ArticleArtificial organs2026
Evaluation of Bleeding Rates With Sodium Bicarbonate Versus Heparin-Based Purge Solutions for Impella CP and 5.5 Ventricular Assist Devices.
Article in Artificial organs, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundSodium bicarbonate-based purge solution (BBPS) is a growing alternative to heparin-based purge solution (HBPS). However, literature comparing the safety of BBPS to HBPS remains limited. We assessed the safety of HBPS to BBPS in patients with Impella devices by evaluating the rates of major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB).
methodsThis is a single-center, retrospective cohort study including patients on Impella CP or 5.5 devices maintained on HBPS or BBPS for ≥ 48 h. The primary outcome was a composite of major bleeding and CRNMB. Secondary endpoints included suspected device thrombosis and systemic complications.
resultsA total of 83 patients met inclusion criteria (48 in the HBPS and 35 in BBPS). There was no difference in the composite incidence of major bleeding and CRNMB between HBPS and BBPS (56.3% vs. 45.7%, p = 0.34) or the incidence of device-related or systemic complications. However, there was a significantly higher incidence of major bleeding in those with an Impella 5.5 receiving HBPS as compared to BBPS (27.3% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.04).
conclusionBBPS may be a safer option in those requiring longer duration of Impella support even in the absence of contraindications to heparin use and offers comparable efficacy to HBPS. The use of BBPS may be a solution towards standardizing and simplifying anticoagulation management in this population. Larger studies are needed to support the durability of Impella devices with BBPS.
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.