ArticleJournal of intensive care2026
Implementation of a standardized Impella-specific management pathway in cardiogenic shock.
Article in Journal of intensive care, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDevice-related complications remain frequent during Impella support. Although coordinated multidisciplinary care and standardized protocols are recommended for cardiogenic shock, Impella-specific management pathways have not been established. We evaluated implementation of a standardized Impella-specific management pathway (SIM) and the accompanying changes in care processes and in-hospital outcomes.
methodsThis single-center, before-and-after observational study included 190 consecutive patients with cardiogenic shock treated with Impella, 88 before implementation and 102 after SIM introduction. SIM combined multidisciplinary education and implementation support, peri-implant strategy, access-site and limb-perfusion management, hemolysis surveillance, and hemodynamic optimization. The primary endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality, and the key secondary endpoint was Impella-related Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding. Both were analyzed using overlap-weighted cause-specific Cox models.
resultsAfter SIM introduction, pre-PCI Impella use among patients with acute myocardial infarction increased from 36.2 to 76.2%, and 16-Fr sheath use increased from 0 to 80.2%. The rate of detected hemolysis increased progressively, whereas the time spent outside the target ranges for mean arterial pressure and central venous pressure decreased. After overlap weighting, all covariates included in the propensity-score model were balanced (absolute standardized mean difference <0.10). In-hospital death occurred in 58.0% before implementation and 33.3% after SIM introduction (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.84; P = 0.009). No significant interaction was observed according to SCAI shock stage, arrest or ECPELLA status at Impella insertion. Impella-related type 3 or 5 bleeding occurred in 30.7 and 12.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.67; P = 0.002). BARC type 5 bleeding, acute limb ischemia, and stroke did not differ significantly.
conclusionsSIM was progressively implemented across the catheterization laboratory and ICU, accompanied by measurable changes in care processes and lower rates of major bleeding and in-hospital death. Prospective multicenter studies should assess whether these findings are reproducible.
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.