ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2025
Heart support crossroads: aortic Impella 5.5 implantation compared to conventional axillary approach in combined use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and Impella (ECMELLA) setting.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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.
- A potential survival benefit in coronary artery bypass grafting with micro-axial temporary pump recovery in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Postcardiotomy shock, often necessitates advanced mechanical circulatory support. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and the Impella 5.5 device are crucial for hemodynamic stabilization. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of direct aortic cannulation versus axillary artery surgical cut-down for Impella 5.5 implantation in postcardiotomy shock patients. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 24 patients with postcardiotomy shock at the University Hospital of Würzburg from January 2023 to August 2024. Patients were divided into two groups: 12 underwent axillary artery implantation of the Impella 5.5 device, and 12 received the device via direct aortic implantation, including those with central combined use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and Impella (ECMELLA) setting. The aim was to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of direct aortic cannulation compared to axillary artery surgical cut-down. Results: Both techniques effectively stabilized cardiac function, with significant improvements in cardiac output and hemodynamic stability. Intensive care unit (ICU) stays were similar (axillary: 16.5±13.2 days; aortic: 14.5±13.5 days; P=0.72). Re-exploration rates for bleeding and in-hospital mortality rates were comparable (axillary: 41.7%, aortic: 58.3%; P=0.41). However, cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time was longer in the axillary group (247.8±145.3 minutes) compared to the aortic group (137.3±77.2 minutes; P=0.03). Conclusions: Both axillary and aortic cannulation techniques for Impella 5.5 implantation are effective for managing postcardiotomy shock, even in the ECMELLA setting. Direct aortic cannulation offers shorter CPB times, allows for chest closure enhancing procedural efficiency and safety, providing a practical and flexible option for various clinical scenarios.
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.