The Introduction of Impella 5.5 in Cardiogenic Shock: A Single-Center, Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

<b>Background/Objectives:</b> Impella 5.5 provides a higher flow rate than smaller microaxial pumps and has been increasingly adopted for cardiogenic shock (CS). This study aimed to evaluate whether its introduction into our Shock Team program in 2023 improved outcomes compared with a historical cohort supported with other mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices. <b>Methods:</b> We retrospectively analyzed patients with CS treated with MCS between 2020 and 2024 at a tertiary center. The Impella 5.5 group (n = 17) included patients managed after device implementation, either as stand-alone or sequential therapy. The historical cohort comprised 40 patients treated with ECMO, Impella CP, CentriMag, or IABP prior to 2023. Propensity score matching (age, sex, etiology, lactate, SCAI stage) generated 17 matched pairs. The primary outcome was survival at discharge, 30 days, 3 months, and 6 months. Secondary outcomes included bridging to recovery, heart transplantation (HTx), durable LVAD, and major complications. <b>Results</b>: Impella 5.5 was associated with higher survival at discharge (94.1% vs. 58.8%, <i>p</i> = 0.039), 30 days (94.1% vs. 58.8%, <i>p</i> = 0.039), and 3 months (94.1% vs. 58.8%, <i>p</i> = 0.039). At 6 months, survival remained higher (88.2% vs. 58.8%) but did not reach statistical significance in point analysis (<i>p</i> = 0.118). Bridging occurred more frequently with Impella 5.5 (HTx 64.7% vs. 52.9% (<i>p</i> = 0.464), recovery 17.6% vs. 5.9% (<i>p</i> = 0.292)), while LVAD implantation rates were similar (11.8% vs. 17.6%, <i>p</i> = 1.0). Major bleeding (17.6% vs. 47.1%, <i>p</i> = 0.141), stroke/TIA (5.9% vs. 17.6%, <i>p</i> = 0.601), and the need for renal replacement therapy (5.9% vs. 23.5%, <i>p</i> = 0.335) were numerically lower with Impella 5.5. <b>Conclusions:</b> In this single-center, retrospective analysis, the introduction of Impella 5.5 was associated with higher short-term survival and favorable bridging metrics; estimates are imprecise due to small, heterogeneous samples. These hypothesis-generating findings warrant confirmation in larger, prospective multicenter cohorts.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Published
2025-10-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14217552
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.67

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Introduction of Impella 5.5 in Cardiogenic Shock: A Single-Center, Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Magdalena Cielecka, Roman Przybylski, Anna Kędziora, Kinga Kosiorowska et al.
1 citations
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
0.67
article

The Introduction of Impella 5.5 in Cardiogenic Shock: A Single-Center, Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Magdalena Cielecka, Roman Przybylski, Anna Kędziora, Kinga Kosiorowska, Wiktor Kuliczkowski, Rafał Nowicki, Michał Zakliczyńśki, Grzegorz Bielicki, Maciej Bochenek, Barbara Barteczko-Grajek, Mateusz Sokolski, Maciej Rachwalik
article en
1 citations

Abstract

<b>Background/Objectives:</b> Impella 5.5 provides a higher flow rate than smaller microaxial pumps and has been increasingly adopted for cardiogenic shock (CS). This study aimed to evaluate whether its introduction into our Shock Team program in 2023 improved outcomes compared with a historical cohort supported with other mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices. <b>Methods:</b> We retrospectively analyzed patients with CS treated with MCS between 2020 and 2024 at a tertiary center. The Impella 5.5 group (n = 17) included patients managed after device implementation, either as stand-alone or sequential therapy. The historical cohort comprised 40 patients treated with ECMO, Impella CP, CentriMag, or IABP prior to 2023. Propensity score matching (age, sex, etiology, lactate, SCAI stage) generated 17 matched pairs. The primary outcome was survival at discharge, 30 days, 3 months, and 6 months. Secondary outcomes included bridging to recovery, heart transplantation (HTx), durable LVAD, and major complications. <b>Results</b>: Impella 5.5 was associated with higher survival at discharge (94.1% vs. 58.8%, <i>p</i> = 0.039), 30 days (94.1% vs. 58.8%, <i>p</i> = 0.039), and 3 months (94.1% vs. 58.8%, <i>p</i> = 0.039). At 6 months, survival remained higher (88.2% vs. 58.8%) but did not reach statistical significance in point analysis (<i>p</i> = 0.118). Bridging occurred more frequently with Impella 5.5 (HTx 64.7% vs. 52.9% (<i>p</i> = 0.464), recovery 17.6% vs. 5.9% (<i>p</i> = 0.292)), while LVAD implantation rates were similar (11.8% vs. 17.6%, <i>p</i> = 1.0). Major bleeding (17.6% vs. 47.1%, <i>p</i> = 0.141), stroke/TIA (5.9% vs. 17.6%, <i>p</i> = 0.601), and the need for renal replacement therapy (5.9% vs. 23.5%, <i>p</i> = 0.335) were numerically lower with Impella 5.5. <b>Conclusions:</b> In this single-center, retrospective analysis, the introduction of Impella 5.5 was associated with higher short-term survival and favorable bridging metrics; estimates are imprecise due to small, heterogeneous samples. These hypothesis-generating findings warrant confirmation in larger, prospective multicenter cohorts.

Journal of Clinical MedicineVol. 14(21)
Wroclaw Medical University (PL)
Abiomed
Openalex Percentile: Top 25%
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
0.67
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.