Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40608285›Full record

ArticleNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2025

Microaxial flow pump in cardiogenic shock: a retrospective cohort study on outcomes and feasibility as a bridge to LVAD implantation.

Jan-Willem Balder, Adriaan Kraaijeveld, Mariusz Szymanski, Linda van Laake, Einar Hart, Michiel Voskuil, Joep Droogh, Faiz Ramjankhan, Tim van de Hoef, Jeannine Hermens and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. From guidelines to patient-centred action.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Jan-Willem BalderDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. j.balder@umcutrecht.nl.
Adriaan KraaijeveldDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Mariusz SzymanskiDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Linda van LaakeDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Einar HartDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Michiel VoskuilDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Joep DrooghDepartment of Intensive Care, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Faiz RamjankhanDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Tim van de HoefDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jeannine HermensDepartment of Intensive Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Pim van der HarstDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Kevin DammanDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Erik LipsicDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Gabija PundziuteDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Michael DickinsonDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn severe cardiogenic shock the use of temporary mechanical circulatory support has increased during the past decade, with the Impella CP emerging as an alternative to the intra-aortic balloon pump. This study aims to assess the clinical outcomes associated with Impella CP-only support in patients with cardiogenic shock within two tertiary institutions specialised in durable mechanical support in the Netherlands.

methodsAll patients receiving Impella CP implantation for cardiogenic shock in the UMC Utrecht and UMC Groningen were studied between December 2020 and August 2023. Exclusion criteria included the use of additional mechanical support. The primary outcome evaluated was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included LVAD implantations, cardiac recovery, and safety outcomes. Patients were categorised as Impella-optimal (Impella support expected to be sufficient) or Impella-limited (Impella support not sufficient but no further escalation because of comorbidities).

resultsThe cohort consisted of 28 patients. The mean age was 60 years, and 71% were males. In the Impella-limited group, mortality was 100%, and LVAD implantation was performed in just 10%, while in the Impella-optimal group, mortality was 17% and LVAD implantation was performed in 50%. Complications were primarily related to bleeding (7%) and vascular events (11%).

conclusionsThis study suggests that Impella CP support in cardiogenic shock can be safe and feasible, serving as a bridge-to-recovery or a bridge-to-decision for LVAD implantation candidacy. However, Impella CP in the Impella-limited group is not useful. This underscores the importance of precise patient selection in cardiogenic shock therapy escalation.

Indexed as

Cardiogenic shockImpellaLeft ventricular assist deviceMechanical circulatory support

Identifiers

PMID40608285
PMCPMC12274170

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.