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

Pretreatment with DAPT in Acute Coronary Syndrome: An Ongoing Debate?

In acute coronary syndrome (ACS) dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has become a fundamental pillar after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), preventing stent thrombosis and acute...

Another Blow for Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumo Counterpulsation? Randomized Study on Its Use in Chronic Heart Failure Progressing to Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a condition with extremely high mortality (around 50%). While most therapies for this pathology have been studied in CS secondary...

iFR- vs. FFR-Guided Coronary Revascularization: 5-Year Clinical Outcomes

The assessment of coronary stenosis using coronary physiology has become a key tool in guiding revascularization. The two most widely used techniques are fractional...

FLAVOUR Trial Substudy: FFR or IVUS in the Assessment of Diabetic Patients

Patients with diabetes often present with more complex coronary artery disease compared to non-diabetic patients, with a higher prevalence of diffuse or multivessel disease....

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

Pretreatment with DAPT in Acute Coronary Syndrome: An Ongoing Debate?

In acute coronary syndrome (ACS) dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has become a fundamental pillar after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), preventing stent thrombosis and acute...

Measuring Post-TAVI Gradients and Their Implications: Are Invasive and Echocardiographic Assessments Comparable?

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is considered the treatment of choice for a significant proportion of patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis. Outcomes have improved...

Another Blow for Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumo Counterpulsation? Randomized Study on Its Use in Chronic Heart Failure Progressing to Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a condition with extremely high mortality (around 50%). While most therapies for this pathology have been studied in CS secondary...