Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42592447›Full record

ArticleEuropean heart journal. Case reports2026

Clinical applications of Impella 5.5 for acute severe bioprosthetic aortic regurgitation: a bridge to destination therapy report-case series and review.

Ahmed Elshafie, Hussam Al Hennawi, Ahmad Abulshamat, Shaurya Srivastava, Rajit Pahwa, Appa Bandi, Hisham Qandeel, Mohammed Qintar

Abstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in European heart journal. Case 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Ahmed ElshafieDepartment of Cardiology, University of Michigan Health-Sparrow Heart and Vascular, and Michigan State University, Lansing, MI 48912, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8765-0377
Hussam Al HennawiGeisinger College of Health Sciences, Department of Cardiology, Geisinger Wyoming Valley Medical Center, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1968-4962
Ahmad AbulshamatDepartment of Cardiology, Jordan University Hospital, Amman 11942, Jordan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-1276-8722
Shaurya SrivastavaDepartment of Cardiology, University of Michigan Health-Sparrow Heart and Vascular, and Michigan State University, Lansing, MI 48912, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5636-7851
Rajit PahwaDepartment of Critical Care, University of Michigan Health, Lansing, MI 48912, USA.
Appa BandiDepartment of Cardiology, University of Michigan Health-Sparrow Heart and Vascular, and Michigan State University, Lansing, MI 48912, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-0100-0170
Hisham QandeelDepartment of Cardiology, University of Michigan Health-Sparrow Heart and Vascular, and Michigan State University, Lansing, MI 48912, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8665-6577
Mohammed QintarDepartment of Cardiology, University of Michigan Health-Sparrow Heart and Vascular, and Michigan State University, Lansing, MI 48912, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Acute severe bioprosthetic aortic regurgitation complicated by cardiogenic shock represents a high-risk clinical scenario requiring urgent intervention. Conventional medical therapy is often insufficient, and options for mechanical circulatory support remain limited because severe aortic regurgitation is traditionally considered a relative contraindication to transvalvular support devices. Case summary: We describe two cases of acute severe bioprosthetic aortic regurgitation presenting with cardiogenic shock in which Impella 5.5 was utilized as temporary mechanical circulatory support to stabilize patients and facilitate definitive treatment. In the first case, Impella 5.5 support enabled successful bridge to valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement. In the second case, Impella 5.5 was used as a bridge to redo surgical aortic valve replacement. In both cases, haemodynamic stabilization and end-organ recovery allowed progression to destination therapy. Discussion: These cases demonstrate that, in carefully selected patients with acute severe bioprosthetic aortic regurgitation and cardiogenic shock, Impella 5.5 may serve as a feasible bridge to definitive valve intervention. Although severe aortic regurgitation has traditionally limited the use of transvalvular mechanical support, these experiences suggest a potential role for Impella 5.5 in individualized management strategies. Further studies are needed to better define patient selection, safety, and outcomes.

Indexed as

Aortic insufficiencyCardiogenic shockCase seriesMechanical circulatory supportTranscatheter aortic valve replacement

Identifiers

PMID42592447
PMCPMC13463636

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.