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.
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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.