Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 520

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Concomitant Implantation of Impella® on Top of Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation May Improve Survival of Patients with Cardiogenic Shock

Open access
Pappalardo, Federico, Schulte, Christian, Pieri, Marina, Schrage, Benedikt, Contri, Rachele, Soeffker, Gerold, Greco, Teresa, Lembo, Rosalba, Müllerleile, Kai, Colombo, Antonio, Sydow, Karsten, De Bonis, Michele, Wagner, Florian, Reichenspurner, Hermann, Blankenberg, Stefan, Zangrillo, Alberto, Westermann, Dirk·2017·European Journal of Heart Failure

Abstract

Aims: Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) support stabilizes patients with cardiogenic shock. Despite improved oxygenation and peripheral circulation, LV unloading may be impeded due to the increased afterload, resulting in a failing static left ventricle and in high mortality. Methods and results: We describe for the first time a large series of patients treated with the combination of VA-ECMO and Impella® compared with patients with VA-ECMO only. We retrospectively collected data on patients from two tertiary critical care referral centres. We enrolled 157 patients treated with VA-ECMO from January 2013 to April 2015: 123 received VA-ECMO support and 34 had concomitant treatment with VA-ECMO and Impella. A propensity-matching analysis was performed in a 2:1 ratio, resulting in 42 patients undergoing VA-ECMO alone (control group) compared with 21 patients treated with VA-ECMO and Impella. Patients in the VA-ECMO and Impella group had a significantly lower hospital mortality (47% vs. 80%, P < 0.001) and a higher rate of successful bridging to either recovery or further therapy (68% vs. 28%, P < 0.001) compared with VA-ECMO patients. A higher need for continuous veno-venous haemofiltration (48% vs. 19%, P = 0.02) and increased haemolysis (76% vs. 33%, P = 0.004) were reported in the study group due to higher survival. There was no difference in major bleeding rates between the two groups (VA-ECMO and Impella 38% vs. VA-ECMO 29%, P = 0.6). Conclusions: Concomitant treatment with VA-ECMO and Impella may improve outcome in patients with cardiogenic shock compared with VA-ECMO only. Nevertheless, randomized studies are needed to validate these promising results further.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ejhf.668

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 520

Metadata

Authors
Pappalardo, F., Schulte, C., Pieri, M., Schrage, B., Contri, R., Soeffker, G., Greco, T., Lembo, R., Müllerleile, K., Colombo, A., Sydow, K., De Bonis, M., Wagner, F., Reichenspurner, H., Blankenberg, S., Zangrillo, A., & Westermann, D.
Venue
European Journal of Heart Failure
Published
2016-10-06
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
404-412
ISSN
  • 1388-9842 (ISSN-L)
  • 1879-0844
OpenAlex
W2531281781
Cited by
520
References
2
FWCI
20.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Concomitant Implantation of Impella® on Top of Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation May Improve Survival of Patients with Cardiogenic Shock. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ejhf.668
The paper
Pappalardo, F., Schulte, C., Pieri, M., Schrage, B., Contri, R., Soeffker, G., Greco, T., Lembo, R., Müllerleile, K., Colombo, A., Sydow, K., De Bonis, M., Wagner, F., Reichenspurner, H., Blankenberg, S., Zangrillo, A., & Westermann, D. (2017). Concomitant Implantation of Impella® on Top of Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation May Improve Survival of Patients with Cardiogenic Shock. European Journal of Heart Failure. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.668

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.