ArticleCirculation reports2026
Impella Support as a "Bridge to Nowhere": Ethical and Clinical Considerations for End-of-Life Care After Acute Myocardial Infarction.
Article in Circulation reports, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Impella and other percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are increasingly used for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Although they provide rapid hemodynamic stabilization, some patients do not achieve myocardial recovery and are not candidates for heart transplantation or durable MCS. In such situations, Impella may become a "bridge to nowhere", raising ethical and clinical questions about continuation or withdrawal. Methods and Results: We present illustrative cases of acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock managed with Impella and reviewed through multidisciplinary ethical deliberation. In Case 1, support was defined as a time-limited trial with a predefined exit strategy, followed by transition to palliative-focused care. In Case 2, escalation from Impella CP to Impella 5.5 stabilized hemodynamics and enabled recovery of decision-making capacity; however, the patient declined heart transplantation and long-term MCS, resulting in elective withdrawal of Impella support and initiation of end-of-life care. Conclusions: When recovery or durable therapy is not achievable or acceptable, Impella can unintentionally function as a "bridge to nowhere". Multidisciplinary deliberation and early integration of palliative care are essential for goal-concordant withdrawal decisions.
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.