Errata sheet regarding the publication “The Impella device questioned in the post-approval studies due to an increase of adverse events”

What was published in our website refers to the original publication by the FDA (Increased rate of mortality in patients receiving Abiomed Impella RP System – letter to health care providers) where, inadvertently, it was excluded from the title that the FDA communication referred exclusively to the Impella RP device.

The Impella circulatory assistance system comprises 4 different devices:

. Impella CP (the only model approved to be used in a LATAM country as Brazil).

. Impella 2.5 and Impella 5.0: for left ventricular assistance.

. Impella RP: for right ventricular assistance. It is this device in particular that the aforementioned published article refers to. This article is nothing but a summary of the FDA communication.

The lack of specification of the acronym RP in the title, referring to this particular model, could lead doctors reading only the title of the article to generalize these results to the rest of devices. This would, without a doubt, jeopardize left assistance models that have proven their benefits in the context of complex angioplasties and cardiogenic shock. By reading the full text of the article it is clear to which model it is referring to, but this is not so in the title, reason for which we believe it’s convenient to publish the present errata sheet.

Soon, we will publish a recent analysis of over 15,000 patients in the US that have benefitted from left assistance.

More articles by this author

TCT 2025 | VICTORY Trial: super-high-pressure NC balloon vs. IVL in severely calcified coronary lesions

Recent studies such as ECLIPSE have demonstrated the safety of non-compliant (NC) balloons compared with orbital atherectomy, while IVL has shown efficacy in registries...

TCT 2025 | SELUTION4ISR: sirolimus-eluting balloon for in-stent restenosis

In-stent restenosis (ISR) continues to be a relevant clinical challenge in contemporary PCI practice. In the DES era, its incidence reaches 4–8% during the...

TCT 2025 | SELUTION DeNovo: sirolimus-eluting balloon vs. stent in de novo coronary lesions

The use of drug-eluting stents (DES) remains the standard strategy in most percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures. However, mid- to long-term studies have shown...

HELP-PCI: A Fleeting Advantage of Early Heparin in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction?

In ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), immediate reperfusion through primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) remains the treatment of choice. However, the interval between the first...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

Coronary Perforations and Use of Covered Stents: Safe and Effective Long-Term Strategy?

Coronary perforations remain one of the most serious complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), especially in cases of Ellis ruptures type III. In these...

Is it really necessary to monitor all patients after TAVR?

Conduction disorders (CD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are a frequent complication and may lead to the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI)....

Is it really necessary to monitor all patients after TAVR?

Conduction disorders (CD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are a frequent complication and may lead to the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI)....