Impella 5.5: A Systematic Review of the Current Literature
Carlos A. Valdes, Ahmet Bilgili, Akshay Reddy, Omar M. Sharaf, Fabian Jimenez Contreras, Griffin Stinson, Mustafa M. Ahmed, Juan Vilaro, Alex M. Parker, Mohammad Al‐Ani, Daniel Demos, Juan Aranda, Mark S. Bleiweis, Thomas M. Beaver, Eric I. Jeng
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Impella 5.5 (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA) is a temporary mechanical circulatory support device used for patients in cardiogenic shock. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the device's clinical effectiveness, safety profile, patient outcomes, and relevant procedural considerations. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines using the PubMed/MEDLINE database. The search query included articles available from October 6, 2022, through January 13, 2023. Our initial search identified 75 studies. All records were screened by 2 independent reviewers using the Covidence software for adherence to our inclusion criteria, and 8 retrospective cohort studies were identified as appropriate for inclusion. RESULTS: Across the included studies, the sample size ranged from 4 to 275, with predominantly male cohorts. Indications for Impella support varied, and the duration of support ranged from 9.8 to 70 days. Overall, Impella support appeared to be associated with favorable survival rates and manageable complications in various patient populations. Complications associated with Impella use included bleeding, stroke, and device malfunctions. Two studies compared prolonged and Food and Drug Administration-approved Impella support, showing similar outcomes and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Impella 5.5 continues to be an attractive option for bridging patients to definitive therapy. Survival during and after Impella 5.5 was favorable for patients regardless of initial indication. However, device use was associated with several important complications, which calls for judicious use and a precontemplated exit strategy. Limitations of this literature review include biases inherent to the retrospective studies included, such as selection and publication bias.