Outcomes of Impella 5.0 in Cardiogenic Shock
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to comprehensively summarize the survival outcomes and complications of Impella 5.0 (Abiomed Inc, Danvers, MA USA) use in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). METHODS: We performed a literature review for relevant studies by searching in Medline, Medline In-Process, EMBASE, and the CENTRAL bibliographic databases on April 30, 2017. Nonoverlapping studies with 10 patients or more supported for cardiogenic shock with Impella 5.0 or Impella left direct were included. Data on patient characteristics, indication of support, and outcomes were extracted. A random effect was used to pool the various outcomes. RESULTS: This meta-analysis included six studies totaling 163 patients (mean ± SD age = 56.3 ± 12.0, male 81%). Indications for support included 88 (54.0%) for acute on chronic decompensated heart failure, 35 (21.5%) for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock, 27 (16.6%) for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock, and, 13 (8.0%) for cardiogenic shock due to other reasons. Survival to next therapy was 73.5% in patients supported for acute on chronic decompensated heart failure. The survival to device explant among patients supported for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock or acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock was 90.2%, and of those, myocardial recovery was achieved in 73.8%. The overall estimated survival to discharge, 30, 180, and 365 days was 73.5%, 72.6%, 62.7%, and 58.4%, respectively. Patients supported for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock had the highest heart recovery among survivors to explant (92.1%) and highest survival at 30 (89.5%) and 365 days (69.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Impella 5.0/LD is associated with favorable survival outcomes and higher rate of myocardial recovery in patients with cardiogenic shock.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".