ECMO (469 ± 129 s) was significantly longer than the time for Impella device implantation (153 ± 64 s, p < 0.001). ECPR facilitated ROSC in 6/6 animals, whereas ICPR facilitated ROSC in 6/8 animals (p = 0.19). Echocardiography revealed no difference in LV or right ventricular (RV) dysfunction between the ECPR- and ICPR-treated animals after resuscitation (LV-global longitudinal strain [GLS] 3 h post-ROSC: ICPR: - 16.5 ± 5.6% vs. ECPR: - 13.7 ± 5.9%, p = 0.99; RV-GLS 3 h post-ROSC: ICPR: - 15.9 ± 3.3% vs. ECPR: - 17.3 ± 10.6%, p = 0.99). MCS using VA-ECMO and the Impella device both provided effective haemodynamic support during CA and post-ROSC in this large animal model. Despite LV unloading conferring a hypothetical advantage for ICPR, no significant differences in myocardial recovery were observed.
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.